Ex Parte Castro-Leon et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 31, 2018

14296007 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/296,007 06/04/2014 104333 7590 11/02/2018 International IP Law Group, P.L.L.C. 13231 Champion Forest Drive Suite 410 Houston, TX 77069 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Enrique Castro-Leon 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. P64344 2923 EXAMINER REHMAN, MOHAMMED H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2187 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/02/2018 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com Intel_Docketing@iiplg.com inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ENRIQUE CASTRO-LEON, DAVID LARSEN, TODD ENGER, JOSE ZERO, and DAVID LOCKLEAR Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10. See App. Br. 2. Claims 11-23 have been allowed. Final Act. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Intel Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 Appellants 'Invention The invention generally relates to "providing power to components of a computer system such as a server rack or chassis." Spec. ,r 1. A system manager normally manages power consumption limits for each server, but "in the case of a power supply unit failure, the normal communication routes that the system manager uses are inadequate to avoid cascading failure of the remaining power supply units." Id. ,r 10. In order to quickly throttle power consumption in such case, the invention employs a hardware-based alert signal that alerts all servers simultaneously. Id. ,r 11. Representative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer system, comprising: a plurality of server nodes; a power distribution system that provides power to the plurality of server nodes; and a hardware-based alert signal line that couples the power distribution system to the plurality of server nodes; wherein, if a power failure occurs, the power distribution system is to send an alert signal to all of the server nodes through the alert signal line, the alert signal to trigger each server node to activate a low power state. 2 Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 Rejections on Appeal2 Claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Nielsen (US 2014/0365795 Al; Dec. 11, 2014). See Final Act. 2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen and Ng (US 2014/0089698 Al; Mar. 27, 2014). See Final Act. 4. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen and Kamuf (US 2013/0198591 Al; Aug. 1, 2013). See Final Act. 5. Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Nielsen. See Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Anticipation The Examiner finds Nielsen discloses all the limitations of independent claim 1, including "a hardware-based alert signal line that couples the power distribution system to the plurality of server nodes." Final Act. 2-3. Appellants contend Nielsen fails to disclose the "hardware- based alert signal line" because the Examiner has not shown Nielsen discloses 2 The Examiner acknowledges the instant application is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA (see Final Act. 2), but the Examiner rejects claims 3--6 and 8 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) instead of 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. See Final Act. 4--6. We find this typographical error harmless and correct the statements of rejection for clarity and consistency. 3 Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 "a conductor that is coupled to a dedicated input line of one or more processors" such that "the indication of an alert at a particular time is determined by the state of the signal line at that time, i.e., whether the signal line is on (logic 1) or off (logic O)." App. Br. 8-10. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. We note that, in general, claim terms should be given their ordinary and customary meanings. See CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But where the Specification sets forth "with reasonable clarity, deliberateness, and precision" a definition for a term that differs from the ordinary and customary meaning, that definition will control the interpretation of the term as it is used in the claim. See In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1478 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("When the specification explains and defines a term used in the claims, without ambiguity or incompleteness, there is no need to search further for the meaning of the term."). Here, Appellants' Specification provides the following: To enable the server nodes 106 to respond to the power supply failure within a suitable time frame, the computing system 100 includes an alert signal line 116. Upon the failure of a power supply unit 106, the power distribution system can send an alert signal to each server node 102 and the system manager 112 through the alert signal line 116. The alert signal line 116 is hardware based, meaning that the alert signal line is implemented as a conductor that is coupled to a dedicated input line of one or more processors and the indication of an alert at a particular time is determined by the state of the signal line at that time, i.e., whether the signal line is on (logic 1) or off (logic O). Thus, no signal processing is required to send or receive the alert signal, such as translating between parallel and serial forms, interpreting packet information, and the like. 4 Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 Rather, the indication of an alert is triggered simply by activating, i.e., turning on, the alert signal line. Spec. ,r 16 ( emphases added). As shown above, the Specification provides an explicit definition of a "hardware-based alert signal line." Put succinctly, a "hardware-based alert signal line" is a physical conductor that indicates an alert by carrying an on-or-off signal. See id. This definition is more specific than the ordinary and customary meaning attributed to a hardware-based communication line. The Specification, however, clearly precludes a broader interpretation by stating that "no signal processing is required to send or receive the alert signal, such as translating between parallel and serial forms, interpreting packet information, and the like." Id. Rather, an "alert signal line" that is "hardware-based" according to the Specification, is one that is limited to being activated merely by applying a specified voltage, for example, using a "set of 'OR' gates with inputs coupled to the power supply units 106 and outputs coupled to the alert signal line." See Spec. ,r 17. Moreover, Appellants' argument in the Appeal Brief shows a clear intent to limit the claimed "hardware-based alert signal line" to the definition provided in the Specification. See App. Br. 8. Nielsen discloses a system with "an uninterruptible power supply (UPS) 302 receiving input power 308 and providing power 306 to data center servers 304 in a data center." Nielsen ,r 44. In an embodiment where a power disruption occurs, the UPS 302 has lost input power, and is providing power 306 to the data center servers 304 from a stored energy source. Upon detection of the disruption of input power 308, the management server running the data center infrastructure management software 310 controls the host servers 304 to operate in a reduced power mode of operation .... 5 Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 ... [T]he data center infrastructure management software 310 receives an alert from the UPS 302 indicating that the UPS is operating in a first, stored energy, mode .... . . . [T]he data center infrastructure management software 310 instructs the virtualization management software 3 12 to suspend execution of one or more virtual machines on the host servers 304 receiving power from the UPS 302. Nielsen ,r,r 45--47. Accordingly, Nielsen controls servers 304 in the event of a power disruption by sending an alert from UPS 302 to data center infrastructure management software 310, which in tum instructs virtualization management software 312 to suspend certain virtual machines executing on the servers 304. See id.; Fig. 4. The Examiner finds Nielsen teaches "a hardware-based alert signal line (connection from 302 to servers 304, a hardware connection) that couples the power distribution system to the plurality of server nodes [Fig- 4]" (Final Act. 2), and "'receive an alert from UPS 302' [Para: 0046 and Fig-5(402)] and the alert signal is distributed to server nodes." Ans. 4. The Examiner has not specifically identified, however, where in the communications from UPS 302 to software 310 to software 312 to servers 304 (see Nielsen ,r,r 45--47; Fig. 4) there is a physical conductor that indicates an alert by carrying an on-or-off signal, as required by claim 1 according the interpretation discussed above. To the extent the Examiner relies on the power 306 provided from UPS 302 to servers 304 (see Nielsen, Fig. 4) to show a "hardware-based alert signal line," there is no disclosure in Nielsen of providing an alert through some pathway that provides power 306. 6 Appeal 2018-003767 Application 14/296,007 We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting as anticipated independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-10 for the same reasons. Obviousness The Examiner has not shown the Ng and Kamuf references cure the deficiency of Nielsen discussed above with respect to claim 1, from which claims 3-6 and 8 depend. Accordingly, we are also constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-6 and 8 as obvious. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(a)(2), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10. Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3---6 and 8. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10. REVERSED 7