Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 13, 2022

2020006656 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2022)

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. 14/957,210 12/02/2015 Luis Chardon 90114048 8354 56436 7590 01/13/2022 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER HUYNH, THU V ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2022 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): chris.mania@hpe.com hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte LUIS CHARDON, CARLOS J. FELIX, JOSE MEJIAS, and WILLIAM J. NAVAS ____________ Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 41-60, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development L.P. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to monitoring and “provid[ing] measured values for a wide variety of physical and electrical environmental parameters within [a] datacenter.” Spec. ¶ 2. “The increased size of datacenters has brought with it an increase in the complexity of the interaction of environmental parameters affecting the operation of equipment within the datacenters,” which has led to “the need for datacenter-wide environmental monitoring.” Id. ¶ 1. Accurately tracking “changes in the operating environment of datacenter equipment” includes “the use of monitoring sensors and appliances.” Id. ¶ 2. The data collected “may not be very useful to operators in identifying and/or predicting in real- time the types of large scale environmental trends or issues,” and may include such a “large number of measurements that need to be monitored” that “subject operators to information overload, creating a substantial risk that an impending or actual failure will go unnoticed.” Id. The present invention endeavors to provide “technique[s] for monitoring such a large number of parameters over a large area” by using “3-dimensional (3-D) color visualization to display differences and changes in the monitored parameters.” Id. ¶ 15. Claim 41, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 41. A method for monitoring a datacenter, comprising: collecting data samples of an environmental parameter for equipment within a datacenter from data sensors associated with the equipment; generating processed data values of the environmental parameter based at least in part on the data samples and Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 3 respective position data associated with the data sensors from which the data samples were collected; programmatically mapping the processed data values to one of a plurality of colors, wherein each color indicates a single value of the environmental parameter; and facilitating visual assessment by an operator of the datacenter of an overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter throughout the datacenter by displaying a three-dimensional (3-D) image representing the datacenter, including displaying the processed data values as regions of colors on surfaces of 3-D representations of the equipment. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). REJECTIONS2 Claims 41-60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rasmussen et al. (US 2007/0038414 A1; published Feb. 15, 2007) (“Rasmussen”) and Kopelman (US 2005/0265895 A1; published Dec. 1, 2005). Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS Claims 41, 42, 44-51, and 53-60 Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Rasmussen and Kopelman teaches or suggests (emphasis added): facilitating visual assessment by an operator of the datacenter of an overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter throughout the datacenter by displaying a three-dimensional (3-D) image representing the datacenter, including displaying the processed data values as 2 The Examiner rejected claims 41-60 under nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 of U.S. Patent No. 9,251,608 and Rasmussen. Final Act. 3-6. Appellant subsequently filed a terminal disclaimer on February 21, 2020, which was approved and entered on February 21, 2020. Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 4 regions of colors on surfaces of 3-D representations of the equipment as recited in independent claim 41 and commensurately recited in independent claims 50 and 54? The Examiner finds that Rasmussen’s “displaying measured data on a 3-D display of the data center” and “using different colors to depict processed results” teaches the foregoing limitation. Final Act. 4 (citing Rasmussen ¶¶ 17, 21, 29, 72, 106, 115, 222). Specifically, the Examiner finds that “Rasmussen’s teaching of continuously[ ]measure/monitor[ing] and display[ing] such power and cooling in measured data/values and colors to reflect updates to the user . . . facilitate[s] the user to understand/recognize . . . overall values of power and cooling data/values in the data center in real- time.” Ans. 9-10 (citing Rasmussen ¶¶ 21, 72, 76, 85, 116, Fig. 4); see also id. at 11. Appellant argues that “Rasmussen’s ‘display of measured data’” does not “facilitate[] a visual assessment ‘of an overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter throughout the datacenter’ as required.” Appeal Br. 16. Specifically, Appellant argues that Rasmussen’s “indicat[ing] design guidelines are being violated and/or that power and cooling capacities are projected to be exceeded” and highlighting the “‘differences between measured parameters and calculated parameters’ and/or ‘out of tolerance conditions’” do not “facilitate ‘visual assessment by an operator of the datacenter of an overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter throughout the datacenter’” as claimed. Id. at 17. According to Appellant, Rasmussen’s providing “a visual indication regarding whether the measured parameter meets certain conditions” does not teach “mak[ing] a ‘visual assessment Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 5 . . . of an overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter . . .’ .” Id. at 18. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. As cited by the Examiner, Rasmussen discloses that “a room model is displayed showing the locations of the equipment in the facility” and that “actual power and cooling data may be displayed.” Rasmussen ¶ 72. Rasmussen also discloses that “colors may be used, either alone or in combination with data, to display different levels of power and cooling availability.” Id. The example in Rasmussen explains that “power and cooling capacity and availability may be monitored in real time.” Id. ¶ 85. Rasmussen also discloses that “analysis is performed in real-time, and user displays are updated as the user enters data into the system.” Id. ¶ 115. In other words, the sections of Rasmussen cited by the Examiner teach displaying real-time (i.e., instantaneous) power and cooling data (i.e., environmental parameters) using colors. Appellant has not persuasively explained why the claimed instantaneous data does not include Rasmussen’s real-time data. As a result, Appellant has not persuasively explained why Rasmussen’s display of updated real-time environmental data does not teach the claimed display of “facilitat[ing] visual assessment . . . of an overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter.” Appellant also argues that “Kopelman is non-analogous art to the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it address a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 6 by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1447 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant contends that “[t]he field of endeavor of the claimed invention generally relates to monitoring an environmental parameter (e.g., temperature, humidity, or power consumption) of equipment within a datacenter to allow a datacenter operator to visually assess the overall distribution of instantaneous values of the environmental parameter distribution throughout the datacenter.” Id. at 12 (citing Spec. Fig. 1, ¶¶ 15, 17). Appellant argues that “Kopelman has no relationship to datacenters in general and certainly does not relate to the field of monitoring and visualizing datacenters more specifically,” and “is clearly outside of the field of the inventor’s endeavor.” Id. at 12. In addition, Appellant argues that “[t]he problem addressed . . . relates to the difficulties and complexities associated datacenter-wide environmental monitoring and assessment of instantaneous values of an environmental parameter of interest (e.g., temperature, humidity and power consumption) throughout equipment racks and/or equipment enclosures of the datacenter.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 1-3, 15) (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that “it is clearly improper for Kopelman’s devices, methods, and kits for quickly and easily measuring and monitoring the pH of aquatic environments, such as lakes, streams, drinking waters, fisheries, aquariums, pools, hot-tubs, and spas to be characterized as being ‘reasonably pertinent’ to the particular problem relating to the monitoring and assessment of datacenter-wide environmental parameters” of the claim. Id. at 13. Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 7 We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellant has not provided sufficient argument that Kopelman is not from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention; rather, Appellant has taken an overly narrow view of the field of endeavor that is inconsistent with the Specification that “physical and electrical environmental parameters (e.g., temperature, humidity, and power consumption) must be monitored and maintained within certain limits,” and that “such a large number of parameters” is monitored by “us[ing] 3-dimensional (3-D) color visualization to display differences and changes in the monitored parameters.” Spec. ¶ 15. The Specification describes that “datacenter operators have increasingly turned to the use of monitoring sensors and appliances” in order to “more accurately track changes in the operating environment of datacenter equipment,” but that “the large number of measurements that need to be monitored in a large datacenter may rapidly subject operators to information overload.” Id. ¶ 2. The use of 3-D color visualization allows “the operator to assess the” parameters “throughout the datacenter at a glance, and without having to read numerical or graphical readings for individual sensors.” Id. ¶ 15. The Specification further states that the “3-D images reflect real-time values that are continuously collected from sensors placed throughout the datacenter.” Id. ¶ 17. The sensor data “is collected from a variety of sensors,” which include “temperature, humidity, and air flow sensors” and otherwise are “capable of monitoring a wide variety of parameters associated with datacenter equipment.” Id. ¶ 18. The “[d]ata collected from each of the sensors provides a sample point,” and the sensors may utilize many “positions, gradations and interpolation techniques.” Id. ¶ 29. Although the Specification describes displaying color Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 8 visualization for data at a datacenter, the data collected is from sensors monitoring a wide variety of parameters from many positions and using many interpolation techniques, and the data is displayed with color visualization. Kopelman is generally directed to “quickly and easily measuring and monitoring the pH of aquatic environments” using “devices that are reusable and capable of monitoring the pH” by “placing the device into the aquatic environment and optically detecting a color change.” Kopelman, code (57). As cited by the Examiner, Kopelman discloses “a device for continuously monitoring the pH of an aquatic environment, including a sensor membrane” that has “a membrane and an indicator dye,” which “changes color” depending on the pH. Kopelman ¶ 15; see Final Act. 10. Although Kopelman displays color for pH data in an aquatic environment, the data is collected from sensors and the data is displayed with color visualization. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that both the application and Kopelman relate to “monitoring/measuring data in real time and presenting monitored/measured data with colors to user.” Ans. 8 (citing Kopelman, code (57), ¶¶ 23, 37) (emphasis omitted); see also Final Act. 10 (citing Kopelman ¶¶ 15-16). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that both the application and Kopelman are from the same field of endeavor of monitoring and measuring data and displaying the data with color visualization. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Kopelman is not analogous art to the claimed invention. Accordingly we sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 41, 50, and 54, as well as the § 103(a) rejection of Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 9 dependent claims 42, 44-49, 51, 53, and 55-60, not separately argued. See Appeal Br. 18, 19. Claims 43 and 52 Claim 43, and commensurately claim 52, further recites “wherein said generating processed data values comprises interpolating values of the environmental parameter within two-dimensional (2-D) planes in between at least some of the data sensors and wherein the 2-D planes each correspond to a displayed surface of the plurality of equipment racks or equipment enclosures.” The Examiner finds that Rasmussen’s use of “best-fit curves to determine values expressed as colors in 3-D environment (mathematically a series of 2-D planes)” teaches interpolating values within 2-D planes corresponding to equipment racks and enclosures. Final Act. 8 (citing Rasmussen ¶¶ 207, 21, 106, 72). The Examiner relies on Rasmussen’s “obtain[ing] airflow data/values within a cluster of equipment racks arranged as rows in 3D” to “indicate[] that each of the equipment rack[s]” are “displayed [as] 2-D plane[s].” Ans. 12 (citing Rasmussen ¶¶ 46, 74, Fig. 8) (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues that Rasmussen does not teach 2-D planes or interpolation of values within 2-D planes. Appeal Br. 18-19. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not address the Examiner’s findings, or otherwise explain why Rasmussen does not teach 2-D planes or interpolation of values within 2-D planes. As cited by the Examiner, Rasmussen discloses that “the equipment is installed in the facility according to the layout,” including that “measurement equipment to measure cooling characteristics and power characteristics may be installed Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 10 with the equipment.” Rasmussen ¶ 74. These layouts include “information for each rack [that] may be included in tabular form on a graphical display showing the room layout,” and the rack information “includes a row number and a rack number” or “membership of the rack to a particular row, zone or cluster.” Id. ¶¶ 80-81. In other words, Rasmussen teaches 2-D planes represented by layouts of the racks and the measurement equipment. Appellant does not contest that Rasmussen teaches “the use of best-fit curves in connection with” measurement equipment data. Appeal Br. 18-19; see Rasmussen ¶ 207 (“end of row airflows are determined using best-fit curves”). Appellant has not persuasively explained why Rasmussen’s using best-fit curves in connection with measurement data does not teach “interpolating values of the environmental parameter” as claimed. Appellant has also not persuasively explained why Rasmussen’s measurement data from the measurement equipment with 2-D layouts does not teach “values of the environmental parameter within two-dimensional (2-D) planes in between at least some of the data sensors and wherein the 2-D planes each correspond to a displayed surface of the plurality of equipment racks or equipment enclosures” as claimed. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 43 and 52. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 41-60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2020-006656 Application 14/957,210 11 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 41-60 103(a) Rasmussen, Kopelman 41-60 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f) (2019). AFFIRMED