Ex Parte Kern et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 9, 2010

10606392 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 9, 2010)

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.
10/606,392 06/25/2003 Eric R. Kern RPS920030079US1 4794
63638 7590 12/09/2010
STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION
13100 WORTHAM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 245
HOUSTON, TX 77065
EXAMINER
BRUCKART, BENJAMIN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/09/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ERIC R. KERN, BRANDON J. ELLISON,
JAMES A. DAY, JR., and SHANE M. LARDINOIS
____________________

Appeal 2009-009154
Application 10/606,392
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-009154
Application 10/606,392

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 22-25, and 36-44. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for providing simultaneous access between a
storage drive and a plurality of blade servers, the method comprising:
configuring the plurality of blade servers to simultaneously
connect with the storage drive, wherein the plurality of blade servers
is managed by a management system and the storage drive is coupled
to the management system;
each blade server of the plurality of blade servers
simultaneously routing data packets between the management system
and the blade server; and
the management system managing simultaneous access of the
plurality of blade servers to the storage drive, including routing the
data packets received from the plurality of blade servers to the storage
drive.
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 22,
23, 36, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Sakthikumar (US 2004/0181601 A1) and Bottom (US
2002/0124114 A1) because “Bottom fails to disclose that a plurality of blade
servers can simultaneously access a storage device.” (App. Br. 6).2

2 The rejections of the remaining claims under 103(a) are not separately
argued from the rejection of the independent claims 1, 22, and 40.
Appeal 2009-009154
Application 10/606,392

3
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 22, and 40 as being
obvious because Bottom fails to teach the argued simultaneous access?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants’ contention, supra.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 22-25, and 36-44 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, claims 1, 22-25, and 36-44 have not been shown
to be unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 22-25, and 36-44 are reversed.

REVERSED

babc

STREETS & STEELE - IBM CORPORATION
13100 WORTHAM CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 245
HOUSTON, TX 77065