Ex Parte Eischeid et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201613039143 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/039,143 03/02/2011 128327 7590 07/01/2016 Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C. Intellectual Property Department P.O. Box 10064 McLean, VA 22102-8064 Todd M. EISCHEID 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. XTUC920100220US1 1226 EXAMINER ORR,HENRYW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2016 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): dbeltran@rmsc2.com lgallaugher@rmsc2.com docketing@rmsc2.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TODD M. EISCHEID, MARYS. JOHNSON, MARK E. MOLANDER, RYAN P. RANDOLPH, and DEVON D. SNYDER Appeal2014-009893 Application 13/039,143 Technology Center 2100 Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10-13, and 15-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 2 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM") as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.) 2 Our Decision refers the Specification filed Mar. 2, 2011 ("Spec."), the Final Office Action mailed Oct. 11, 2013 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed May 20, 2014 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed July 18, 2014 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 16, 2014 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2014-009893 Application 13/039,143 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims are directed to a systems and methods for displaying blade chassis data. (Spec. Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for displaying blade chassis data, comprising: a memory configured to store computer code comprising a blade chassis information module; and a processor coupled to the memory and capable of being in communication with a blade chassis, wherein the processor, when executing the computer code comprising the blade chassis information module, is configured to: receive the blade chassis data, create a user interface for the blade chassis data, display the blade chassis data on the user interface, display, on the user interface, a populated/empty status for each slot of the blade chassis, display, on the user interface, a ready/not ready blade insertion status for each empty slot, the not ready blade insertion status indicating that an empty slot is not ready to have a blade inserted therein, display a storage load balancing recommendation on the user interface, and display a modification recommendation, the modification recommendation compnsmg a recommendation to one of add, subtract, and move a blade to/from a particular slot in the blade chassis on the user interface to balance the storage load. (App. Br. 18---Claims App'x.) REJECTIONS Claim 1, 8, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. (Final Act. 2-3.) The Examiner withdraws this rejection in the Advisory 2 Appeal2014-009893 Application 13/039,143 Action mailed Dec. 19, 2013. Accordingly, we do not consider this rejection further in this appeal. Claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9-13, and 15-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Kolin et al. (US 2012/0005344 Al; Jan. 5, 2012), Wright (US 2002/0180795 Al; Dec. 5, 2002), Metevier et al. (US 2004/0177182 Al; Sept. 9, 2004), and Larson et al. (US 2007/0089446 Al; Apr. 26, 2007). (Final Act. 4--11.) ANALYSIS Not Ready Blade Insertion Status Appellants argue the cited references fail to teach or suggest the limitation "display, on the user interface, a ready/not ready blade insertion status for each empty slot, the not ready blade insertion status indicating that an empty slot is not ready to have a blade inserted therein," as recited in the claims. (App. Br. 11.) Specifically, Appellants disagree with the Examiner's finding that the absence of a status indicating that a slot is ready for insertion, as allegedly taught by Metevier, is equivalent to a status indicating an empty slot is ready for blade insertion, as claimed. (App. Br. 12-13 citing Metevier i-f 12.) We agree with Appellants that Metevier fails to teach or suggest this feature. Metevier teaches LED blink patterns for "slot ready for insertion/removal of disk." (Metevier i-f 12.) Metevier thus falls short of teaching or suggesting an empty slot with insertion status indicating it is not ready for blade insertion, as claimed. Although one might surmise that an empty slot with no indication status may indicate its slot is not ready for blade insertion, as Appellants note, lack of blinking LEDs may occur due to other reasons such as LED malfunction or loss of power, or because the 3 Appeal2014-009893 Application 13/039,143 associated system may be backing up or performing a maintenance function. At best, such an indication is ambiguous whether the empty slot is ready or is not ready for blade insertion. Appellants' status indication affirmatively indicates an empty slot is not ready for blade insertion. (See, e.g., Spec. if 24.) Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection. Storage Load Balancing The claims also recite the limitations: (1) "display a storage load balancing recommendation on the user interface" and (2) "display a modification recommendation, the modification recommendation comprising a recommendation to one of add, subtract, and move a blade to/from a particular slot in the blade chassis on the user interface to balance the storage load." Appellants argue the claims define a way of storage load balancing whereas Larson teaches thermal load balancing. (App. Br. 13.) We agree with Appellants' argument that the claimed "storage load balancing" pertains to the location of data storage, whereas Larson's thermal load balancing relates to the placement of heat-generating components to avoid their overheating. (See Final Act. 6 citing Larson if 56.) Given this distinction between what is claimed and Larson's disclosure, we do not sustain the rejection of the claims for this additional reason. Impermissible Hindsight Our decision for the stated reasons renders it unnecessary to address Appellants' arguments concerning impermissible hindsight in combining the references used in the rejection. (App. Br. 14--15.) Failure to Establish Prima Facie Case of Obviousness In making the rejection, the Examiner interprets the "ready/not ready" blade insertion status as alternative language giving the possibility the "not ready" would never be performed. (Final Act. 11.) Appellants correctly 4 Appeal2014-009893 Application 13/039,143 assert that "display, on the user interface, a ready/not ready blade insertion status" means that the processor is configured to display both a ready blade insertion status and a not ready blade insertion status. (App. Br. 15.) We agree with Appellants' interpretation of the claim language, which requires the Examiner to show both the ready and not ready blade insertion statuses in the prior art to demonstrate obviousness. Because the Examiner did not do so, no prima facie case of obviousness is established. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8, 9-13, and 15-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation