Ex Parte Malone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11796951 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER GREGORY MALONE
and THANE M. LARSON
____________

Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, and 15-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
A removable active communication bus of an apparatus includes at
least two blade communication interfaces that are configured to
communicatively couple at least two blade components within at least one
blade enclosure (see Abstract). The removable active communication bus
includes a removable active backplane that is dynamically configurable
(Spec. ¶ [25]).
Independent claims 1, 15, and 19, reproduced below, are
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. An apparatus, comprising:
a removable active communication bus that comprises at least two
blade communication interfaces that are configured to
communicatively couple at least two blade components within at least
one blade enclosure, wherein the removable active communication
bus comprises a removable active backplane that is dynamically
configurable.

15. A method, comprising the steps of:
communicatively coupling a removable active communication bus
with a first blade component, wherein the removable active
communication bus comprises a removable active backplane that is
dynamically configurable; and
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

3
communicatively coupling the first blade component with at least one
second blade component through the removable active
communication bus.

19. A computer-readable storage medium having instructions stored
thereon which, when executed, cause a computer processor to perform
a method, said method comprising instructions for:
communicatively coupling a removable active communication bus
with a first blade component, wherein the removable active
communication bus comprises a removable active backplane that is
dynamically configurable; and
communicatively coupling the first blade component with at least one
second blade component through the removable active
communication bus.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Kaspari (U.S. Pat. No. 5,896,473,
Apr. 20, 1999).
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, 15, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Carlson et al. (U.S. Pat. No.
7,212,412 B2, May 1, 2007).
3. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Forbes (U.S. Pub. No.
2004/0015638 A1, Jan. 22, 2004) in view of Kaspari.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Forbes in view of Kaspari and further in
view of Shah et al. (U.S. Pat. No. 7,502,884 B1, Mar. 10, 2009).
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

4
5. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Forbes in view of Kaspari and further in
view of Tarui et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0067432 A1, Mar. 22, 2007)
6. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Forbes in view of Kaspari and further in view of
Taylor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2005/0193091 A1, Sep. 1, 2005).
7. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17, and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Uzuka et al. (U.S. Pat.
No. 6,690,584 B2, Feb. 10, 2004) in view of Kaspari.
8. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Uzuka in view of Kaspari and further in
view of Shah.
9. The Examiner rejected claims 4, 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Uzuka in view of Kaspari and further in
view of Tarui.
10. The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Uzuka in view of Kaspari and further in view of
Taylor.

ISSUES
The dispositive issues are whether the Examiner erred in finding that:
1. Kaspari teaches or suggests “a removable active communications
bus” that “comprises a removable active backplane that is
dynamically configurable,” as recited in claim 1; and
2. Forbes teaches or suggests a “backplane that is dynamically
configurable,” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

5

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 11, 15, 16, and 19
Appellants argue that Kaspari does not teach or suggest “a removable
active communications bus” that “comprises a removable active backplane
that is dynamically configurable” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and we
present the following primarily for emphasis (Ans. 21-22).
We turn to Appellants’ Specification for some guidance as to what
“dynamically configurable” entails. Appellants’ Specification “is always
highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive;
it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.” See Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
Appellants’ Specification describes a backplane that is dynamically
configurable as having a removable active communication bus 502, which
provides dynamic configuration of communicative coupling between the
blade components, for example, to provide availability in case of a failure in
a communication link (¶ [25]).
The Examiner finds (Ans. 21-22), and we agree, that consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, Kaspari discloses a “reconfigurable backplane
system” (see col. 4, ll. 4-5) wherein “the application specific backplane may
be tailored to either use additional couplers between a bus and a sub-
assembly or allow for the combination of couplers for certain bus elements
while accommodating permanent connectors on other bus devices” (col. 3, l.
65–col. 4, l. 3). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that, while permanent
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

6
connectors of the reconfigurable backplane are in use optically/electrically,
the additional couplers can be configured to accommodate certain bus
elements in different configurations such as between a bus and a sub-
assembly or allow for the combination of couplers for certain bus elements.
Thus, the “reconfigurable backplane system” of Kaspari is “dynamically
configurable” consistent with Appellants’ Specification.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11, 15, 16, and 19.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-17, and 19
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s proposed modification of Forbes
in view of Kaspari would change the principle of operation of the prior art
invention being modified (App. Br. 12-18). Appellants argue that Forbes
teaches away from “a removable active communication bus that comprises
at least two blade communication interfaces that are configured to
communicatively couple at least two blade components within at least one
blade enclosure wherein the removable active communication bus comprises
a removable active backplane that is dynamically configurable,” as recited
by claim 1 (and similarly away from claims 15 and 19) by indicating that
coupling between a switch fabric module 150 and a server module (110,
130) occurs over an existing backplane of a chassis of the server 55 (see ¶¶
[0020], [0024], [0031]; Fig. 5; Claim 8 (“backplane of said server
assembly”)) or alternatively perhaps with cabling (¶ [0031]) rather than the
switch fabric module 150 being a removable active backplane (App. Br. 13-
14).
We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that as per Appellants’ Specification paragraph [22], lines 1-2, the
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

7
“removable active communication bus 502 . . . serves to communicatively
couple at least two blade components” (Ans. 26). Further, as defined in
paragraph [23] of the Specification, the “removable active communication
bus 502 . . . comprises a crossbar switch” (id.). In addition, as defined in
paragraph [24] of the Specification, “the removable active communication
bus 502 comprises a removable active backplane” (id.). Similarly, as
disclosed in paragraph [0022] of Forbes, a “[crossbar] switch fabric module
may dynamically couple the first server module to the second server
module.” Specifically, as disclosed in paragraph [0024], the “[crossbar]
switch fabric module 150” dynamically couples the first server module 110
to the second server module 130 (id.). Also, in paragraph [0024], it is
disclosed that in place of “server modules” (110, 130), “connecting blades”
such as server blades and media blades mounted on opposite sides of a blade
enclosure (¶ [0018]; see Figs. 3 and 6). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
that in Forbes, the “[crossbar] switch fabric module” 150 or “active
communication bus” comprises a dynamically configurable active backplane
to dynamically couple at least two server modules or connecting blades (¶¶
[0018]-[0028]).
We further agree with the Examiner (Ans. 29-30) that one cannot
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the
rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As set forth in the rejection under section 103 (Forbes in view of Kaspari),
Forbes is relied upon for disclosing a dynamically configurable backplane
whereas Kaspari is relied upon for teaching that an active backplane is
“removable.” In other words, while Forbes discloses a dynamically
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

8
configurable backplane, Forbes does not disclose that the backplane is
“removable.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner that contrary to Appellants’
argument, Kaspari discloses an apparatus comprising a removable active
communication bus that comprises at least two blade communication
interfaces provided by a reconfigurable and removable modular backplane
210 (Fig. 2) or 310 (Fig. 3) to couple at least two blade components or
modules 325 within at least one blade enclosure, wherein the removable
active communication bus comprises a removable active backplane such as
removable active backplane 310. As shown in Kaspari’s Figure 3,
removable active backplane 310 dynamically configures to accommodate
different types of modules 325 by changing the electrical couplers of the
backplane 210/310 for electrically coupling the reconfigurable backplane
210/310 to the modules 325 (see col. 3, l. 19–col. 4, l. 22) for facilitating
replacement backplane and backplane configuration (see col. 1, l. 50–col. 2,
l. 26).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to make the backplane of Forbes
removable, for the purpose of facilitating replacing the backplane and
allowing for backplane reconfiguration (see col. 1, l. 50–col. 2, l. 26).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the Examiner’s rejections of claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15-
17, and 19.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 15, 16, and 18-20
We have considered Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 4,
6, 11, 15, 16, and 18-20 over the various combinations of the Forbes,
Kaspari, Shah, Tarui, Uzuka, and Taylor references. In particular we note
Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

9
that Appellant argues the references separately. “[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are
based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981).
Thus, by way of example and without having to repeat the Examiner’s
Answer herein, contrary to Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 18-20), Forbes
was relied upon for disclosing a dynamically configurable backplane
whereas Kasperi is relied upon for teaching that an active backplane is
“removable” as discussed supra. Shah was relied upon for disclosing the
use of virtualization switch (Abstract). The use of a virtualization switch is
old and well-known for the purpose of allowing efficient access, sharing,
management, and allocation of resources (Abstract). Thus, we agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 35) that since Forbes and Shah are both in the same field
of endeavor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to virtualize Forbes’ switch interface
interfacing the plurality of second blade components, as taught by Shah, for
the purpose of allowing efficient access, sharing, management, and
allocation of resources (Abstract).
Appellants similarly argue separately the references of Tarui (App.
Br. 20-21), Taylor (App. Br. 21-23), and Uzuka (App. Br. 23-27) and their
combinations (App. Br. 27-29). We adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions as set forth in the Answer without repetition herein (Ans. 36-
40).
Accordingly, we also affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 6,
11, 15, 16, and 18-20.

Appeal 2011-008051
Application 11/796,951

10
CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that:
1. Kaspari teaches or suggests “a removable active communications
bus” that “comprises a removable active backplane that is
dynamically configurable,” as recited in claim 1; and
2. Forbes teaches or suggests a “backplane that is dynamically
configurable,” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-8, 10, 11, and 15-20 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).

AFFIRMED

bab