Ex Parte Martin-Otto et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13430363 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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.
13/430,363 03/26/2012 William Fred Martin-Otto RPS920110070-US-NP 3625
89633 7590
Brian Pangrle
Pangrle Patent, Brand & Design Law, P.C.
3500 W Olive Ave
3rd Floor
Burbank, CA 91505
EXAMINER
MILLISER, THERON S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
brian@ppbdlaw.com
docket @ ppbdlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM FRED MARTIN-OTTO, TIMOTHY
SAMUEL FARROW, ALBERT VINCENT MAKLEY, and
MARC RICHARD PAMLEY
Appeal 2016-001458
Application 13/430,363
Technology Center 2800
Before CHUNG K. PAK, CHRISTOPHER L. OGDEN, and BRIAN D.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—18. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Lenovo Singapore
Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001458
Application 13/430,363
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the invention as “generally relating] to drive
cages and wires.” Spec. 11. In particular, the Specification explains that a
drive cage may include drive bays capable of receiving one or more drives.
Spec. 15, 16, Fig. 3. Claims 1 and 12, reproduced below with emphasis
added to certain key recitations, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A drive cage comprising:
a base side and a top side that define altitude of the drive
cage;
a front end and a back end that define longitude of the
drive cage;
a lateral side disposed between the front end and the back
end and between the base side and the top side;
drive bays wherein each drive bay extends
longitudinally;
a first wire bundle clip fixed to the top side that extends
longitudinally to a free end; and
a second wire bundle clip fixed to the lateral side that
extends altitudinally to a free end.
12. A system comprising:
one or more processors;
memory;
a power supply;
a drive cage that comprises
a base side and a top side that define altitude of the drive
cage,
a front end and a back end that define longitude of the
drive cage,
a lateral side disposed between the front end and the back
end and between the base side and the top side, and
2
Appeal 2016-001458
Application 13/430,363
drive bays wherein each drive bay extends longitudinally;
at least one drive disposed in one of the drive bays of the drive
cage; and
a wire bundle that extends from the power supply towards
the drive cage and that comprises a longitudinal to altitudinal
bend along the lateral side of the drive cage for passage of the
wire bundle to the top side of the drive cage.
Appeal Br.2 22 (Claims App’x).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Albani et al. US 5,835,346
(hereinafter “Albani”)
Matsusaka US 2006/0024078 Al
Boe US 2007/0002530 Al
ATX Speceification v. 2.2, Intel Corp., 2003-2004
(hereinafter “the ATX Specification”)
Nov. 10, 1998
Feb. 2,2006
Jan. 4,2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal:
Rejection 1. Claims 1—10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Boe. Final Act. 2.
Rejection 2. Claims 12—15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Albani. Id. at 4.
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed December 31,
2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed June 30, 2015 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 17, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed November 17, 2015 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2016-001458
Application 13/430,363
Rejection 3. Claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Boe and further in view of the ATX Specification. Id. at 7.
Rejection 4. Claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Albani and further in view of the ATX Specification. Id. at 8.
Rejection 5. Claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Albani and further in view of Matsuka. Id. at 9.
ANALYSIS
Rejections 1 and 3 (claims 1—11). The Examiner finds that Boe
teaches each element of claim 1 and therefore, concludes that Boe
anticipates claim 1. Final Act. 2—3. While the Examiner did not clearly
indicate what part of the Boe disclosure corresponds with the “drive cage,”
in the Answer, the Examiner clarified that the overall structure illustrated by
Boe Figure 3 corresponds to the recited drive cage of claim 1. Ans. 4.
Appellants argue that Boe fails to disclose “a drive cage that includes
drive bays,” Reply Br. 7, and we agree. The Examiner finds that the drive
bays are disclosed by housing 335 of Boe Figures 1—3, and that Boe
“recit[es] the housing of 3 and Vi inch drive along with multiple 3 and Vi and
5 and U drives.” Final Act 2; Ans. 10—11. The Examiner does not provide
citations relating to Boe having multiple “drive bays” except to Boe’s
Figures, and we do not discern where Boe discloses that the overall structure
of Boe Figure 3 is a drive cage that includes more than one drive bay. Nor
has the Examiner directed us to persuasive support for the finding that
housing 335 is a “drive bay.” Rather, the box shaped structure of Boe
Figure 3 appears to be a housing for an electrical component such as a drive,
and thus part of the drive itself, rather than being a “drive bay” in the
ordinary meaning of that term and as contemplated by the Specification. See
4
Appeal 2016-001458
Application 13/430,363
Spec. Fig. 3. The Specification refers to drive bays as an example of
“features,” in the drive cage, for “receipt of one or more [drives].” See id.
116.
With respect to the Examiner’s third rejection, the Examiner’s
application of the ATX Specification with respect to claim 11 does not cure
the issue discussed above. Final Act. 7. Therefore, for the reason explained
above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—11.
Rejections 2, 4, and 5 (claims 12—18). The Examiner finds that
Albani teaches each element of claim 12 and therefore concludes that Albani
anticipates claim 12. Final Act. 5. Appellants argue that Albani fails to
teach “a wire bundle that extends from the power supply towards the drive
cage and that comprises a longitudinal to altitudinal bend along the lateral
side of the drive cage for passage of the wire bundle to the top side of the
drive cage.” Appeal Br. 17.
The Examiner finds that wire bundle 38 as depicted in Figures 2 and 3
of Albani meet this limitation. Final Act. 5. Albani states that “Cables 38
then run between partition wall 20 and power supply 36/hard drive 18. . . .”
Albani 3:29-33. Based on Albani’s Figure 2 and this text, it appears that
cables 38 are a data cable (a cable that would not typically be attached to a
power supply), and the text appears to be explaining that the cables 38 run in
the physical gap between the partition wall 20 and the location of the power
supply 36 and hard drive 18. Thus, a preponderance of the evidence does
not support that Albani’s cable 38 is connected to Albani’s power supply or
hard drive.
In contrast, claim 12 requires a “wire bundle that extends from the
power supply” and, in view of the Specification, we construe this recitation
5
Appeal 2016-001458
Application 13/430,363
as requiring that the wire bundle be electrically connected to the power
supply. See Spec. Fig. 2 (depicting wires attached to the power supply), Fig.
3 (depicting wire bundle 350 coming out of the power supply 320); 117
(explaining Figure 2 and stating that it illustrates wires “that may extend
from the power supply 220”). A preponderance of the evidence does not
support that Albani’s cable 38 meets this recitation.
With respect to the Examiner’s fourth and fifth rejections, the
Examiner’s application of the ATX Specification and Matsuka do not cure
this issue. Final Act. 8—10. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 12—18.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-18.
REVERSED
6