Ex Parte Emerson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12946540 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/946,540 11/15/2010 Theodore F. Emerson
56436 7590 09/26/2016
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.
82264109 1192
EXAMINER
HUSSAIN, TAUQIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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 THEODORE F. EMERSON, DAVID F. HEINRICH,
DON A. DYKES, ROBERT L. NOONAN, and
DWIGHT D. RILEY
Appeal2015-000781
Application 12/946,540
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN D. HAMANN, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 12-15, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is The Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
2 Appellants incorrectly contend claims 1-15 are pending. App. Br. 3. On
December 2, 2103, Appellant elected claims 1-8 and 12-15 in response to a
Requirement for Restriction/Election, mailed November 4, 2013. The Final
Action from which Appellants appeal rejected claims 1-8 and 12-15. Final
Act. 1. Thus, we do not consider Appellants' arguments directed to claims
9-11. See App. Br. 12-15.
Appeal2015-000781
Application 12/946,540
INVENTION
Appellants' invention relates to systems, devices, and methods for
multiple host management. Abstract. Claim 12 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
12. A multiple host management system, comprising:
a communication interconnect;
a plurality of host instances coupled to the communication
interconnect;
a multiple host management device coupled to the
communication interconnect, the multiple host management
device including:
a plurality of host register block instances each
including a plurality of legacy input/output (I/O) devices
to provide I/O functionality to each of the plurality of host
instances; and
a network interface to provide remote access and
control over the plurality of host instances.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Takeuchi et al. (US 2009/0006602 Al;
published Jan. 1, 2009) ("Takeuchi"), Lee (US 2005/0066106 Al; published
Mar. 24, 2005), and Emerson et al. (US 2007/0083719 Al; published Apr.
12, 2007) ("Emerson").
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the combination of Takeuchi, Lee, Emerson, and Franz et al. (US
2008/0310967 Al; published Dec. 18, 2008) ("Franz").
2
Appeal2015-000781
Application 12/946,540
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Takeuchi, Lee, Emerson, and Dickens et al. (US 2009/0070092 Al;
published Mar. 12, 2009) ("Dickens").
Claims 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Takeuchi, Lee, Emerson, and Emerson et al. (US
2006/0294254 Al; published Dec. 28, 2006) ("Emerson254").
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions of law as set forth in the Answer and in the
Action from which this appeal was taken, to the extent consistent with our
analysis below. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 12, the Examiner finds Takeuchi teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except "a plurality of host register
block instances each including a plurality of legacy input/output (I/O)
devices to provide I/O functionality to each of the plurality of host
instances," for which the Examiner relies on Lee, and "a network interface
to provide remote access and control over the plurality of host instances," for
which the Examiner relies on Emerson. Final Act. 4---6.
Appellants contend the cited portions of Takeuchi, Lee, and Emerson
do not teach "a plurality of host register block instances each including ~
plurality of legacy input/output (I/O) devices to provide I/O functionality to
each of the plurality of host instances," as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 8.
Appellants argue that Lee's teaching of an I/O function multiplexer that
3
Appeal2015-000781
Application 12/946,540
switches access of the l/O devices to the requesting server does not teach "a
plurality I/O devices and a plurality of I/O functionalities." Id. at 10.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Appellants attack the prior art references individually even though the
Examiner relies on the combination of Takeuchi, Lee, and Emerson as
teaching or suggesting the disputed features. (Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 4--7). In
re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("The test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.").
Moreover, the Examiner finds Takeuchi teaches that a multi-host
management server 2 is connected to a plurality of hosts 3 via an IP network
8. Ans. 4 (citing Takeuchi Fig. 1, i-f 44). The Examiner further finds Lee
teaches that each of a plurality of servers is connected to an I/O unit access
switching system, including an associated method, by which a plurality of
legacy I/O devices, including a keyboard, mouse, and display, provides I/O
functionalities to each server. Id. at 5---6 (citing Lee Fig. 1, i-fi-1 8-9); Final
Act. 3 (citing Lee Fig. 2, i-f 30). The Examiner also finds that Emerson
discloses managing a plurality of host instances remotely. Id. at 6 (citing
Emerson Abstract). Appellants present no persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. Therefore, based on the record
before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner error with regard to the
disputed limitations of claim 12.
With regard to independent claim 1, Appellants further contend
Takeuchi, Lee, and Emerson do not teach, suggest or render obvious "f!
plurality of host register block instances, each including a plurality of legacy
input/output (I/O) devices to provide each of the plurality of host instances
4
Appeal2015-000781
Application 12/946,540
with a plurality of l/O functionalities," recited in claim 1. Id. at 8. In
particular, Appellants argue that "Takeuchi describes a multi-host
management server that receives failure information about paths from hosts
and stores the information," but does not "teach, suggest, or render obvious"
the disputed limitation. Id. at 8-9.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. For the reasons given above
for claim 12, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that the
combined references teach or suggest the recited "plurality of legacy
input/output (I/O) devices to provide I/O functionality to each of the
plurality of host instances." Id. Appellants' argument regarding the
limitation "a plurality of host register block instances" is conclusory, merely
reciting the claim limitation, the teachings of Takeuchi, Lee, and Emerson,
and stating that the two are not the same. Id. As stated by the Federal
Circuit, Rule 41.37 "require[s] more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art." In re Lovin,
652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we are not persuaded
by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that the combination of Takeuchi, Lee, and Emerson teach or suggest
the limitations of claims 1 and 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 12, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
dependent claims 2-8 and 13-15, which contain similar limitations and for
which Appellants refer to and rely on the arguments made for claims 1 and
12. App. Br. 11, 15.
5
Appeal2015-000781
Application 12/946,540
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-8 and 12-
15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6