Ex Parte Conn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12937938 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/937,938 10/14/2010 Kevin D. Conn
56436 7590 06/29/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82240835 6599
EXAMINER
WILSON, ADRIAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN D. CONN and DAVID A. SELVIDGE
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, WESLEY B. DERRICK, and
BRIAND. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
SUMMARY
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--21, 23, and 24. We have
jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appellants, the real parties in interest are Hewlett-
Packard Company and Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as a power supply assembly
for electronic components on a server rack. Spec. ,-r 3. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A power-supply assembly for powering a plurality of
electronic components in respective bays of a server rack, the
power-supply assembly comprising:
a mount;
a power supply to power the plurality of electronic
components; and
a first connection pivotably attaching the power supply to
the mount so as to permit the power supply to pivot relative to
the mount about an axis located behind and spaced from the bays
while the mount is fixed to the server rack.
App. Br.2 26 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relied upon the prior art below in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Kim et al.
(hereinafter, "Kim")
Konshak et al.
(hereinafter, "Konshak")
US 6,781,841 B2 Aug. 24, 2004
US 7,042,720 Bl May 9, 2006
Kunkle et al. US 2008/0030962 Al Feb. 7, 2008
(hereinafter, "Kunkle")
2 In this decision, we refer to the Final Office Action mailed May 1, 2014
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed June 2, 2014 ("App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed September 16, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief filed November 17, 2014 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-12, 14--21, 23 and 24 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kunkle and Konshak and further in view
of Kim. 3
ANALYSIS
We do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 12, and 21,
but we sustain the remainder of the Examiner's§ 103 rejection based on the
findings of fact, conclusions of law, and rebuttals to arguments expressed by
the Examiner in the Final Action and in the Answer. We provide additional
comments below for emphasis.
Claim 1. Kunkle discloses a rack for electronic components including
a plurality of bays for the components. Final Act. 2; Kunkle Fig. 5. Kunkle
illustrates "electronic modules" ( 10 in Figure 1; 62 in Figure 5) which may
be power supplies and which can be slid into the rack. Final Act. 2-3;
Kunkle Figs. 1, 9 A; Kunkle i1 19. Kunkle includes a locking member 34 for
holding the modules in position. Kunkle Fig 9 A. The Examiner finds that
Kunkle does not explicitly disclose a power supply configured to power a
plurality of electronic components. Final Act 2. The Examiner finds that
Kunkle does, however, disclose a backplane and plurality of connectors
suggesting connection to a plurality of devices. Id. at 3.
Konshak discloses a power supply 54 that is used to power a plurality
of electronic devices via backplane 52. Final Act. 3; Konshak Figs. 7-10;
2:22-24 ("The modular design provides for sharing of power and cooling
facilities."). Konshak also discloses the electronic devices each residing in a
3 Claims 4, 13, and 22 have been cancelled. App. Br. 26-30 (Claims
Appendix).
3
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
bay of a rack. Ans. 4; Konshak Fig. 7. The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to combine these teachings of Konshak with
Kunkle. Final Act. 3.
The Examiner finds that Kunkle also does not disclose a power supply
that may be rotated with respect to the mount. Final Act. 3. The Examiner
also finds that Kim, however, establishes that electronic devices rotatably
mounted to a bracket were known in the art. Id. In particular, the Examiner
finds that Kim discloses a bay for an electronic peripherals where the
peripheral can be rotatably accessed. Id. at 3-5; Kim Figs. 3---6; 6:28-32.
Kim explains that its rotational mechanism has advantages including saving
space and enhancing the installation and service of peripherals. Kim 8: 18-
49.
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art to modify Kunkle to provide the rotatable mount
of Kim. Final Act. 3--4. Kunkle recognizes the need for access to its
electronic components (which may be power supplies) for maintenance. Id.;
Kunkle i-f 32. The Examiner finds that Kim advantageously provides this
access "because it would allow the power supply to be inserted onto the
tray/support at a greater distance from the rack and electrically connected
and then rotated into the rack (i.e., improved ease of use)." Final Act. 4; see
also Kim Figs. 3---6, 8: 17-33; 8:41--49. The Examiner further explains that
"bring[ing] the electrical connection point between the power supply and the
carrier outside of the server rack" would "allow a user to ensure that proper
electrical connection is made between the power supply and the carrier .... "
Final Act. 4. We agree with these findings and conclusions. Based on this
reasoning, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that Kim's rotating connector would provide Kunkle with the
4
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
pivotable function taught by Kim. Modifying Kunkle in this fashion is no
more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to established
functions. Cf KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellants argue that a person of skill would not have been motivated
to modify Kunkle with Kim's method of rotating peripherals. App. Br. 7,
12-20. Appellants present several positions to support this point.
Appellants first stress, for example, that Kim emphasizes compactness (Kim
8:28-33) and that the proposed modification would not save space (App. Br.
at 12, 17). The Examiner acknowledges that Kim's rotational insertion may
be less compact but correctly explains that Kim's other advantages would
nonetheless motivate the combination. Ans. 3; see also Medichem, S.A. v.
Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("a given course of action
often has simultaneous advantages and disadvantages, and this does not
necessarily obviate motivation to combine"). Similarly, Appellants' position
that the Kim/Kunkle combination would require more cabling (App. Br. 20)
merely identifies potential design choice trade-offs; it does not negate the
advantages of the combination.
Second, Appellants argue that the locking mechanism of Kunkle
"would be rendered inoperable" if Kim's rotatable insertion were utilized.
App. Br. 14. Appellants, however, do not persuasively explain why
Kunkle' s locking mechanism could not be utilized once a power supply is
rotated into place. Moreover, even if the rotatable access made the lock
inoperable, this would also be a mere a design trade-off.
Third, Appellants argue that the peripherals of Kim that may be
rotated do not include power supplies. This argument is unpersuasive
because it addresses Kim individually rather than addressing the combined
references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot
5
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here,
the rejections are based on combinations of references") (citation omitted).
Considering all cited references as a combination, Konshak discloses a rack
of electronic devices powered by a common power supply (Konshak Fig. 7),
Kunkle discloses removable power supplies in conjunction with a rack
(Kunkle Fig. 9A), and Kim teaches rotatable removal of electronic
components. Thus, the combination teaches the recited elements of claim 1.
Fourth, Appellants argue that the "ease of use" and "more controlled
insertion/removal" advantages of Kim cited by the Examiner are not
addressed by Kim and do not hold true because Kunkle already has a simple
removal mechanism. App. Br. 17-18. We disagree. Aside from space
maximizing, Kim also addresses allowing the peripheral devices to be
"easily accessed and removed for service, replacement, or repair." Kim
8: 17-20; see also Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner that a person of skill
in the art would have recognized that Kim's rotational insertion technique
enables a user to more easily inspect and connect the power supply. Ans. 6;
Final Act. 4. While Appellants are correct that Kunkle provides certain
possibilities for allowing visual inspection between the electronic module
and system bus (App. Br 19 citing Kunkle i-f 34), the rotational insertion
technique of Kim would allow very open access to the modules as opposed
to Kunkle's proposal of looking or reaching through the confined backplane.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner's determination that a person of ordinary
skill would have combined Kim's technique with Kunkle.
Aside from arguing motivation to combine, Appellants also argue that
Kunkle and Konshak do not disclose or suggest a server rack or bays. App.
Br. 8-9, 11. The Specification, however, does not define "server rack" as
used in the claims, and the structure disclosed in Kunkle is capable of
6
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
functioning as a "server rack" with "bays" as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3--4.
Appellants do not persuasively explain why the structure of Kunkle would
be incapable of supporting servers. Moreover, Konshak also teaches
electronic components in multiple bays where multiple devices are powered
by a single power source. Ans. 4; see also, e.g., Konshak Fig. 7.
Finally, Appellants argue that it would not be obvious to modify
Kunkle in view ofKonshak. App. Br. 10. We agree with the Examiner,
however, that a person of skill would have recognized the advantage of
being able to power multiple components with one power supply. Final Act.
3. Indeed, the backplane architecture of Kunkle suggests such a
configuration. Id.
Because we agree with the Examiner's conclusion that claim 1 would
have been obvious in view of Kunkle, Konshak, and Kim, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claims 10 and 19. Appellants rely on arguments for claims 10 and 19
addressed above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 22-23. We thus sustain
the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons explained above.
Claims 2, 11, and 20. Each of these dependent claims relates to
mounting the power supply on the rear surface of the rack. In addition to
referencing arguments for claim 1, Appellants argue that the prior art does
not disclose a server rack "frame" as recited by claim 2. The Examiner,
however, adequately explains how Kunkle discloses a server rack. Ans. 3--4.
The vertical and horizontal supports for the rack are the frame. See, e.g.,
Kunkle Fig 5A. Thus, this element is met. Claims 11 and 20 have no
"frame" recitation. We thus sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 11,
and 20.
7
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
Claims 3, 12, and 21. Each of these dependent claims further recites
that the electronic components of the independent claims include, or are,
servers. Appellants argue that Kunkle and Konshak do not mention servers
and that Kim does not reference a plurality of servers. App. Br. 24--25.
The Examiner finds that by disclosing a "larger electronic system,"
Kunkle discloses a server. Ans. 8; Final Act. 5. The Examiner also finds
that Konshak discloses powering a plurality of components in a server
system. Ans. 8; Final Act. 5. The Examiner does not reference Kim with
respect to the recited servers of claims 3, 12, and 21.
Based upon our review of the portions of the prior art cited by the
Examiner, the Examiner's findings appear to be in error. Kunkle does not
appear to reference servers. Rather, the Kunkle module could be
"implemented as a power cell." Kunkle i-f 19. Konshak, meanwhile, relates
to a "data storage assembly having multiple disk drives disposed on a
replaceable module." Konshak Abstract. Thus, based on the present record,
the Examiner has not established that Kunkle or Konshak teaches "wherein
the plurality of electronic components includes servers" (claim 3) or
"wherein the electronic components are servers" (claims 12 and 21 ). We
therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 12, and 21.
Claims 5-7, 9, 14--16, 18, 23-24. Appellants rely on the arguments
made with respect to claim 1 above. App. Br. 25. We thus sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims for the reasons above.
Claims 8, 17. Appellants do not separately argue claim 17. We
therefore limit our discussion to claim 8. Claim 17 stands or falls with that
claim. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
Claim 8 recites that "the power supply includes slots for receiving
cables." Appellants argue that the Examiner did not identify any slots in the
8
Appeal2015-001654
Application 12/937,938
power supply that correspond to this limitation. App. Br. 25. In response,
the Examiner explains that, as depicted in Figure 1 of Kunkle, the electronic
module 10 of Kunkle (which may be a power supply according to Kunkle
i-f 19) includes slots for receiving cables. Ans. 25. We agree with the
Examiner's finding of fact on this point. We thus sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 8 and 1 7.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1,
2, 5-11, 14--20, 23 and 24. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 3,
12, and 21. The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9