Ex Parte 6170067 et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2014

90012325 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2014)

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.
90/012,325 05/30/2012 6170067 016295.4365 1207
27299 7590 12/18/2014
GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SUITE 201
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127
EXAMINER
CRAVER, CHARLES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ROUND ROCK RESEARCH, LLC
PATENT OWNER and APPELLANT
____________

Appeal 2014-009046
Patent 6,170,067 B1
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Technology Center 3900
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(b) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 20–62, 64, 66, 68, 84, and 88
1
of Patent 6,170,067
(hereinafter “’067 Patent”).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 306.
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This ex parte reexamination proceeding was initiated by a
“REQUEST FOR EX PARTE REEXAMINATION” filed on May 30, 2012,
by a Third-Party Requester.
Claim 20 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows:
20. A failure reporting system in a server system, comprising:
means for detecting a system failure condition;
means for transmitting failure information related to the
failure condition to a system recorder;
means for storing the failure information; and
means for reporting an occurrence of an event to a central
processing unit of the server system.

1
Claims 1–19, 63, 65, 67, 69-83, 85–87, 89, and 90 are not subject to
reexamination.
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
3
Requester proposes rejections of the claims over the following prior
art references:
Daniel US 4,823,345 Apr. 18, 1989
Derr US 5,179,695 Jan. 12, 1993
Barrett US 5,323,393 June 21, 1994
Ward US 5,367,670 Nov. 22, 1994
(hereinafter “Compaq ’670”)

Compaq, NetWare Server Management, Compaq Computer
Corporation (1992) (hereinafter “NetWare”).

LANDesk, Server Monitor Module Technical Product Summary, Ver.
2.0, Intel Corporation (1995) (hereinafter “LANDesk”).

Appellant/Patent Owner appeals the Examiner’s following rejections:
Claims 20–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Compaq ’670.
Claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, Daniel, and
NetWare.
Claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare.
Claims 84 and 88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk.
Claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Derr.
Claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Derr and Compaq ’670.
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
4
Claims 47, 48, and 68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Derr, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk.
Claims 49 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Derr and LANDesk.
Claims 45, 46, 50–54, and 56–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare.
Claims 40–43 and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett and Compaq ’670.
Claims 44, 49, and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk.
Claims 45–48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare.
Claims 50–54 and 56–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 20–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64
as anticipated by Compaq ’670
Claim 20 recites “means for transmitting failure information related to
the failure condition to a system recorder.” The Examiner finds the CP
arbitration logic 76 shown in Figure 4 of Compaq ’670 describes the claimed
“system recorder.” Ans. 11. Appellant contends the system recorder recited
in claim 20, when read in light of Appellant’s Specification, requires storing
failure information into a system log. Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds the
claimed “system recorder” encompasses the logic 76 connecting to the
processor which originates (or transmits) failure information to memory 70
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
5
through the logic 76. Ans. 11. In particular, the Examiner finds the claimed
“system recorder” does not require storing failure information into a system
log as alleged by Appellant. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Although the “means for transmitting
failure information related to the failure condition” is written in means plus
function format, the equivalent structure therewith does not require the
“system recorder” to write such transmitted information into a log.
Therefore, limitations from the Specification for the “system recorder” will
not be read into the claim. The scope of the “system recorder” is limited to
the logic 76 that receives failure information transmitted from the processor.
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellant does not present arguments for the patentability of claims 21–24,
29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 similar to those presented for claim 20 which
we find unpersuasive.

Section 103 rejection of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54,
and 56–61 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, Daniel, and NetWare
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61. We sustain the
rejection of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–61 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
6
Section 103 rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 as unpatentable
over Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 25, 26, 45, and 46. Instead, Appellant contends the rejection of
claims 25, 45, and 46 are a typographical error. App. Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 4.
Because the rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 are pending before us and
Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the
rejection, we sustain the rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 84 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670
and LANDesk
Appellant contends the rejection of claim 84 is in error because claim
84 depends from allowed claim 19. Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellant.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claim 88 as unpatentable over Compaq ’670
and LANDesk.
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claim 88. We sustain the rejection of claim 88 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 102 rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 as anticipated by
Derr
Appellant contends Derr does not disclose “transmitting failure
information related to the failure condition to the system recorder” as recited
in claim 40. Reply Br. 5–6. According to Appellant, the local processor
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
7
console (LPC) 14 of Derr both detects and logs failure information, so no
transmission of the failure information occurs. Id. The Examiner finds the
LPC of Derr is described as a PS/2 personal computer, which inherently
includes a memory controller, or “system recorder,” between the main
processor and memory. Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that the microprocessor
of Derr would create failure data then transmit the data to the memory
controller to record the data in memory. Id. Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.

Section 103 rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 as unpatentable
over Derr and Compaq ’670
Appellant contends the combination of Derr and Compaq ’670 does
not teach “transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to
a system recorder” as recited in claim 40. Reply Br. 6–7. The Examiner
finds that Compaq ’670 teaches this limitation. Ans. 6. We agree with the
Examiner for the reasons given in our analysis of claim 20 above.
We sustain the rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 47 and 48 as unpatentable over Derr,
Compaq ’670, and LANDesk
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 47 and 48. We sustain the rejection of claims 47 and 48 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
8
Section 103 rejection of claim 68 as unpatentable over Derr, Compaq
’670, and LANDesk
Appellant contends the Examiner has not shown the prior art teaches
“a network of interconnected controllers” as recited in claim 68. App. Br.
11; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner finds page 7 of LANDesk teaches an ASIC,
or controller, in operative communication with a plurality of sensors in a
network of interconnected controllers. Ans. 7. Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to show that combining the network of
interconnected controllers shown on page 7 of LANDesk with the system
taught by the combination of Derr and Compaq ’670 would have been
beyond the level of skill in the art.
We sustain the rejection of claim 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 49 and 55 as unpatentable over Derr
and LANDesk
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 49 and 55. We sustain the rejection of claims 49 and 55 under 35
U.S.C. § 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 45, 46, 50–54, and 56–61 as
unpatentable over Derr, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare
Appellant contends the rejection of claims 45 and 46 is either a
typographical error or a new ground of rejection. Reply Br. 8–9. Because
the rejection of claims 45 and 46 are pending before us and Appellant has
not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the rejection, we
sustain the rejection of claims 45 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
9
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 50–54 and 56–61. We sustain the rejection of claims 50–54 and 56–
61 under 35 U.S.C. §103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 40–43 and 64 as unpatentable over
Barrett and Compaq ’670
Appellant contends the combination of Barrett and Compaq ’670 does
not teach “transmitting failure information related to the failure condition to
a system recorder” as recited in claim 40. Reply Br. 9–10. In particular,
Appellant contends the CP arbitration logic shown in Figure 4 of Compaq
’670 does not teach the system recorder of claim 40. Id. We find
Appellant’s contention unpersuasive for the reasons given in our analysis of
claim 20 above.
We sustain the rejection of claims 40–43 and 64 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 44, 49, and 55 as unpatentable over
Barrett, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 44, 49, and 55. We sustain the rejection of claims 44, 49, and 55
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
10
Section 103 rejection of claims 45–48 as unpatentable over Barrett,
Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 45–48. We sustain the rejection of claims 45–48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.

Section 103 rejection of claims 50–54 and 56–61 as unpatentable over
Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare.
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 50–54 and 56–61. We sustain the rejection of claims 50–54 and 56–
61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 20–24, 29, 34, 38–44, 49, 55, and 64 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Compaq ’670 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 27, 28, 30–33, 35–37, 47, 48, 50–54, and 56–
61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, Daniel, and
NetWare is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 25, 26, 45, and 46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and
NetWare is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 84 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk is reversed.
The rejection of claim 88 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Compaq ’670 and LANDesk is affirmed.
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
11
The rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Derr is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 40, 62, 64, and 66 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Derr and Compaq ’670 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 47, 48, and 68 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Derr, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 49 and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Derr and LANDesk is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 45, 46, 50–54, and 56–61 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Derr, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 40–43 and 64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett and Compaq ’670 is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 44, 49, and 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, and LANDesk is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 45–48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 50–54 and 56–61 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Barrett, Compaq ’670, LANDesk, Daniel, and NetWare is
affirmed.
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
Requests for extensions of time in this ex parte reexamination
proceeding are governed by 37 C.F.R. § 1.550(c). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Appeal 2014-009046
Reexamination Control 90/012,325
Patent 6,170,067 B1
12
tj

For Appellant/Patent Owner:

GAZDZINSKI & ASSOCIATES, PC
16644 WEST BERNARDO DRIVE
SUITE 201
SAN DIEGO, CA 92127

For Third Party Requester:

BRIAN W. OAKS
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., PATENT DEPT.
98 SAN JACINTO BLVD.
SUITE 1500
AUSTIN, TX 78701-4039