Ex Parte Bandholz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2014

12135305 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUSTIN P. BANDHOLZ, WILLIAM J. PIAZZA and
PHILIP L. WEINSTEIN
____________

Appeal 2012-008015
Application 12/135,305
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and BETH Z. SHAW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–21, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosed invention is for mapping computers and ports of
power distribution units in a data center (Spec., 1: 11–13). Independent
claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows, with the disputed limitation
highlighted:
Appeal 2012-008015
Application 12/135,305

2
1. A method of mapping computers and ports of power
distribution units in a data center, the data center
comprising a facility that houses a plurality of computers
and equipment supporting computer operations including
a data center management server, the computers in the
data center connected for power to one of a plurality of
power distribution unit ('PDU') ports of a PDU, the PDU
comprising one or more power consumption monitoring
devices, one or more demodulators, and a
communications module, each PDU connected through
the communications module and a data communications
network to the data center management server, the
method comprising:
generating, by a power modulating module of a
computer, a power consumption signal in the PDU, the power
consumption signal encoding a unique identification of the
computer;
demodulating, by the PDU, the power consumption
signal, including retrieving
from the signal the unique identification of the computer;
and
reporting, by the PDU to the data center management
server, an association of the unique identification of the
computer and a PDU port.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 15–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Farkas (US 7,269,753 B2) (Ans. 4–6).
Claims 7 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Farkas and Katoozi (US 5,594,631) (Ans. 6–7).

Appeal 2012-008015
Application 12/135,305

3
ISSUES
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments and contentions in light of
the Examiner’s findings (Ans. 4–7) and explanations (Ans. 7–8). The
dispositive issue is:
Did the Examiner err in finding Farkas discloses the disputed
limitation of “generating, by a power modulating module of a computer, a
power consumption signal in the PDU, the power consumption signal
encoding a unique identification of the computer” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Appellants contend Farkas sends a component ID from a power
system component to a computer, which is “exactly [the] opposite of the
method of mapping power components claimed in the present application.”
(App. Br. 8.) In particular, Appellants argue “[a]s claimed, an identifier of a
computer is embedded into a signal generated in the PDU by the computer.”
(App. Br. 9.) The Examiner responds that Farkas’s controller 170 is a
“computer” that generates the signal in the PDU (see Ans. 7, citing Farkas,
Fig. 2 and 5:3–25). Thus, the Examiner finds Farkas discloses the computer
recited in claim 1 (see Ans. 7).

Appeal 2012-008015
Application 12/135,305

4
Although Appellants argue that “the claims of the present application
clearly recite a computer that is separate and distinct from the PDU” (Reply
Br. 10), we are not persuaded. Claim 1 only recites “generating, by a power
modulating module of a computer, a power consumption signal in the PDU.”
Therefore, we do not find the Examiner’s interpretation of the “computer” of
claim 1 (Ans. 8), as including all the elements of the PDU, to be
unreasonable.
Moreover, Appellants do not point to a specific portion of the
Specification to support their argument that the “specification and drawings
further make clear that the computer [of claim 1] is separate and distinct
from the PDU” and therefore Farkas’s computer is opposite of the claims
(Reply Br. 10). Reading claim 1 in light of the Specification, we are not
persuaded of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Farkas. Because Appellants have not presented separate
patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments
as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above (see App.
Br. 7–10), claims 2–21 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1–21 is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

cdc