Ex Parte Koehler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 21, 2016

12999713 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/999,713 12/17/2010 Loren M. Koehler 56436 7590 06/23/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82400886 7765 EXAMINER MALINOWSKI, WALTER J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2496 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/23/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LOREN M. KOEHLER, KIRK M. BRESNIKER, and KAMRAN H. CASIM Appeal2014-008839 Application 12/999, 713 Technology Center 2400 Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-008839 Application 12/999, 713 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a method of providing a communication pathway within a set of conjoined blades of a blade partition based on configuration information and a configuration rule. See Spec. i-f 5. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below. 1. A method of providing a communication pathway within a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade partition, said method comprising: providing an identification of blades within a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade partition; providing configuration information to enable configuring of said blades to function according to a configuration rule, wherein said configuration information configures each of said blades with a management role with respect to other of said blades and wherein said configuration rule includes said identification of said blades within said blade partition; and subsequent to said configuring, interconnecting configured blades within said blade partition based on said configuration information to establish a communication path\x1ay within said blade partition. App. Br. 21. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2004/0024831 Al, Feb. 5, 2004), Matthews et al. (US 7,539,744 B2, May 26, 2009), and Islam et al. (US 2008/0034067 Al, Feb. 7, 2008). Final Act. 13-29. 2. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Matthews, Islam, and McGraw (US 2002/0188709 Al, Dec. 12, 2002). Final Act. 30. 2 Appeal2014-008839 Application 12/999, 713 3. Claims 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Matthews, Islam, and Espinoza-Ibarra et al. (US 2004/0030773 Al, Feb. 12, 2004). Final Act. 30-31. 4. Claims 7, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Matthews, Islam, and Kamimura et al. (JP Kokai 2006-309477; Nov. 9, 2006). Final Act. 32-33. 5. Claims 10-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Yang, Matthews, Islam, and Rietze et al. (US 2003/0210522 Al, Nov. 13, 2003). Final Act. 33-34. ANALYSIS A. Whether the relied upon references teach or suggest "subsequent to said configuring, interconnecting configured blades within said blade partition based on said configuration information to establish a communication pathway within said blade partition, " as recited in claim 1 Appellants argue Yang does not teach, and even teaches away from, "subsequent to said configuring, interconnecting configured blades within said blade partition based on said configuration information to establish a communication pathway within said blade partition" because, in Yang, the blades send heartbeat signals to each other to determine their management roles, and such heartbeat signals imply that a communication pathway is established before configuring the blades, rather than subsequent to configuring the blades. App. Br. 5---6. Appellants further argue: relying on Islam's establishing of Islam's communication pathway (e.g., the universal fabric) for all of the components that are later separated into zones to be one and the same as Islam's configuring (see Islam 0003 quoted in part herein) does not teach 3 Appeal2014-008839 Application 12/999, 713 or suggest, and even teaches away from "subsequent to said configuring, interconnecting configured blades within said blade partition based on said configuration information to establish a communication pathway within said blade partition," as recited by independent Claim 1. App. Br. 7. Appellants contend "Islam's configuration/reconfiguration [is] one and the same as Islam's interconnecting" and thus such interconnecting does not occur subsequent to Islam's configuration/reconfiguration. App. Br. 8. We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments because they are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Claim 1 recites "subsequent to .. . configuring [the blades with a management role], interconnecting [the] configured blades ... based on said configuration information to establish a communication pathway." Claim 1 does not preclude the blades from communicating with each other before they are configured. It only requires that subsequent to configuration the configured blades be interconnected to establish a communication pathway, based on the configuration information. Further, we agree with the Examiner that Islam's teaching is not limited to only a single communication (as also suggested by Islam's paragraph 0003), and a second communication pathway may be established after the initial configuration. This communication can be interpreted to allow an alternation between configuring and interconnecting as well as alternation between interconnecting and configuring which does not preclude the blades from communicating with each other before they are configured. Ans. 9. 4 Appeal2014-008839 Application 12/999, 713 B. Whether J\lfatthews teaches or suggests "providing an identification of blades within a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade partition, " as recited in claim 1 Appellants argue Matthews "rel[ies] on each blade to have its own unique identification" and that therefore Matthews "does not teach or suggest and even teaches away from 'providing an identification of blades within a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade partition,' (emphasis added) as recited by independent Claim 1." App. Br. 6 (citing Matthews 9:16). We are unpersuaded by Appellants' argument. Matthews teaches that blades have a "globally unique Blade ID (e.g. slot number)." Matthews 9: 16. We agree with the Examiner that this teaches or suggests providing an identification of blades within a predefined set of conjoined blades of a blade partition. See Final Act. 15 (citing Matthews 9:16-21). Also, Appellants' Specification describes identifying blades by slot number. See Spec. ,-r 34. C. Teaching Away Appellants argue that each of Yang, Islam, and Matthews teach away from the claimed invention. See App. Br. 6, 7; see also Reply Br. 2. We disagree. As we explain above, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of references not only does not teach away, but actually teaches the disputed limitations. We further note that a showing of teaching away requires more. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("The prior art's mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed."). The 5 Appeal2014-008839 Application 12/999, 713 Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence that any of the cited references criticizes, discredits, or discourages the disputed limitations. Appellants, instead, are simply arguing that the references do not teach the disputed limitations, which is not sufficient evidence of teaching away from the limitations. D. Conclusion For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 13-15, which Appellants argue as a group. See App. Br. 13-14. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10- 12, 16, and 17, for which Appellants make the same arguments as those addressed above. See App. Br. 14--20. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-17 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6