Ex Parte Koehler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 4, 2016

12999942 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/999,942 12/17/2010 Loren M. Koehler
56436 7590 10/06/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82554401 9189
EXAMINER
MALINOWSKI, WALTER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/06/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOREN M. KOEHLER, KENNETH C. DUISENBERG,
and DHRUV CHOKSEY1
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Decision rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. See Appeal Br. 1.
2 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed
Dec. 17, 2010 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed
June 19, 2014; (3) the Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed Oct. 20, 2014;
(4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Feb. 6, 2015; and (5) the Reply
Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Apr. 6, 2015.
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
BACKGROUND
Appellants' application relates to configuring a predefined set of
electrically isolated blades to function as a single blade. Spec. 3. Claims 1
and 6 are independent claims. Claim 1 is representative and is reproduced
below with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of configuring a predefined set of electrically isolated
blades to function as a single blade, said method comprising:
accessing a configuration rule, wherein a portion of said
configuration rule assigns roles to management processors coupled
with a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade partition, wherein
said configuration rule is different from another configuration rule and
wherein said configuration rule is for a first product and said another
configuration rule is for a second product that is different than said
first product;
directing assistant management processors to configure blade
manageability modules to support said roles, said blade manageability
modules coupled with said management processors;
directing said assistant management processors to configure
resources to be shared across said blade partition according to said
configuration rule; and
initializing said conjoined blades after determining that said
conjoined blades are configured according to said configuration rule,
thereby coordinating said conjoined blades to function as a single blade
without requiring switch input/output (I/O) fabric.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal includes:
Patrick et al. ("Patrick")
Shinohe et al. ("Shinohe")
Loffink et al. ("Loffink")
US 2005/0262362 Al
US 2006/0143255 Al
US 2007 /0255857 Al
2
Nov. 24, 2005
June 29, 2006
Nov. 1, 2006
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
Zimmer et al. ("Zimmer") US 2007 /0233455 Al
Durazzo et al. ("Durazzo") US 2009/0052372 Al
Singhal et al. ("Singhal") US 7 ,606,867 Bl
REJECTIONS
Oct. 4, 2007
Feb.26,2009
Oct. 20, 2009
Claims 1 and 6-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Singhal, Loffink, and Durazzo. Final
Act. 20-31.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Singhal, Loffink, Durazzo, and
Shinohe. Final Act. 31-35.
Claims 4, 10, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Singhal, Loffink, Durazzo, and Zimmer. Final
Act. 35-39.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Singhal, Durazzo, and Shinohe. Final Act. 39--42.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Singhal, Durazzo, Shinohe, and Patrick. Final Act. 42-
43.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejections and issues
raised by Appellants. We have not considered other possible issues that
have not been raised by Appellants and which are, therefore, not before us.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014).
3
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Singhal, Loffink, and Durazzo teaches or suggests:
accessing a configuration rule, wherein a portion of said
configuration rule assigns roles to management processors
coupled with a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade
partition, wherein said configuration rule is different from
another configuration rule and wherein said configuration rule
is for a first product and said another configuration rule is for a
second product that is different than said first product,
as recited in claim 1?
2. Was the Examiner's rationale for modifying Singhal based on
Durazzo erroneous because Singhal teaches away from the claimed
invention?
DISCUSSION
After review of Appellants' arguments and the Examiner's findings
and reasoning, we determine that Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection
for reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the
Answer. See Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 5-9. We add the following for emphasis
and completeness.
The Examiner relies on the combination of Singhal and Durazzo to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Final Act. 5-6. Appellants
contend that Singhal is directed toward a single product and that being
directed toward a single product does not teach or suggest "wherein said
configuration rule is for a first product and said another configuration rule is
4
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
for a second product that is different than said first product," as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Singhal col. 2, 11. 23-30, Title); Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred because we find Appellants'
contentions are not responsive to the rejection. The Examiner does not rely
on Singhal to suggest "said configuration rule is for a first product and said
another configuration rule is for a second product that is different than said
first product," but instead relies upon Durazzo to suggest this limitation.
Final Act. 6 (citing Durazzo i-f 39, emphasis omitted). Appellants next
contend that Loffink does not remedy the above-described deficiencies of
Singhal. Appeal Br. 8. This contention is also not responsive to the
rejection because the Examiner relies upon Durazzo to suggest this
limitation. Thus, by failing to address the Examiner's reliance on Durazzo,
Appellants are arguing the references individually, because the Examiner is
relying on the combination of Singhal and Durazzo to suggest the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 19, 23 (citing Singhal col. 2, 11. 10-13, col. 13, 11. 63-
67; Ans. 8-9. "[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (emphasis added).
Furthermore, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references." Id. at 426.
Appellants contend that Durazzo's "dynamic power usage
management based on historical traffic pattern data for network devices does
not teach or suggest 'conjoined blades,' or 'initializing said conjoined blades
... to function as a single blade,"' as recited by claim 1. Appeal Br. 8.
5
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because they are not
responsive to the rejection. The Examiner relies on Singhal rather than
Durazzo to teach these limitations. Final Act. 19, 23 (citing Singhal col. 2,
11. 10-13, col. 13, 11. 63---67). Thus, by failing to address the Examiner's
reliance on Singhal to suggest the disputed limitations, Appellants are again
arguing the references individually. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425-26.
In summary, Appellants' arguments regarding Singhal and Durazzo
attack the references individually and do not address the articulated
combination of Singhal and Durazzo. That is, Appellants do not address
what the person of ordinary skill in the art would have learned or not learned
from the combined teachings of Singhal and Durazzo, as articulated by the
Examiner. Therefore, we are unpersuaded of error.
Appellants next contend that Durazzo's "different policies for saving
power for the chassis as a whole as well as for individual blades [fail] to
teach or suggest 'wherein said configuration rule is for a first product and
said another configuration rule is for a second product that is different than
said first product,"' as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 9. We agree with the
Examiner's finding that each blade with a different policy may be
interpreted as a different product and that each policy of Durazzo suggests a
configuration rule as claimed. Ans. 8-9, 11. Accordingly, we find
Appellants' contentions unpersuasive.
Appellants contend that requiring Singhal' s rules for determining
whether hardware processors are slaves or masters to be associated with a
single product teaches away from the claimed invention, which requires
different configuration rules for a first and second product. Appeal Br. 7.
6
Appeal2015-005113
Application 12/999,942
We find Appellants' contention unpersuasive because we agree with
the Examiner's finding that Singhal suggests multiple products rather than a
single product. Ans. 7 ("using broadest reasonable interpretation ... the
master blade can be interpreted to be a first product, the slave blade can be
interpreted to be a second product, and the enclosure that includes bother
[sic] the master blade and the slave blade can be interpreted as a third
product."). In light of this finding, Appellants have not persuaded us
Singhal teaches away from the recited method (Appeal Br. 5-10). A
teaching away requires a reference to actually criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the claimed solution. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195,
1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants have not identified any disclosure in
Singhal that actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the
disputed limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. Claims 6 and 13, which recite corresponding limitations and are
argued together with claim 1; and claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14--18, which
depend from claims 1, 6, and 13 are not separately argued. See Appeal Br.
13-17. Therefore, we likewise sustain the rejections of these claims under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7