Ex Parte Kalkunte et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 28, 201310648573 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MOHAN KALKUNTE and MARTIN LUND ____________ Appeal 2010-007374 Application 10/648,573 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2010-007374 Application 10/648,573 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a “method and system for selectively steering data traffic of various data types to functionally dedicated blade servers within a multi-server platform” (Spec. ¶ [03]). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for processing data in a server, the method comprising: receiving at least one packet; determining at least one data-processing function associated with said at least one received packet, based on said at least one received packet; and steering said at least one received packet to one or more of a plurality of blade servers that handles said determined data-processing function. REFERENCE and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon the teachings of Garnett (US 7,032,037 B2, issued April 18, 2006, filed August 9, 2002). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Garnett’s load balancing is a data processing function (Ans. 7, 13; Garnett, col. 31, l. 63-col. 2, l. 3). Further, the Examiner finds Garnett’s blade servers may be non-standard processing cartridges, that is, they can be blade servers that handle a determined processing function (Garnett, col. 31, ll.49-62). Additionally, the Examiner Appeal 2010-007374 Application 10/648,573 3 asserts, Garnett teaches a data packet arrives at a load balancer that decides on a server to handle the packet (col. 33, ll. 8-13). (Ans. 13) Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Garnett’s load balancing determines a data processing function of a received packet. Appellants assert even if Garnett does teach this feature, Garnett does not steer the at least one packet to one or more of a plurality of blade servers that handles the determined data processing function, as claimed. (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants’ data processing function, as disclosed in the Specification (¶ [37]) includes “The blade server 205 may have been configured to function as a database acceleration engine that may be utilized to decrease the load on other database servers within the multi-server platform 201.” Thus, as the Examiner finds, Appellants’ blade server is equivalent to Garnett’s load balancer in that Appellants’ data processing function in the blade server includes load balancing (Ans. 7-9). We also agree Garnett’s load balancer (blade server) also performs a data processing function on a packet and then determines which blade server should handle this packet (Ans. 11-12). It should be noted Appellants’ claims at a minimum require one received packet and one blade server. We therefore conclude the Examiner did not err in finding Appellants’ representative claim 1, and claims 11, and 21, argued together (App. Br. 6) read on Garnett, and are thus, anticipated by Garnett. With respect to claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, and 28, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not addressed Appellants’ additional arguments regarding these claims (App. Br. 11-13, 15-19; Reply Br. 7). We find that the Examiner's citation of the same portion of Garnett for these rejections, and stating the same arguments were presented by Appeal 2010-007374 Application 10/648,573 4 Appellant is incorrect. We are left to speculate as to the precise details of how each argued claim limitation is expressly or inherently described by the portions of Garnett identified by the Examiner. We note that the Board is a reviewing body and not a place of initial examination. Moreover, it is our view that the more rigorous requirements of § 102 essentially require a one- for-one mapping of each argued limitation to the corresponding portion of the reference, which the Examiner must identify with particularity. In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” (Emphasis added) Perricone v. Medicis Pharm. Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992). The Examiner has not met this burden, and we reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, and 28. With respect to claims 4-6, 10, 14-16, 20, 24-26, and 30, Appellants merely state these claims are allowable with respect to their dependency on claims 1, 11, or 21 (App. Br. 13-14, and 18). Thus, we find the Examiner did not err in finding these claims anticipated by Garnett for the reasons set forth above, and we affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 4-6, 10, 14-16, 20, 24-26, and 30. With respect to claims 9, 19, and 29, we find Garnett teaches steering at least one packet by at least one of a plurality of blade servers. That is, as stated above with respect to claims 1, 11, and 21, Appellants’ claims, at a minimum, require one received packet and one blade server. Thus, Appeal 2010-007374 Application 10/648,573 5 Appellants’ claims read on Garnett’s claimed invention, and we affirm the anticipation rejection of claims 9, 19, and 29. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-6, 9-11, 14-16, 19-21, 24-26, 29, and 30 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 3, 7, 8, 12, 13, 17, 18, 22, 23, 27, and 28 is reversed. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation