James H. Laros et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 6, 2020

14817717 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/817,717 08/04/2015 James H. Laros III SD13175.0/S139172 6578
20567 7590 04/06/2020
Sandia National Laboratories
P O BOX 5800
MS-0161
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87185-0161
EXAMINER
YEN, PAUL JUEI-FU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2186
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2020 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):
docketing@sandia.gov
patent@sandia.gov
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES H. LAROS III,
RYAN GRANT, SUZANNE M. KELLY, MICHAEL L. LEVENHAGEN,
STEPHEN LECLER OLIVIER, and KEVIN PEDRETTI
Appeal 2018-008105
Application 14/817,717
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and
IFTIKHAR AHMED, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–28, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies National Technology & Engineering
Solutions of Sandia, LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-008105
Application 14/817,717

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “managing power used by a computer
system,” including “power for a group of objects.” Spec. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a power manager that:
receives a user input relating to power for a group
of objects;
sends a system description to a user when the user
input requests the system description for the group of the
objects in which the system description describes the
group of the objects in a computer system with a level of
detail based on a role of the user, wherein different users
obtain different information for the group of the objects,
and in which attributes are associated with the objects and
the attributes for the objects are selected by at least one of
measurement attributes that have information about the
power used by the objects or control attributes that control
the power used by the objects; and
sets a group of the control attributes for the group of
the objects to control the power used by the group of the
objects using application programming interfaces when
the user input requests changes to the power used by the
group of the objects.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Marr (US 9,292,060 B1; Mar. 22, 2016). Final Act. 3.2

2 The rejection under § 112(b) was withdrawn. See Adv. Act. (Jan. 3, 2018).
Appeal 2018-008105
Application 14/817,717

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding Marr discloses the following
limitations:
1. “sends a system description to a user when the user input
requests the system description for the group of the objects in
which the system description describes the group of the objects
in a computer system” (claim 1);
2. “a portion of the attributes enable navigation through the
hierarchy of the objects” (claim 3); and
3. “sends a message to the user when the change in the power used
is detected, wherein the message describes the change”
(claim 9)?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 11–14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, and 26
Claim 1 recites “sends a system description to a user when the user
input requests the system description for the group of the objects in which
the system description describes the group of the objects in a computer
system.” Independent claims 13 and 22 recite commensurate limitations.
Appellant argues that “none of the passages cited by the Examiner” in
Marr disclose that “the customer may request a system description of the
components in the computer system.” Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner explains (Ans. 3) that Marr discloses the following:
In this example, customer usage of a set of resources and/or
components is monitored 402 in an electronic environment. A
request for power consumption information might be received
404 from a user, in response to which the monitored power
consumption information can be provided 406 to the customer.
Marr 11:16–21. Thus, Marr discloses sending “power consumption
information” for “a set of . . . components” in response to a user’s request.
Appeal 2018-008105
Application 14/817,717

4
The Examiner also notes that the Specification provides examples
demonstrating the meaning of various claim terms. Ans. 3. In particular,
“the system description describes the group of objects in the computer
system” and “[o]bjects . . . are hardware in computer system 102” that “may
be selected from one of a network, a computer, a processor, a processor core,
a graphics processor, a graphics adapter, a display device, a bus, a port, and
a storage device.” Spec. ¶¶ 32, 46–47 (emphases added).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Marr’s disclosure of sending
power consumption information (“system description”) for a set of
components (“group of the objects”) in response to a user’s request discloses
this limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 13, and 22, and their dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17,
23, 25, and 26, which Appellant does not argue separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 3, 6–8, 15, 18, 19, 24, 27, and 28
Dependent claim 3 recites “the objects in the computer system are
arranged in a hierarchy and a portion of the attributes enable navigation
through the hierarchy of the objects.” Claims 15 and 24 recite
commensurate limitations.
The Examiner finds that Marr discloses a hierarchy such as a rack of
servers, then an individual server, then individual components such as
processors and memory within that server. Ans. 6 (citing Marr 4:56–5:10,
5:21–25, 5:49–63). The Examiner further finds that Marr discloses giving
different users differing levels of granularity for power control, such as only
Appeal 2018-008105
Application 14/817,717

5
some users having access to components of the system. Id. (citing Marr
4:56–5:10, 8:38–55, 9:36–46, 10:8–16, 11:18–33).
Appellant argues that the cited passages of Marr “do not disclose the
use of attributes to navigate through resources.” Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant that Marr does not expressly or inherently
disclose that “a portion of the attributes enables navigation through the
hierarchy of the objects.” “To anticipate a claim, a prior art reference must
disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either expressly or
inherently.” Rapoport v. Dement, 254 F.3d 1053, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2001). As
the Federal Circuit has held, “differences between the prior art reference and
a claimed invention, however slight, invoke the question of obviousness, not
anticipation.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371
(Fed. Cir. 2008). “Thus, it is not enough that the prior art reference
discloses part of the claimed invention, which an ordinary artisan might
supplement to make the whole, or that it includes multiple, distinct teachings
that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.”
Id. Here, the only rejection on appeal is for anticipation, not obviousness,
and the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Marr anticipates this claim.
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3, 15, and 24, and their dependent claims 6–8, 18, 19, 27, and 28.
Claims 9, 10, 20, and 21
Claim 9 recites “a monitor that monitors for a change in the power
used by the group of the objects and sends a message to the user when the
change in the power used is detected, wherein the message describes the
change.” Claim 20 recites a commensurate limitation.
Appeal 2018-008105
Application 14/817,717

6
Appellant argues that although Marr “disclose[s] a monitor that
monitors the amount of power that resources . . . are using,” Marr fails to
disclose sending a message to the user when a change in the power used is
detected. Appeal Br. 12.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown
that Marr’s message is sent when a change is detected.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9
and 20, and their dependent claims 10 and 21.
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected Statute Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–28 § 102 Marr 1, 2, 4, 5, 11–14, 16, 17, 22, 23, 25, 26
3, 6–10, 15, 18–21,
24, 27, 28
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART