Ex Parte Hanson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 2012

11863688 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/863,688 09/28/2007 George E. Hanson 02-4395.1D 2140 27683 7590 09/20/2012 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 EXAMINER WALKER, KEITH D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1726 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2012 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 GEORGE E. HANSON and SEAN G. WINTER __________ Appeal 2011-002868 Application 11/863,688 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002868 Application 11/863,688 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims 11-30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of providing backup power to a storage subsystem of a computing device that uses a fuel cell backup (Claim 11, Spec. 2: 5-6). Claim 11 is illustrative: 11. A method for providing backup power to a storage subsystem of a computing device, comprising: receiving a request from the storage subsystem for backup power via an interface between a controller and the storage subsystem, wherein the controller is coupled to at least one fuel cell; monitoring a status of the at least one fuel cell; asserting a grant signal to the storage subsystem via the interface, wherein the grant signal indicates that caching by the storage subsystem is allowed; and de-asserting the grant signal to the storage subsystem via the interface, wherein de-asserting the grant signal suspends caching in the storage subsystem, wherein the grant signal is asserted or de-asserted based on the status of the at least one fuel cell. Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colborn (US 6,522,955 B1 issued Feb. 18, 2003) in view of Sabotta (US 7,007,184 B2 issued Feb. 28, 2006). Appeal 2011-002868 Application 11/863,688 3 2. Claims 12, 13, 15-17, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Colborn in view of Sabotta and Pearson (US 6,555,989 B1 issued Apr. 29, 2003). REJECTION (1) Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 11 only (App. Br. 9-12). ISSUE Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the combined teachings of Colburn and Sabotta would have rendered obvious the communication of control signals for cache writing as required by claim 11? We decide this issue in the negative. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES The Examiner finds that Colburn teaches all the features of claim 11, except for the “grant” or “de-assert” step with regard to caching (Ans. 3-4). The Examiner relies on Sabotta’s teaching that it is desirable to start or stop caching of information based upon power level so as to avoid losing information during a power failure (id. at 4). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to modify Colborn’s regenerative fuel cell backup system with the caching control system of Sabotta to keep the memory that is stored in cache safe from being lost (id. at 5). Appellants argue that neither Colburn nor Sabotta, alone or in combination, teach or suggest asserting a grant signal to the storage subsystem via the interface, wherein the grant signal indicates that caching by the storage subsystem is allowed, or de-asserting the grant signal to the Appeal 2011-002868 Application 11/863,688 4 storage subsystem via the interface wherein de-asserting the grant signal suspends caching in the storage subsystem (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend that Colburn and Sabotta do not reference a “grant” signal or interface over which a grant signal may be transmitted. Id. Appellants contend that Sabotta’s Intelligent Host Bus Adapter alone determines when to stop or start caching and the adapter does not support the communication of control signals for cache writing across an interface between an external controller and a storage subsystem (id. at 11). Having fully considered Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s findings, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Appellants’ arguments fail to address what the combined teachings of Colburn and Sabotta would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). The Examiner relies on Colburn to teach a regenerative fuel cell system that includes an interface for communication between a fuel cell, communication device and a powered device (e.g,. a computer) (Ans. 3-4, 7- 8). The Examiner finds that Sabotta teaches that it is known to control the caching of data during power failures (id. at 4). The Examiner’s conclusion is based on modifying Colburn’s method to include a start and a stop caching action as taught by Sabotta to avoid the loss of cache data during a power failure (id. at 5 & 7). The Examiner’s rejection is not based upon the bodily incorporation of Sabotta’s Intelligent Host Bus Adapter into Colburn’s regenerative fuel cell device as argued by Appellants. Rather, the combined teachings of Colburn and Sabotta would have suggested the Appeal 2011-002868 Application 11/863,688 5 claimed method of sending “grant” and “de-assert” signals across an interface to start or stop caching in a computer as required by claim 11. Appellants’ arguments fail to explain or show error in the Examiner’s finding that Sabotta’s starting or stopping of caching is the same as the “grant” or “de-assert” steps of the claims. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Colburn and Sabotta. REJECTION (2) Appellants argue claim 21 only (App. Br. 12-13). The Examiner’s rejection may be found on pages 5-7 of the Answer. Appellants argue that Pearson does not teach the claimed “a lead acid battery cache backup array” (id. at 13). Appellants contend that Pearson’s lead-acid battery array is not part of the back-up power array, but only the fuel cell stack provides the backup power (id.). The Examiner responds that Appellants argue features not required by claim 21 (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that claim 21 only requires that a hybrid fuel cell and lead-acid battery backup array be provided to the method (id.). The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. The Examiner properly finds that claim 21 only requires an array of power producing elements that are used for back-up power and include a fuel cell and lead-acid battery array (id.). The order of application of the components of the hybrid back-up system (i.e., fuel cell and then battery or battery and then fuel cell) is not claimed. Also, the portion of Pearson cited by Appellants teaches that the fuel cell is “primarily” used as Appeal 2011-002868 Application 11/863,688 6 supply backup electrical power with the batteries providing surge control and load leveling (App. Br. 13). The Examiner also cites to column 1, lines 14-30 of Pearson that teaches that hybrid backup systems typically provide primary backup electrical energy from the fuel cell and the batteries provide load leveling to meet spikes in electrical demand (Ans. 5). We understand Pearson’s disclosure to teach that both the batteries and fuel cell provide backup electrical power, with the batteries providing power during surges or spikes in electrical demand. Appellants reiterate their argument that Colburn and Sabotta do not teach or suggest the assertion and de-assertion of a grant signal (App. Br. 13). We are unpersuaded by this argument for the same reasons discussed regarding rejection (1) above. On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Colburn, Sabotta and Pearson. DECISION The Examiner’s decision 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. ORDER AFFIRMED bar