Ex parte Jardine et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 1998

08265585 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 1998)

Application for patent filed June 23, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte ROBERT L. JARDINE, RICHARD M. COLLINS and
LARRY D. REEVES
__________
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585 1
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before HAIRSTON, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative
Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 3 through 12. Claims 1 and 2 have been canceled.
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
2
The invention relates to fault-tolerant multiple
processor systems. In particular, the invention is directed
to a technique
that permits the system to recover from momentary or very
short drops in primary power that may be noticed by fewer than
all of the processors.
The independent claim 3 is reproduced as follows:
3. A processing system composed of a plurality of
processor units interconnected for communicating messages
there-between, including presence messages sent by each
of the plurality of processor units to the plurality of
processor units during a regroup operation to determine
the plurality of processor units of the processing
system, each of the plurality of processor units having a
source of power and a detector element for monitoring the
source of power for power-fail situations to produce a
power-fail signal indicative of a possible impending
failure of the source of power, and responsive to the
power-fail signal each of the processor units performing
the steps of:
broadcasting a power-fail message to the
plurality of processor units indicating receipt
of the power-fail signal;
recording receipt of the power-fail message; and
during a regroup operation, checking for a
recordation of a prior received power-fail
message, and if the recordation exists sending a
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
3
cautious message to the plurality of processor
units indicating receipt of a power-fail
message.
The Examiner relies on the following reference:
Whiteside et al. (Whiteside) 4,356,546 Oct.
26, 1982
Claims 3 through 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Whiteside.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 3 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case.
It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
4
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. S.S. Importers Int’l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996) citing W. L. Gore & Assocs.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309
(Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on pages 6 and 7 of the brief that
Whiteside fails to teach or suggest "during a regroup
operation, checking for a recordation of a prior received
power-fail mes-sage, and if the recordation exists sending a
cautious message to
the plurality of processor units indicating receipt of a
power-fail message" as recited in Appellants' claim 3. We
note that the only other independent claim, claim 6, recites
"during a regroup operation, checking for a recordation of a
prior received power-fail message, and if the recordation is
found sending the regroup message to the plurality of
processor units indicating receipt of a power-fail message."
Whiteside teaches in column 10, lines 21-46, that the
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
5
fault handler 204 shown in Figure 4, residing in each of
computers 10a through 10n shown in Figure 1, performs five
fault detection checks. We note that none of the five fault
detection checks is directed to specifically detect only a
power failure. We note that one of these five fault detection
checks, number 4, which determines if the task execution was
executed within a predeter-mined time would detect a computer
that has had a power failure. However, the check would not
know if the task was not executed timely because of a power
failure or because of another failure such as a software
error. Thus, Whiteside fails to detect a power failure as
well as fails to produce a power-failure signal.
Whiteside teaches in column 10, lines 47-56, that once
one
of the five fault detection checks determines an error, the
fault
handler 204 transmits an error message to the other computers,
and the other computers store the error message when received,
each computer decides if the computer identified by the error
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
6
message is faulty and discards all messages received from that
computer if determined to be faulty. As disclosed in column
12, lines 45-50, the error message includes an error type
code. However, this code only identifies which of the fault
detection checks found in column 10, lines 29-46, determined a
fault.
Even if we could view the fault detection check, number
4, as a power failure determination and that the fault handler
204 broadcasted a power failure message, we fail to find that
Whiteside teaches checking the recordation of the received
power failure message and if the recordation is found sending
a cautious message as recited in claim 3 or a regroup message
as recited in claim 6 indicating receipt of a power-fail
message. In contrast, upon receipt of the error message,
Whiteside teaches that each computer decides on whether to
discard the messages from the faulty computer. Whiteside does
not teach method steps of checking for a recordation of a
message and then sending a message if a recordation is found.
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
7
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 3 through
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Accordingly, the Examiner's
decision is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-3124
Application 08/265,585
8
Townsend, Townsend & Crew, LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3834