Ex Parte Mahadevan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

13384977 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/384,977 01119/2012 Priya Mahadevan
56436 7590 03/30/2016
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.
82924272 5058
EXAMINER
MAK,PETERK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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 PRIY A MAHADEV AN, PUNEET SHARMA,
and SUJATABANERJEE
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1-15. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 The Appeal Brief identifies The Hewlett-Packard Development Company,
LP, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a network switch configured to have a deep sleep
mode. See Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 15 are independent. The claims have not been
argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some
formatting added:
1. A deep sleep power management circuit in a switch
connected to a network, the management circuit comprising:
a port configured to receive a packet via the network
while the switch is in a deep sleep mode;
a wake-up circuit configured to determine whether the
packet is a magic packet including a unique ID for the port or
the switch,
wherein if the packet is the magic packet including the
unique ID for the port or the switch, the wake-up circuit is
configured to send a wake-up signal to at least one component
in the switch to wake up the at least one component from the
deep sleep mode.
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 4, 2013, "App. Br."), the Reply
Brief (filed April 28, 2014, Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed
February 28, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed August 30, 2013,
"Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 19, 2012, "Spec.") for
their respective details.
2
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
Swamy
Stevens, IV
("Stevens")
Lo et al.
("Lo")
US 2006/0072594 Al
US 2009/0133040 Al
US 8,345,673 B 1
The claims stand rejected as follows:
Apr. 6, 2006
May 21, 2009
Jan. 1, 2013
1. Claims 1, 4---6, 9, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as anticipated by Stevens. Final Act. 3-7.
2. Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Stevens and Swamy. Final Act. 8-9.
3. Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Stevens and Lo. Final Act. 9-10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1-15 in light of
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Upon
consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and Reply
Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are
3
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
unpatentable over the cited combination of references. We adopt as our own
the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which this appeal is
taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We provide the following explanation
to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for
emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are
presented in the Appeal Brief.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1: ANTICIPATION BY STEVENS
A deep sleep power management circuit in a switch connected to a network.
Appellants contend Stevens fails to disclose "[a] deep sleep power
management circuit in a switch connected to a network, the management
circuit comprising: a port configured to receive a packet via the network
while the switch is in a deep sleep mode," as recited in independent Claim 1.
Appellants argue that Stevens discloses a system 12 which includes server
blade(s) 20 and a chassis management controller (CMC) 22 coupled to a
backplane 24. The system may include switch 30. App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants characterize Stevens as providing a "Wake on LAN" method in
which a wake-up packet is sent while switch 30 is in a deep sleep mode.
However, Appellants argue Stevens discloses switch 30 does not receive the
wake-up packet, instead "Stevens provides that 'the wake-up packet sent
from remote node 14 may be received by host network interface device 70 of
CMC 22. In this example, the wake-up packet is not received by host
4
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
network interface device 48 for Blade A, because Blade A is powered
down."' App. Br. 10 (citing Stevens if 52).
The Examiner finds each of Stevens' plurality of blades may be
configured to switch data. Ans. 3 (citing Stevens if 18). The Examiner
further finds, where an information handling system, including blades
coupled to a back plane, is configured to switch data, it can be considered a
switch. Thus, the Examiner does not consider "switch 30" disclosed by
Stevens, to be the relevant switch. Rather, the Examiner finds Stevens'
"information handling system including blades is very similar to the
operations performed on system shown in Figure 1 of the instant application,
where the wake-up process is performed on peripheral components of the
switching system (e.g., a line card)." Id.
Claim 1 does not define which "at least one component" is woken
from a deep sleep. Therefore, the Examiner finds Stevens' disclosure that
the system receives a packet and determines whether to wake the peripheral
blade component reads on the Examiner's "broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim language." Ans. 3--4.
Appellants contend the Examiner mischaracterizes Stevens'
disclosure. Appellants quote Stevens as disclosing "for the purposes of this
disclosure, an information handling may include any instrumentality or
aggregate of instrumentalities operable to compute, classify, process,
transmit, receive, retrieve, originate, switch, store, display, manifest, detect,
record, reproduce, handle ... " Reply Br. 5 (citing Stevens if 18).
5
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
Appellants argue Stevens distinguishes server blades from switches:
"system 12 may include any number of server blades 20 and a chassis
management controller (CMC) 22 coupled to a backplane 24. System 12
may also include a switch 30." Id. (citing Stevens ,-r 21 ).
We find Appellants' argument too narrowly characterizes Stevens'
disclosure. Stevens discloses:
[A Jn information handling system may include any
instrumentality or aggregate of instrumentalities operable to
compute, classify, process, transmit, receive, retrieve, originate,
switch, store, display, manifest, detect, record, reproduce,
handle, or utilize any form of information, intelligence, or data
for business ....
Stevens i-f 18 (emphasis added). Thus, Stevens does not limit a switch to
only those devices so labeled. In view of Stevens' definition of "information
handling system," each "server blade 20" may also be a "switch" ("Each
server blade 20 may comprise any information handling system configured
to be awakened or booted remotely ... in response to a wake-up message
received from a remote node 14 via network 16"). Stevens ,-r 22. Stevens
discloses:
As used herein, a "wake-up message" or "wake-up packet" may
refer to any message or communication used for waking (e.g.,
booting or powering up) one or more information handling
systems (e.g. one or more blades 20) from a non-awake status
(e.g., a sleep, standby, or powered down status).
6
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
Id. Thus, Stevens discloses that each server blade may be a switch that is
capable of being awakened by a wake-up packet.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the term
"switch" to mean "[a] hardware or programmed device for indicating that
one of several alternative states or conditions have been chosen, or to
interchange or exchange two data items." McGraw Hill Dictionary of
Scientific and Technical Terms, Sixth Edition, p. 2083 (2003). In view of
this definition, Appellants present no evidence to show one of ordinary skill
in the art would construe the claim term "switch" such that it must only
correspond to Stevens' switch 30 and so as to exclude Stevens' server blade
20. Moreover, Appellants' Specification describes "switch" broadly, stating
"[a] switch is a networking device that connects to one or more network
segments. Some examples of switches include large switches, for example
for use in data centers, switches for use in a home or small business, hubs,
repeaters, etc." Spec. i-f 10. Accordingly, nothing in Appellants'
Specification limits the scope of the claimed "switch" to Stevens' "switch
30."
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent
Claim 1.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 9: ANTICIPATION BY STEVENS
7
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
Appellants and the Examiner make substantially similar arguments.
See App. Br. 10-13; Ans. 4. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent Claim 9.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 15: ANTICIPATION BY STEVENS
Appellants and the Examiner make substantially similar arguments.
See App. Br. 13-16; Ans. 4--5. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are
not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting independent Claim 15.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, AND 14
Appellants concede each dependent claim stands or falls together with
the independent claim from which is depends. App. Br. 16. In view of the
.. • 1• • ' 1 1 .1 T"""'1 • • • '. roregomg mscuss10n, we are nm persuaaea me bXammer errs m reJecung
the dependent Claims.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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(a)(l )(iv).
8
Appeal2014-006207
Application 13/384,977
AFFIRMED
9