Ex Parte Hanson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 20, 2012

11863688 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/863,688 09/28/2007 George E. Hanson 02-4395.1D 2140
27683 7590 09/20/2012
HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
IP Section
2323 Victory Avenue
Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
WALKER, KEITH D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1726
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2012 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 GEORGE E. HANSON and
SEAN G. WINTER
__________

Appeal 2011-002868
Application 11/863,688
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, CATHERINE Q. TIMM, and
MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judges.

COLAIANNI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002868
Application 11/863,688

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 the final rejection of claims
11-30. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of providing backup
power to a storage subsystem of a computing device that uses a fuel cell
backup (Claim 11, Spec. 2: 5-6).
Claim 11 is illustrative:
11. A method for providing backup power to a storage
subsystem of a computing device, comprising:
receiving a request from the storage subsystem for
backup power via an interface between a controller and the
storage subsystem, wherein the controller is coupled to at least
one fuel cell;
monitoring a status of the at least one fuel cell;
asserting a grant signal to the storage subsystem via the
interface, wherein the grant signal indicates that caching by the
storage subsystem is allowed; and
de-asserting the grant signal to the storage subsystem via
the interface, wherein de-asserting the grant signal suspends
caching in the storage subsystem, wherein the grant signal is
asserted or de-asserted based on the status of the at least one
fuel cell.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
1. Claims 11, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Colborn (US 6,522,955 B1 issued Feb. 18, 2003) in
view of Sabotta (US 7,007,184 B2 issued Feb. 28, 2006).
Appeal 2011-002868
Application 11/863,688

3
2. Claims 12, 13, 15-17, and 19-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Colborn in view of Sabotta and Pearson
(US 6,555,989 B1 issued Apr. 29, 2003).

REJECTION (1)
Appellants’ arguments focus on claim 11 only (App. Br. 9-12).

ISSUE
Did the Examiner reversibly err in determining that the combined
teachings of Colburn and Sabotta would have rendered obvious the
communication of control signals for cache writing as required by claim 11?
We decide this issue in the negative.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSES
The Examiner finds that Colburn teaches all the features of claim 11,
except for the “grant” or “de-assert” step with regard to caching (Ans. 3-4).
The Examiner relies on Sabotta’s teaching that it is desirable to start or stop
caching of information based upon power level so as to avoid losing
information during a power failure (id. at 4). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to modify Colborn’s regenerative fuel cell backup
system with the caching control system of Sabotta to keep the memory that
is stored in cache safe from being lost (id. at 5).
Appellants argue that neither Colburn nor Sabotta, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest asserting a grant signal to the storage
subsystem via the interface, wherein the grant signal indicates that caching
by the storage subsystem is allowed, or de-asserting the grant signal to the
Appeal 2011-002868
Application 11/863,688

4
storage subsystem via the interface wherein de-asserting the grant signal
suspends caching in the storage subsystem (App. Br. 10). Appellants
contend that Colburn and Sabotta do not reference a “grant” signal or
interface over which a grant signal may be transmitted. Id. Appellants
contend that Sabotta’s Intelligent Host Bus Adapter alone determines when
to stop or start caching and the adapter does not support the communication
of control signals for cache writing across an interface between an external
controller and a storage subsystem (id. at 11).
Having fully considered Appellants’ arguments and the Examiner’s
findings, we determine that the preponderance of the evidence favors the
Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Appellants’ arguments fail to address
what the combined teachings of Colburn and Sabotta would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (“[T]he test [for obviousness] is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”).
The Examiner relies on Colburn to teach a regenerative fuel cell
system that includes an interface for communication between a fuel cell,
communication device and a powered device (e.g,. a computer) (Ans. 3-4, 7-
8). The Examiner finds that Sabotta teaches that it is known to control the
caching of data during power failures (id. at 4). The Examiner’s conclusion
is based on modifying Colburn’s method to include a start and a stop
caching action as taught by Sabotta to avoid the loss of cache data during a
power failure (id. at 5 & 7). The Examiner’s rejection is not based upon the
bodily incorporation of Sabotta’s Intelligent Host Bus Adapter into
Colburn’s regenerative fuel cell device as argued by Appellants. Rather, the
combined teachings of Colburn and Sabotta would have suggested the
Appeal 2011-002868
Application 11/863,688

5
claimed method of sending “grant” and “de-assert” signals across an
interface to start or stop caching in a computer as required by claim 11.
Appellants’ arguments fail to explain or show error in the Examiner’s
finding that Sabotta’s starting or stopping of caching is the same as the
“grant” or “de-assert” steps of the claims.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over Colburn
and Sabotta.

REJECTION (2)
Appellants argue claim 21 only (App. Br. 12-13).
The Examiner’s rejection may be found on pages 5-7 of the Answer.
Appellants argue that Pearson does not teach the claimed “a lead acid
battery cache backup array” (id. at 13). Appellants contend that Pearson’s
lead-acid battery array is not part of the back-up power array, but only the
fuel cell stack provides the backup power (id.).
The Examiner responds that Appellants argue features not required by
claim 21 (Ans. 8). The Examiner finds that claim 21 only requires that a
hybrid fuel cell and lead-acid battery backup array be provided to the
method (id.).
The preponderance of the evidence favors the Examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness. The Examiner properly finds that claim 21 only requires an
array of power producing elements that are used for back-up power and
include a fuel cell and lead-acid battery array (id.). The order of application
of the components of the hybrid back-up system (i.e., fuel cell and then
battery or battery and then fuel cell) is not claimed. Also, the portion of
Pearson cited by Appellants teaches that the fuel cell is “primarily” used as
Appeal 2011-002868
Application 11/863,688

6
supply backup electrical power with the batteries providing surge control
and load leveling (App. Br. 13). The Examiner also cites to column 1, lines
14-30 of Pearson that teaches that hybrid backup systems typically provide
primary backup electrical energy from the fuel cell and the batteries provide
load leveling to meet spikes in electrical demand (Ans. 5). We understand
Pearson’s disclosure to teach that both the batteries and fuel cell provide
backup electrical power, with the batteries providing power during surges or
spikes in electrical demand.
Appellants reiterate their argument that Colburn and Sabotta do not
teach or suggest the assertion and de-assertion of a grant signal (App. Br.
13). We are unpersuaded by this argument for the same reasons discussed
regarding rejection (1) above.
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection over
Colburn, Sabotta and Pearson.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136.

ORDER
AFFIRMED

bar