Ex Parte Sherrod et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2013

12121613 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DAVID W. SHERROD, KEVIN B. LEIGH,
JONATHAN E. JAMESOU, KURT A. MANWEILER,
JOSEPH R. ALLEN, and TUAN A. PHAM
________________

Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613
Technology Center 2800
________________

Before RICHARD TORCZON, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN G. NEW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613

2
SUMMARY
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-9 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Liang et al. (US
7,209,347 B2, April 24, 2007) (“Liang”), Takahashi et al. (US 6,552,915
B2, April 22, 2003) (“Takahashi”), and Le et al. (US 7,188,205 B2, March
6, 2007) (“Le”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a blade device enclosure having a
chassis configured to selectively house a plurality of configurations of full-
high and half-high blade devices, an administrator module, and at least one
input/output device. The blade device enclosure also has a printed circuit
board including a passive high-speed midplane configured to electronically
couple the blade devices to the administrator module and the at least one
input/output device. Abstract.

GROUPING OF CLAIMS

Because Appellants argue that the Examiner erred for substantially
the same reasons with respect to claims 1-9, we select claim 1 as
representative of these claims. App. Br. 11. Claim 1 recites:
Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613

3
1. A blade device enclosure, comprising:

a chassis configured to selectively house a plurality of
configurations of full-high and half-high blade devices, an
administrator module, and at least one input/output device; and

a printed circuit board comprising a passive high-speed
midplane configured to electronically couple said blade devices
to said administrator module and said at least one input/output
device;

wherein said administrator module is further configured
to identify blade devices that are added to or removed from said
enclosure.

App. Br. 13.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting
“wherein said administrator module is further configured to identify blade
devices that are added to or removed from said enclosure.” App. Br. 9.
We therefore address the issue of whether the Examiner so erred.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Le teaches or suggests a system that can “map
PCI industrial Computer Manufactures Group (PICMG) states … into
Telecommunication Management Network (TMN) plug-in unit states.”
App. Br. 10 (quoting Le, Abstract). According to Appellants, Le converts
one method of describing the state of a Compact Peripheral Component
Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613

4
Interconnect (CPCI) into another method so that CPCI cards may be used in
a system that uses plug-in units based on the TMN standard. App. Br. 10.
Appellants contend that Le teaches or suggests, at most, “[t]he
embodiment then identifies or defines (i.e., explains or interprets) the
meaning (e.g., the definition, identification, function, and/or status) of the
hotswap states 710 on the CPCI node card 700.” Id. (emphasis omitted)
(quoting Le, col. 7, ll. 25-28). Therefore, Le merely teaches that the hot-
swap states of the Compact Peripheral Component Interconnect (CPCI)
node card are defined by one standard first and then defined or interpreted
into another standard. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that Le does not teach
or suggest an administrator module configured to identify blade devices that
are added to or removed from an enclosure. Id.
Appellants argue further that, in contrast to Le, their Specification
discloses that, to identify a component, the “active administrator module
(901) may read a Field-Replaceable Unit (FRU) Electrically Erasable
Programmable Read Only Memory (EEPROM) module in the inserted
component that contains specific factory information about the component
such as, but not limited to, product name, part number, and serial number.”
App. Br. 10 (emphasis omitted) (quoting Specification, ¶ [0059]).
Appellants contend that their claimed invention is therefore not obvious
over the cited prior art references because the invention disclosed in claim 1
provides for a system by which an administrator module may immediately
identify a new component coupled to the system. App. Br. 11.
The Examiner responds that Le teaches identification of the status of
the node card when it is being added to or removed from the system. Ans.
7 (citing Le, col. 6, ll. 41-51). The Examiner finds that Le teaches that “the
Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613

5
CPU 608 of the SMC 616 can control the IPMI controller 610 and retrieve
the system status information by interfacing with the IPMI controller….”
and that “[t]he IPMB or (IPMI) 612 connects with the ‘intelligent FRUs’
[Field Replaceable Units], such as node cards 606….” Ans. 7-8 (quoting
Le, col. 6, ll. 41-51).
The Examiner thus finds that Le teaches an administrator configured
to identify blade devices that are added to or removed from said enclosure,
as well as a process of converting one method of describing the state of a
CPCI into another method so that the CPCI cards may be used in a system
that uses plug-in units based on the Telecommunication Management
Network (TMN) standard. Ans. 8.
The Examiner further finds that the features which Appellants rely on
to differentiate their claimed invention from the prior art (i.e., an “active
administrator module (901) may read a Field-Replaceable Unit (FRU)
Electrically Erasable Programmable Read-Only Memory (EEPROM)
module in the inserted component that contains specific factory information
about the component such as, but not limited to, product name, part
number, and serial number”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Le is directed to a “Compact
Peripheral Component Intercounect (CPCI) system … that can map PCI
Industrial Computer Manufactures Group (PICMG) states describing the
state of a hot-swap CPCI card into Telecommunication Management
Network (TMN) plug-in unit states” and thus, directly contemplates hot-
Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613

6
swapping1 of cards into and out of the CPCI system. Le, Abstract. As
such, Le teaches or suggests that CPCI cards will be added or removed
from the CPCI. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Le teaches that
“[t]he CPU 608 of the SMC 616 can control the IPMI controller 610 and
retrieve the system 602 status information by interfacing with the IPMI
controller 610 via an arbiter (i.e., a PLD) 609” and that “[t]he IPMB or
(IPMI) 612 connects with the ‘intelligent FRUs,’ such as node cards 606
and switch fabric cards.” Le, col. 6, ll. 42-45, 47-49; see Ans. 8.
Furthermore, we find that Le also teaches that when the system is
mapping a hot-swapped card to a TMN plug-in state, “[t]he TMN plug-in
unit states corresponding to the hot-swap CPCI card will then comprise the
proper identification information for the hot-swap CPCI card, such as
plugInUnitType, vendorName, version, etc.” Le, col. 3, ll. 1-5 (emphasis
added). Le thus teaches that the controller identifies blade devices added to
or removed from the CPCI system.
We also agree with the Examiner’s findings that the additional
features cited by Appellants are not within the claims. Although the claims
are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification may not be read into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).

1 “Hot swapping” is defined in Appellants’ Specification as “refer[ring] to
the act or ability [to] remove and replace components in a blade device
enclosure quickly without excessive reconfiguration or shutdown of other
components or operations of a system housed and managed by the blade
device enclosure.” Spec., ¶ [0021].
Appeal 2011-005263
Application 12/121,613

7
We therefore agree with the Examiner’s findings that Le teaches or
suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “wherein said administrator
module is further configured to identify blade devices that are added to or
removed from said enclosure” and conclude that the Examiner did not err in
so finding.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc