Ex Parte Holt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 1, 201511208704 (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 11/208,704 08/22/2005 Graham Holt 2540-0935 1866 42624 7590 05/04/2015 DAVIDSON BERQUIST JACKSON & GOWDEY LLP 8300 Greensboro Dr, Suite 500 McLean, VA 22102 EXAMINER NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2015 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 GRAHAM HOLT and IVAN PASSOS ____________ Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 1 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOHN A. HUDALLA, and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUDALLA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8–14, 17–20, 22–24, and 27–29. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 15, 16, 21, 25, 26, and 30 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Avocent Fremont Corp. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 2 THE INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to physically consolidating and securing access to all out-of-band interfaces in computer, telecommunication, and networking equipment, regardless of the interface type. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A universal out-of-band gateway system, comprising: different connectors that connect corresponding kinds of managed devices to a main gateway unit to communicate out- of-band management data from different out-of-band interfaces of the managed devices to the main gateway unit, the different connectors being a changeable infrastructure and include: a) soft connectors, including: a. a first soft connector that comprises a piece of software that interfaces with a service processor kind of managed device; b) hard connectors, including: a. a first hard connector that comprises a piece of hardware and software embedded in the piece of hardware that interface with a serial kind of managed device; and b. a second hard connector that comprises a piece of hardware and software embedded in the piece of hardware that interface with a keyboard-video-mouse (KVM) kind of managed device; and the main gateway unit receives the management data from the different out-of-band interfaces and converts the out- of-band management data of the managed devices into a common management data format and wherein the main Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 3 gateway unit is a stable infrastructure separated from the changeable infrastructure; and a common physical media that directly connects between the soft connectors and the corresponding kinds of managed devices and directly connects between the hard connectors and the main gateway unit. App. Br. 13–14 (Claims App’x). THE EXAMINER’S REJECTION Claims 1, 4, 5, 8–14, 17–20, 22–24, and 27–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Carley (US 2005/0086494 A1, Apr. 2005), Mayo (US 5,751,965, May 12, 1998), Saito (US 2005/0129035 A1, June 16, 2005), and Medvinsky (US 2005/0204038 A1, Sept. 15, 2005). Ans. 3–11; Final Act. 5–14. ISSUES Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Carley, Mayo, Saito, and Medvinsky teaches “a common physical media that directly connects between the soft connectors and the corresponding kinds of managed devices and directly connects between the hard connectors and the main gateway unit,” as recited in claim 1? Does the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Carley, Mayo, Saito, and Medvinsky teaches “different connectors that connect corresponding kinds of managed devices to a main gateway unit,” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 4 Does the Examiner provide an adequate rationale for combining Carley, Mayo, Saito, and Medvinsky that is free from impermissible hindsight? ANALYSIS A. “Common Physical Media” in Claim 1 In the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Medvinsky as teaching the “common physical media” limitation. Ans. 5–6, 12–16. Appellants contend that Medvinsky’s gateway 50, which is cited as the common physical media in the Examiner’s rejection, is “not connected as required by the claims.” App. Br. 6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s citations to Medvinsky do not adequately account for the recited connections between the common physical media and the hard and soft connectors. Id. at 6–9; see also Reply Br. 2–4. At the outset, we note that Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s additional explanations from Saito, Carley, and Mayo in the Examiner’s Answer regarding the “common physical media” limitation. See Ans. 13, 15–16. Considering these explanations, along with the citations from Medvinsky in the Final Action, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s analysis of the “common physical media” limitation. Appellants’ Specification states that “the common standard physical media may be an Ethernet network or a USB network.” Spec. 5:27–29; see also id. 9:12–14. Alternatively, the Specification depicts “the common standard physical media” as cabling between the gateway and the hard and soft connectors. See Spec. Fig. 5; 9:18–20. We find that, in light of these passages in Appellants’ Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 5 of “common physical media” would encompass Medvinsky’s gateway 50, which serves as an interface between managed device 220 and service provider 20 via network 11. See Medvinsky Fig. 2, ¶¶ 29, 67 (cited at Ans. 5, 12–13). Medvinsky teaches that this interface can be “implemented in software, firmware, hardware, or any combination thereof,” id. ¶ 67, which, consonant with Appellants’ Specification, is suggestive of using an Ethernet network, USB network, and cable connection for the common physical media. We also agree with the Examiner’s further explanation that Saito’s service processor gateway 40 could serve as the common physical media. See Ans. 15 (citing Saito Fig. 3, ¶¶ 24–26). Specifically, Saito teaches that service processor gateway 40 “consolidates the management data from one or more managed network nodes 431-43N connected to the service processor gateway with the various different service processor protocols . . . .” Saito ¶ 26. This teaching shows that Saito’s service processor gateway 40 is “common” to the managed devices, which further supports the Examiner’s analysis. Regarding Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has not “address[ed] the[] particular connections” between the hard and soft connectors and the “common physical media,” Reply Br. 3, we again are not persuaded. As explained by the Examiner, Saito’s service processor gateway 40 includes a software portion 401 and a hardware portion 402. See Ans. 15; Saito ¶ 26. Correspondingly, Saito teaches that each of the managed devices 24 may have “a hardware component 241 and a software Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 6 component 242.” 2 Id. ¶ 22 (cited at Ans. 15). The connection from the main gateway 3 to the soft connector to the “common physical media” to the managed device is taught or suggested by Saito’s software portion 401, software component 242, and Saito’s further teachings on software-based connections, such as that described for Ethernet media 254. See Saito ¶ 22. The connection from the main gateway to the hard connector to the “common physical media” to the managed device is taught or suggested by Saito’s hardware portion 402, hardware component 241, and Saito’s further teachings on hardware-based connections, such as that described for RS-232 serial interface 251 and KVM interface 252. See id. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ contention, we find that the recited connections of claim 1 are taught or suggested by the Examiner’s cited art. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s analysis of the “common physical media” limitation. B. “Different Connectors” in Claim 1 Regarding the “different connectors” language in claim 1, Appellants argue that the Examiner’s citations to Carley “do not show multiple managed devices nor different connectors and different out-of-band 2 We note that the reference numerals 241 and 242 in Saito’s Figure 1 appear to be reversed from what is disclosed in Saito’s specification. We make our references to the numerals from Saito’s specification. 3 We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Carley’s “gateway or Network Access Server (NAS),” see Carley Fig. 5, ¶ 126 (cited at Ans. 3), can act as the recited “main gateway unit” of claim 1. We additionally observe that Saito’s Ethernet switching system 41 is also suitable as the main gateway, see Saito Fig. 3, ¶ 26, which further supports the Examiner’s analysis of the recited connections. Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 7 interfaces of managed devices.” App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 5. Again, however, Appellants fail to address the Examiner’s additional explanations from Saito in the Answer that support the Examiner’s rejection. See Ans. 18 (citing Saito ¶¶ 21–22). For the same reasons mentioned above, we agree with the Examiner that the multiple connections in Saito’s paragraph 22, including RS-232, KVM, and Ethernet interfaces, teach or suggest the “different connectors” language of claim 1. See id. Accordingly, we do not find this argument persuasive. C. Reasons for Combining the Cited References Appellants contend that the Examiner has engaged in impermissible hindsight to reconstruct the claimed invention in the Examiner’s obviousness combination. See App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 5–6. Appellants also contend that the Examiner has failed to articulate a rationale for combining the references in the rejection. See App. Br. 11. Yet Appellants’ contentions are not supported by any substantive arguments and, accordingly, such contentions have little or no persuasive weight. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“[T]he Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review . . . uncontested aspects of the rejection.”). We find that the Examiner has articulated a reasonable rationale for the obviousness combination in the rejection of claim 1, see Ans. 4, 5, 6, and Appellants have identified no specific error in that rationale. We likewise do not find the Examiner has relied on impermissible hindsight, particularly because the Examiner’s rationale is grounded in the cited prior art references themselves. See id. Appeal 2013-002357 Application 11/208,704 8 D. Conclusion For the reasons in sections A–C above, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, so we sustain the rejection. Appellants have not presented separate arguments related to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 5, 8–14, 17–20, 22–24, and 27–29, so we likewise sustain the rejection of these claims. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, 8–14, 17–20, 22–24, and 27–29 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(a)(1). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation