Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2016

11948854 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111948,854 11130/2007 31625 7590 09/02/2016 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. PA TENT DEPARTMENT 98 SAN JACINTO BL VD., SUITE 1500 AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Clint H. O'Connor 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. 016295.3545 3550 EXAMINER HARRELL, ROBERT B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2442 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): tracy.perez@bakerbotts.com juli.luong@BakerBotts.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CLINT H. O'CONNOR, ALFRED C. HARTMANN, and KEITH R. ABELL Appeal2015-002391 Application 11/948,854 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 26-27, 29--36, and 38--45, i.e., all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dell Products L.P. Br. 3. Appeal2015-002391 Application 11/948,854 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention The invention relates generally to the field of computer power consumption and concerns power-supply sequencing for systems with multiple processors and multiple power supplies. Spec. 1 :2-5, 4:27---6:8, Abstract. 2 Representative Claims Independent claims 26 and 36 exemplify the subject matter of the claims under consideration and read as follows with italics identifying the limitations at issue: 26. A method for power management in a computer system including multiple processors and multiple power supplies operable to supply power to the multiple processors, the method compnsmg: receiving a notification of a pending change in an operating status of one or more of the multiple processors at a povver management engine; and in response to the received notification: accessing, by the power management engine, a dynamic table listing historical power-related data regarding the one or more of the multiple processors having the pending change in the operating status; determining an adjustment of the one or more of the multiple power supplies by the power management engine based at least on the accessed historical power- related data regarding the one or more of the multiple processors; and 2 This decision employs the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the Specification, filed November 30, 2007; "Final Act." for the Final Office Action, mailed December 1 7, 2013; "Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed July 10, 2014; and "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed October 27, 2014. 2 Appeal2015-002391 Application 11/948,854 adjusting one or more of the multiple power supplies by the power management engine before the pending change in the operating status of the one or more of the multiple processors is implemented. 3 6. A method for power management in a computer system including multiple processors and multiple power supplies operable to supply power to the multiple processors, the method compnsmg: receiving a notification of a change in an operating status of one or more of the multiple processors at a power management engine; accessing a dynamic table listing historical power- related data regarding the one or more of the multiple processors by the power management engine, the historical power-related data comprises at least one of inrush current data and steady state current data regarding the one or more of the multiple processors; and adjusting one or more of the multiple power supplies by the power management engine based at least on the accessed historical power-related data regarding the one or more of the multiple processors. Br. 13, 15 (Claims App.). The Rejection on Appeal Claims 26-27, 29-36, and 38--45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102( e) as anticipated by Patent Application Publication US 2002/0066045 Al to Layton et al. ("Layton"), published on May 30, 2002. Final Act. 2-3; Br. 6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the final rejection, Appellants' arguments, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We agree with Appellants 3 Appeal2015-002391 Application 11/948,854 that the Examiner erred in finding that Layton discloses each claim limitation arranged as in the claims. Independent Claims 26 and 41 Claims 26 and 41 recite "receiving a notification of a pending change in an operating status of one or more of the multiple processors at a power management engine." Br. 13, 16 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that Layton's disclosure meets this limitation because Layton (a) issues a warning signal that alerts an operator of the need to add more power supplies if the number of power supplies for various servers does not meet certain requirements and (b) forecasts the number of power supplies for various server configurations. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4--5 (citing Layton i-fi-127, 29). Appellants argue that Layton does not disclose "receiving a notification of a pending change in an operating status of one or more of the multiple processors" because Layton "fails to discuss an 'operating status' of a processor in any manner." Br. 9. We agree with Appellants. The Specification repeatedly and consistently distinguishes processors from servers. E.g., Spec. 10:23-19:2, 19:20-32:14, Fig. 1, Fig. 2b, Fig. 3; see In re Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., 696 F.3d 1142, 1149-50 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (vacating Board decision due to Board's unreasonably broad claim interpretation). The portions of Layton that the Examiner cites concern the operating status of servers, not processors. The Examiner has not shown that Layton discloses "receiving a notification of a pending change" in processor "operating status." Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 41. 4 Appeal2015-002391 Application 11/948,854 Independent Claim 3 6 The Examiner finds that claim 3 6' s accessing step reads on Layton because Layton (a) periodically samples and stores the values of power usage, (b) determines a running average of power usage using the stored values, and ( c) determines the maximum value of power usage using the stored values. Final Act. 5, Ans. 7 (citing Layton i-fi-123-25). Appellants argue that Layton does not disclose claim 3 6 's accessing step because "Layton merely discloses sampling and storing power being utilized by the servers" and "contains no disclosure of 'a dynamic table listing historical power-related data regarding ... processors."' Br. 10. Again, we agree with Appellants. Among other things, Layton explains that a server configuration change causes the system to recalculate the running average of power usage. Layton i124. Layton also explains that the system employs the maximum value of power usage to determine whether the number of power supplies for various servers meets certain requirements. Id. i-fi-126-27. The portions of Layton that the Examiner cites concern data for servers, not processors. The Examiner has not shown that Layton discloses a table according to claim 36. Hence, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 36. Dependent Claims 27, 29-35, 38-40, and 42-45 Claims 27 and 29-35 depend from claim 26; claims 38--40 depend from claim 36; and claims 42--45 depend from claim 41. Appellants do not argue the patentability of these claims separately. See Br. 11. For the reasons discussed above regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain the rejection of the associated dependent claims. 5 Appeal2015-002391 Application 11/948,854 DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 26-27, 29-36, and 38--45 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e). REVERSED 6