Dell Products L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 31, 2020

2019004081 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2020)

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.
14/750,764 06/25/2015 Padmanabhan Narayanan 16356.1769US01_80189 1549
160825 7590 12/31/2020
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP (16356)
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
SNYDER, STEVEN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2020 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PADMANABHAN NARAYANAN
and SUDHARSAN DHAMAL GOPALARATHNAM
Appeal 2019-004081
Application 14/750,764
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DAVID J. CUTITTA II, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the
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(a). Appellant identifies Dell Products, L.P. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-004081
Application 14/750,764

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to monitoring the LED indicators for ports of a
networking device. Spec. Abstract, Title.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A port monitoring system, comprising:
a networking device that includes a device port, wherein
the networking device is configured to:
capture Light Emitting Device (LED) port indicator
data that is associated with the operation of the device
port;
timestamp the LED port indicator data; and
wirelessly transmit the LED port indicator data at a
rate at which the LED port indicator data is being
provided to an LED port indicator; and
a monitoring device that includes a display, wherein the
monitoring device is configured to:
wirelessly receive the LED port indicator data from
the networking device;
determine that the timestamp on the LED port
indicator data satisfies a timing requirement for displaying
an LED port indication in real-time and isochronously
with respect to the LED port indicator data that is being
provided to the LED port indicator; and
provide, in response to determining that the
timestamp on the LED port indicator data satisfies the
timing requirement, a graphical user interface on the
display that includes a graphical LED port indicator that
operates according to the LED port indicator that is being
provided the LED port indicator data.
Appeal 2019-004081
Application 14/750,764

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references as prior art:
Name Number / Title Date
Ayanam US 2012/0084408 A1 Apr. 5, 2012
Cepulis US 2014/0218199 A1 Aug. 7, 2014
Irace US 2012/0026186 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
Krause US 2013/0170451 A1 July 4, 2013
Kui US 2004/0264484 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Lambeth US 8,195,774 B2 June 5, 2012
Lee US 2003/0021276 A1 Jan. 30, 2003
NetGear GS716Tv3, GS724Tv4, and GS748Tv5 Smart
Switches: Software Administration Manual
Sept. 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103:
Claims Rejected References Final Act.
1–4, 8, 9, 11, 15, 16, 20 Kui, Krause, Cepulis 2
10, 17 Kui, Krause, Cepulis, Ayanam 12
5, 18 Kui, Krause, Cepulis, NetGear 14
6, 12, 19 Kui, Krause, Cepulis, Lee 15
7, 13 Kui, Krause, Cepulis, Irace 17
14 Kui, Krause, Cepulis, Lambeth 19
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kui, Krause,
and Cepulis teaches or suggests to “wirelessly transmit the LED port
indicator data at a rate at which the LED port indicator data is being
provided to an LED port indicator” and “provide, in response to determining
that the timestamp on the LED port indicator data satisfies the timing
requirement, a graphical user interface on the display that includes a
graphical LED port indicator that operates according to the LED port
indicator that is being provided the LED port indicator data,” as recited in
claim 1?
Appeal 2019-004081
Application 14/750,764

4
ANALYSIS
First, claim 1 recites to “provide . . . a graphical user interface on the
display that includes a graphical LED port indicator that operates according
to the LED port.”
Appellant argues that although Kui discloses showing a color-coded
table with certain information about a port, “Kui simply discloses that a
‘current status’ of each port is displayed”; “it is not necessarily present that
the ports 119 include port indicators at all”; and “there is no teaching of a
graphical LED port indicator in Kui.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The Examiner relies
on Cepulis for teaching monitoring port LED indicators, not Kui. Ans. 21–
22. The Examiner relies on Kui for “teaching a GUI to provide a port
monitoring system to view the status of ports.” Id. Thus, the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious that the combination “would
include a GUI with color coded port statuses [as in Kui] that correspond to
physical port [LED] indicators [as in Cepulis].” Id. at 22. Appellant’s
attack on Kui individually fails to address the Examiner’s rejection relying
on Cepulis and its combination. “Non-obviousness cannot be established by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Second, claim 1 further recites to “wirelessly transmit the LED port
indicator data at a rate at which the LED port indicator data is being
provided to an LED port indicator.”
Appellant argues that “Cepulis does not teach that the BMC provides
that information to the management device at a rate at which the information
Appeal 2019-004081
Application 14/750,764

5
is being provided to the LEDs” because “Cepulis teaches storing information
about status changes in log files that the management device can retrieve.”
Appeal Br. 12.
However, the Examiner correctly points out that Cepulis discloses
logs as “another” example in paragraph 26, different from the embodiment
previously discussed in paragraph 25. Ans. 25. Further, the Examiner relies
on Krause for “teaching real-time transport protocol including timestamps
and deadlines,” not Cepulis. Id.
Although Appellant attempts to newly argue in the Reply Brief a lack
of reason to combine Kui and Krause because they are directed to different
problems, require significant changes, and do not have a reasonable
expectation of success, see Reply Br. 9–10, “any arguments or authorities
not included in the appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board
for purposes of the present appeal.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Moreover,
“[a]ny argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal
brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner’s answer,
. . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal,
unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Here, the Final
Office Action reasonably articulated the Examiner’s combination, including
the reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references. Final Act. 2–7. Thus, Appellant has not shown good cause for
introducing such new arguments in the Reply Brief, and we do not consider
those arguments.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1,
independent claims 8 and 15 which recite commensurate limitations, and
dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20, which Appellant argues are
Appeal 2019-004081
Application 14/750,764

6
patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal Br. 13; 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
OUTCOME
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References /
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 8, 9, 11,
15, 16, 20
103 Kui, Krause,
Cepulis
1–4, 8, 9, 11,
15, 16, 20

10, 17 103 Kui, Krause,
Cepulis, Ayanam
10, 17
5, 18 103 Kui, Krause,
Cepulis, NetGear
5, 18
6, 12, 19 103 Kui, Krause,
Cepulis, Lee
6, 12, 19
7, 13 103 Kui, Krause,
Cepulis, Irace
7, 13
14 103 Kui, Krause,
Cepulis, Lambeth
14
Overall
Outcome
1–20
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED