Ex Parte Larson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 25, 2012

10753518 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DAVID ANTHONY LARSON and KYLE ALAN LUCKE
____________________

Appeal 2010-004087
Application 10/753,518
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004087
Application 10/753518

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1,2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20. Claims 3, 8, 13, and
18have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the claimed invention generally relates to a
remote power function in a logically partitioned computer. (Spec. 1: 9-11).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:

1. A method comprising:
detecting that a network adapter received a power-on packet;
determining a first partition from among a plurality of partitions
in a logically-partitioned computer, wherein each of the plurality of
partitions executes a separate operating system, wherein the
determining further comprises determining that the first partition is
associated with the network adapter, wherein a number of the plurality
of the partitions resident in the logically-partitioned computer changes
dynamically and wherein the plurality of partitions are dynamically
allocated resources of the logically-partitioned computer, wherein the
determining that the first partition is associated with the network
adapter further comprises determining that the first partition is
associated with an address that is included in the power-on packet;
and
powering on the first partition in the logically-partitioned
computer in response to the power-on packet.

Appeal 2010-004087
Application 10/753518

3
Prior Art
Higuchi US 2002/0161891 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Liebenow US 2005/0066022 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
(effectively filed Sept. 5, 2003)

Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liebenow and Higuchi.
Appellants selects claim 1 as representative of the group consisting of
claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20. (See App. Br. 27-29).

Appellants’ Assertions
Appellants assert that Liebenow does not teach or suggest that its
“Wake-on-LAN” packet includes an address. (App. Br. 28). Appellants
also assert that Liebenow does not teach or suggest a partition. Id.
Appellants assert that the combination of Liebenow and Higuchi does not
teach or suggest “determining the first partition is associated with an address
that is included in the power on packet” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 28-
29).
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Liebenow
and Higuchi teaches or suggests “wherein the determining that the first
partition is associated with the network adapter further comprises
determining that the first partition is associated with an address that is
included in the power-on packet,” as recited in claim 1?

Appeal 2010-004087
Application 10/753518

4
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1 -2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20
Claim 1 recites “wherein the determining that the first partition is
associated with the network adapter further comprises determining that the
first partition is associated with an address that is included in the power-on
packet.” Appellants assert that Liebenow does not teach or suggest an
“address” or a “partition” and that the combination of Liebenow and Higuchi
does not teach or suggest “determining that the first partition is associated
with an address that is included in the power-on packet.” (App. Br. 27-29).
“address”
Appellants assert that Liebenow does not teach or suggest that its
“Wake-on-LAN” (“WoL”) packet includes an address. (App. Br. 28).
However, while Liebenow’s WoL might not explicitly disclose an address,
we agree with the Examiner that the use of an address in a packet header is
an Ethernet standard, and is thus inherently found in a WoL packet. (Ans.
6).
“partition”
The Examiner interprets a first partition as a partition of resources in a
system. (Ans. 6.). This interpretation is consistent with Appellants’
Specification. The Specification describes a logical partition as one in which
“the various resources in the physical computer (e.g., processors, memory,
and input/output devices) [are] allocated among the various logical
partitions.” (Spec. 2, ll. 5-7). Thus, the Examiner finds that Higuchi’s
logical partition (¶ [0069]) is the same as the claimed “first partition.” (Ans.
4 and 6). Instead of addressing the Examiner’s specific finding with respect
Appeal 2010-004087
Application 10/753518

5
to Higuchi, Appellants assert that Liebenow does not teach or suggest a
partition. (App. Br. 28). Since Appellants have not addressed the
Examiner’s specific finding with respect to Higuchi, we agree with the
Examiner.

“determining that the first partition is associated with an address that is
included in the power-on packet.”

The Examiner finds that the combination of Liebenow and Higuchi
teaches or suggests “determining that the first partition is associated with an
address that is included in the power-on packet,” as recited in claim 1.
(Ans. 6) (emphasis added). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “in order to
transmit packets [one must include] a source and destination physical
address[.]” (Id.; see also the discussion of the term “address” supra). That
is, the Examiner finds that the source, i.e., the WoL packet, is “associated”
with the destination, i.e., the partition. (Id.). Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s finding is incorrect because Higuchi selects a logical partition
based on price, number of CPUs, and memory capacity, and not based on a
determination that “the first partition is associated with an address that is
included in the power-on packet,” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 28).
We note that the claim requires determining that the partition is
“associated” with an address, not that the partition is “selected” based on the
address, as argued by Appellants. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate in scope with the claim. Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings.
Appeal 2010-004087
Application 10/753518

6
Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and thus did not err in rejecting
claims 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20 which were not separately argued and
fall with claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-12, 14-17, and 19-20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liebenow and Higuchi
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD