Ex Parte 6145098 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 16, 2014

90012321 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 16, 2014)

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.
90/012,321 05/30/2012 6145098 016295.4364 5122
27299 7590 09/17/2014
GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SUITE 201
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
EXAMINER
CRAVER, CHARLES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC
Patent Owner
________________

Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
Technology Center 3900
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
2
Introduction
Round Rock Research, LLC (“Patent Owner”) appeals under
35 U.S.C. §§ 134(b) and 306 from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims
1–20, 25, 26, and 31–35 of U.S. Patent No. 6,145,098 (“’098 patent”) and
added claims 38, 49, 53, 56, 58–62, and 71–74. The Examiner find claims
21–24, 27–30, 36, 37, 39–48, 50–52, 54, 55, 57, 63–70, and 75–82
patentable or has withdrawn the rejections thereof. Fin. Act. 2; Ans. 9. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(b), and 306. We AFFIRM.
Invention
Ahmad Nouri and Karl S. Johnson invented a “fault tolerant computer
system for obtaining and displaying, or updating[,] the status of server
components through a remote interface and either a local or remote client
machine without intervention of the server operating system software.” ’098
patent Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 16, 25, and 31, reproduced below without indications of
additions and deletions and with key limitations emphasized, are
representative:
1. A system for retrieving or updating system status for a
computer, the system comprising:
a first computer;
a microcontroller configured to provide a retrieve or
update system status signal to the first computer, wherein the
signal causes retrieval of status information from the first
computer or an update of an item setting of the first computer;
a system recorder controller interconnected with the
microcontroller via a microcontroller bus, the system recorder
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
3
controller configured to receive the status information or
update of an item setting from the microcontroller;
a remote interface connected to the microcontroller,
wherein the remote interface is configured to provide external
access to the first computer; and
a second computer connected to the first computer via the
remote interface and communicating a retrieve or update system
status command to the microcontroller.
16. A system for updating system status for a computer, the
system comprising:
a first computer comprising:
an environmental circuit; and
a microcontroller connected to the environmental circuit,
wherein the environmental circuit receives item settings;
a remote interface connected to the microcontroller; and
a second computer in data communication with the first
computer via the remote interface, the second computer capable
of communicating an update system status command to the
microcontroller;
wherein the remote interface comprises a
microcontroller.
25. A microcontroller system for updating the system settings
of a first computer, the microcontroller system comprising:
a microcontroller bus; and
an environmental circuit configured to retrieve the
system settings;
a plurality of microcontrollers that are interconnected by
the microcontroller bus and wherein the microcontrollers
manage the system settings of the first computer, and wherein a
selected one of the microcontrollers communicates an update
command to at least one of the other microcontrollers and
supplies at least one item setting for updating the system
settings.
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
4
31. A system for updating and retrieving system status
information of a first computer, the system comprising:
a microcontroller bus;
a plurality of microcontrollers that are interconnected by
the microcontroller bus, wherein at least one of the plurality of
microcontrollers is configured to cause retrieval of status
information or an update of an item setting; and
a remote interface microcontroller of the plurality of
microcontrollers configured to provide data communication
between the microcontroller bus and a second computer;
a system recorder microcontroller of the plurality of
microcontrollers, the system recorder microcontroller
configured to receive and store from the at least one
microcontroller the retrieved status information or an update of
an item setting;
a recovery manager program executing on the second
computer in data communication with the microcontroller bus,
the recovery manager program configured to manage system
status information of the first computer.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Farrand (U.S. 5,471,617) (hereinafter referred to as
“Compaq ’617” for consistency with the briefs). Ans. 2–3 (citing, e.g., Orig.
Ex Parte Req. by Third Party (“Req.”) App’x C1 1–10 and 74–83). In
making this rejection, the Examiner further relies on Ward (U.S. 5,367, 670)
(“Compaq ’670”), Farrand ’384 (U.S. 5,257,384) (“Compaq ’384”), and
Farrand ’563 (U.S. 5,309,563) (“Compaq ’563”), which Compaq ’617
incorporates by reference. See Ans. 3; Req. App’x C1 1; Compaq ’617
col. 1, ll. 8–35.
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
5
The Examiner alternatively rejects claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over LANDesk® Server Monitor Module, Installation
and User’s Guide, Intel Corp. (1995) (“LANDesk”) and LANDesk® Server
Monitor Module, Technical Product Summary, Version 2.0, Intel Corp.
(March, 1995) (“LANDesk Summary”). Ans. 6 (citing, e.g., Req. 64–65 and
Req. App’x C2 1–12).
The Examiner rejects claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Compaq ’617 and Deming (U.S. 5,864,486). Ans. 3–4
(citing, e.g., Req. App’x C1 24–31).
The Examiner rejects claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Compaq ’617, Deming, and Carbonneau (U.S. 5,586,250).
Ans. 5 (citing Req. 60–64; Req. App’x C1 35–36).
The Examiner rejects 25, and alternatively rejects claims 16 and 20,
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Carbonneau. Ans. 6–7
(citing, e.g., Req. App’x C3 20–32, 40–43, and 61–73).
The Examiner further rejects non-representatives claims 2–15, 17–19,
26, 32–35, 38, 49, 53, 56, 58–62, and 71–74 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103
as being anticipated by or unpatentable over various subsets of Compaq
’617, LANDesk, LANDesk Summary, Deming, Carbonneau, and Tobita
(U.S. 5,781,434). Ans. 2–9.
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
6
ISSUES1
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Compaq ’617 discloses “a system
recorder controller interconnected with the microcontroller via a
microcontroller bus, the system recorder controller configured to receive the
status information or update of an item setting from the microcontroller,” as
recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Compaq ’617 discloses “a remote
interface microcontroller,” as recited in claim 31?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of LANDesk and
LANDesk Summary teaches or suggests “a system recorder controller
interconnected with the microcontroller via a microcontroller bus, the
system recorder controller configured to receive the status information or
update of an item setting from the microcontroller,” as recited in claim 1?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding Carbonneau discloses “a remote
interface connected to the microcontroller,” as recited in claim 16?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding Carbonneau discloses “wherein the
microcontrollers manage the system settings of the first computer,” as
recited in claim 25?

1 Appellant does not submit arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 16–19 and 58 as being unpatentable
over Compaq ’617 and Deming. App. Br. 6; Ans. 3–4. Appellant also does
not submit arguments with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 20 as being unpatentable over Compaq ’617, Deming, and
Carbonneau. App. Br. 6–7; Ans. 5. Accordingly, Appellant waives
arguments with respect to these rejections, which we pro forma affirm.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (2013).
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
7
ANALYSIS
Issue 1—Claims 1–6, 9–15, 31–35, 38, and 49
In rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated by Compaq ’617, the
Examiner finds bus master interface controller 78 of Compaq ’617 discloses
“a system recorder controller interconnected with the microcontroller via a
microcontroller bus, the system recorder controller configured to receive the
status information or update of an item setting from the microcontroller,” as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 3 (citing, e.g., Compaq ’670 col. 9, ll. 19–36 and
col. 10, ll. 13–17).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Compaq ’670 does
not disclose “the bus master interface controller as having any sort of system
recorder functionality as the term is known and used.” App. Br. 4–5
(emphasis added). Appellant argues that “any recording functionality of
Compaq [’]670 is governed by the control processor 68.” Reply Br. 2
(emphasis added). However, as the Examiner finds, bus master interface
controller 78 “‘interrogate[s] and modif[ies] the memory and I/O space 66 of
the computer system . . . .’” Ans. 9 (citing App. Br. 5) (emphasis added).
Appellant does not address persuasively the Examiner’s finding that such
modification of memory by bus master interface controller 78 discloses that
the bus master interface controller has system recorder functionality. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that Compaq ’617 discloses a
system recorder controller as recited. Ans. 3.
Appellant further contends that
in the rejection of Claim 1, the control processor 68 is relied on
to teach the microcontroller of claim 1 . . . . Therefore, there is
no element in Compaq [’]617 . . . that would correspond to the
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
8
‘microcontroller bus’ . . . , which interconnects the system
recorder controller and the microcontroller.
App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of error because, in Compaq
’670, both control processor 68 and bus master interface 78 are connected to
control processor bus 67 (i.e., control processor bus 67 is a microprocessor
bus interconnecting the system recorder controller and microcontroller).
Compaq ’670 col. 9, ll. 19–37 and Fig. 4 (cited both by Ans. 3 and by Req.
App’x C1 4–5). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Compaq ’617
discloses the recited microcontroller bus. Ans. 3.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that Compaq ’617
discloses “a system recorder controller interconnected with the
microcontroller via a microcontroller bus, the system recorder controller
configured to receive the status information or update of an item setting
from the microcontroller,” as recited in claim 1. Id. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 1 as being
anticipated by Compaq ’617. We also sustain the Examiner’s §§ 102 and
103 rejections of claims 2–6, 9–15, and 49, based at least in part on Compaq
’617, which Appellant does not argue separately with respect to this issue.
App. Br. 5.
Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 31 as being anticipated by Compaq
’617. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. For similar reasons, with respect to this issue
we also do not find error in this rejection of claim 31, and in the Examiner’s
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections of claims 32–35 and 38, which
Appellant does not argue separately with respect to this issue. App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
9
Issue 2—Claims 31–35 and 38
In rejecting claim 31 as being anticipated by Compaq ’617, the
Examiner also finds the universal asynchronous receiver transmitter
(“UART”) interface 94 of Compaq ’617 discloses “a remote interface
microcontroller,” as recited in claim 31. See Ans. 2; Req. App’x C1 6–7
(citing, e.g., Compaq ’670 Fig. 4 and col. 9, ll. 19–37).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “nowhere is the
UART interface 94 described as including a microcontroller.” App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 3. However, Appellant does not distinguish persuasively the
claimed remote interface microcontroller from the Compaq ’617 UART
interface 94. Like bus master interface 78 (i.e., a system recorder
microcontroller), UART interface 94 is connected to control processor bus
67 (i.e., to a microcontroller bus). Req. App’x C1 6–7 (citing Compaq ’670
Fig. 4 and col. 9, ll. 19–37). UART 94 delivers alert messages, provides an
asynchronous interface between system manager 22 and system manager
facility 34, and connects an external modem to deliver page alerts. Req.
App’x C1 7 (citing Compaq ’670 col. 10, ll. 32–51). Thus, UART interface
94 has the same structure and function of disclosed remote interface 104,
which is a controller on bus 160 that receives messages directed to a specific
controller on bus 160. ’098 patent col. 13, ll. 20–25; App. Br. 3. UART
interface 94 also provides for communications with a second computer.
Compaq ’670 Figs. 2 and 3. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Compaq ’617 discloses “a remote interface microcontroller,” as recited in
claim 31. Ans. 2; Req. App’x C1 6–7.
Accordingly, with respect to this issue we do not find error in the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 31, and in the Examiner’s
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
10
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections of claims 32–35 and 38, which
Appellant does not argue separately with respect to this issue. App. Br. 6.
Issue 3—Claims 1–15 and 53
In rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable over LANDesk and
LANDesk Summary (the LANDesk references), the Examiner finds the
critical node monitor controller described in the references teaches or
suggests “a system recorder controller interconnected with the
microcontroller via a microcontroller bus, the system recorder controller
configured to receive the status information or update of an item setting
from the microcontroller,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6 (citing, e.g.,
LANDesk Summary 7).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because the 8086-compatible
CPU described in LANDesk references “is not interconnected to any
element that could be construed reasonably to be a ‘system recorder
controller,’ because only the 8086-compatible CPU is disclosed as having
NVRAM [(non-volatile random access memory)], which serves as the
storage location for any logged data.” App. Br. 7 (citing LANDesk 7 and 9);
see also Reply Br. 4–5. However, Appellant’s arguments are not responsive
to the Examiner’s rejection, which relies on the LANDesk references’
critical node monitor controller: an application specific integrated circuit
containing most of the hardware logic and control functions, including non-
volatile memory control and shared memory interface control. Ans. 7 and
11 (citing LANDesk Summary 7 and 9); see also Req. App’x C2 2–4 (citing
LANDesk Summary 7 and Fig. 4).
Furthermore, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1, which does not recite that the system recorder controller
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
11
contains the memory that stores logged data (i.e., that data is logged or
recorded locally). See Ans. 10. Even in the ’098 patent, System Recorder
controller 110 stores data into a separate System Recorder memory 112. See
Reply Br. 4 (citing ’098 patent col. 20, ll. 14–27); ’098 patent Fig. 2.
For these reasons, we do not find error in the Examiner’s finding that
the combination of LANDesk and LANDesk Summary teaches or suggests
“a system recorder controller interconnected with the microcontroller via a
microcontroller bus, the system recorder controller configured to receive the
status information or update of an item setting from the microcontroller,” as
recited in claim 1. Ans. 6.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1 as being unpatentable over LANDesk and LANDesk Summary.
We also sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections of claims 2–15 and 53,
based at least in part on LANDesk and LANDesk Summary, which
Appellant does not argue separately with respect to this issue. App. Br. 7.
Issue 4—Claims 16–20, 56, and 58–62
In rejecting claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Carbonneau, the Examiner finds Carbonneau’s SCSI interface module 201
discloses “a remote interface connected to the microcontroller,” as recited in
claim 16. Ans. 6–7 and 11; Req. App’x C3 6–7 (citing, e.g., Carbonneau
Fig. 2A and col. 11, ll. 51–55).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “SCSI interface
module 201 merely provides the microcontroller 202 access to the internal
SCSI bus of the drive cage 121b . . . and hence would not disclose
Assignee’s claimed ‘remote interface’.” App. Br. 8 (citing Carbonneau Fig.
1B). However, the Examiner finds correctly that Carbonneau’s SCSI
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
12
interface module 201 is the entry point for communications with cabinet
monitor and control board 150 via SCSI daisy-chaining system 138. Req.
App’x C3 6 (citing Carbonneau Fig. 2A); see also Carbonneau Fig. 1B.
That is, the Examiner finds SCSI interface module 201 provides a remote
interface that communicates over the internal SCSI bus (SCSI daisy-
chaining system 138) to communicate with a remote system. The
Examiner’s findings are supported by Carbonnaeu’s disclosure that “a
remotely-located network supervisor (102) can . . . monitor conditions
within the data storage array subsystem (120 or 320) by routing status
queries . . . through the network . . . to a desired CMAC board 150.” Req.
App’x C3 6 (citing Carbonneau col. 14, ll. 48–55) (emphasis added); see
also Carbonneau Figs. 1B and 2A. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner
Carbonneau discloses “a remote interface connected to the microcontroller,”
as recited in claim 16. Ans. 6–7 and 11; Req. App’x C3 6–7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 16 as being anticipated by Carbonneau. We also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections of claims 17–20, 56, and
58–62, based at least in part on Carbonneau, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 9–10.
Issue 5—Claims 25, 26, and 71–74
In rejecting claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by
Carbonneau, the Examiner finds Carbonneau’s environmental circuit
discloses “wherein the microcontrollers manage the system settings of the
first computer,” as recited in claim 25. Ans. 6; Req. App’x C3 66–69
(citing, e.g., Carbonneau col. 10, l. 24–col. 11, l. 44).
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
13
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because Carbonneau merely
discloses a “Western Digital WD33C93A™ SCSI interface controller [that]
does not in any way appear to manage the system settings of the first
computer . . . . Rather, the Western Digital WD33C93Aâ„¢ SCSI interface
controller merely provides low level SCSI bus protocol operations.” App.
Br. 10 (citing Carbonneau col. 12, ll. 10–13). However, instead of relying
on low level SCSI bus protocol operation disclosures, the Examiner relies on
Carbonneau’s disclosure that cabinet monitor and control board 150
controls, for example, individual power supplies 160, the status of individual
fans 170, and the operation of locking solenoids 123, 124, and
129a–f. Req. App’x C3 66–69 (citing Carbonneau col. 10, l. 24–col. 11, l.
44). Appellant’s arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s rejection
and do not show error therein. In particular, Appellant does not distinguish
persuasively the claimed system settings from the disclosed control of power
supplies, fans, and solenoids. Moreover, Appellant does not distinguish
persuasively the claimed management by microcontrollers from the control
of these settings by Carbonneau’s cabinet monitor and control board 150.
Therefore, we do not find error in the Examiner’s finding that Carbonneau
discloses “wherein the microcontrollers manage the system settings of the
first computer,” as recited in claim 25. Ans. 6; Req. App’x C3 66–69.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
of claim 25 as being anticipated by Carbonneau. We also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 rejections of claims 26 and 71–74,
based at least in part on Carbonneau, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 10.
Appeal 2014-007896
Reexamination Control 90/012,321
Patent 6,145,098
14
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20, 25, 26, 31–
35, 38, 49, 53, 56, 58–62, and 71–74.
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

msc

PATENT OWNER:
GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SUITE 201
SAN DIEGO CA 92127

THIRD-PARTY REQUESTER:
BAKER BOTTS, L.L.P.
PATENT DEPT.
98 SAN JACINTO BLVD., SUITE 1500
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039