Ex Parte Lambert et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

12577866 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/577,866 10/13/2009 Timothy M. Lambert
33438 7590 05/06/2016
TERRILE, CANNATTI, CHAMBERS & HOLLAND, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
DC-14971 5192
EXAMINER
YANCHUS III, PAUL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
kchambers@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY M. LAMBERT, JOHAN RAHARDJO,
TRACY DA VIS, JOHN S. LOFFINK, and ELIE JREIJ
Appeal2014-008054
Application 12/577,866
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-14. 1 We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 In the Appeal Brief, Appellants identify Dell Products L.P. as the real party
in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-008054
Application 12/577,866
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an auxiliary
power control system for enabling a software command that a management
controller sends to the power supply to shut down auxiliary power.
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for providing a coordinated shutdown of
auxiliary power comprising:
placing an information handling system into a standby mode of
operation;
activating console control of a system simulated power cycle;
generating a command to shut down auxiliary power at a PM Bus
enabled power supply, the command being sent via
broadcast addressing to the PM Bus enabled power
supply; and,
transitioning the PM Bus enabled power supply from an auxiliary
po\~1er state to a subauxiliary po\~1er state so as to remove
power from a rail of the auxiliary power supply until a
predetermined condition occurs, the predetermined
condition comprising removing power from the auxiliary
rail of the power supply for a designated amount of time;
and wherein
a management controller initiates an auxiliary power cycle by
generating the command to shut down auxiliary power.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Harrenstien et al. (US 7,774,633 Bl, issued Aug. 10,
2010) and PMBus Power System Management Protocol Specification Parts I
2
Appeal2014-008054
Application 12/577,866
and II, Revision 1.1 (Feb. 5, 2007) ("PMBus Specification"). (Final Act. 2-
5.)
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
issues: 2
Issue 1: Whether the combination of Harrenstien and the PMBus
Specification teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1 and
8. (App. Br. 3--4.)
Issue 2: Whether the combination ofHarrenstien and the PMBus
Specification teaches or suggests the limitations of claims 7 and 14. (App.
Br. 4.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
and we adopt as our own: ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-5); and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 5-10). We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 24, 2013) ("App. Br."),
Reply Brief (filed Jul. 15, 2014) ("Reply Br."), Final Office Action (mailed
Aug. 1, 2013) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 21,
2014) ("Ans.") for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-008054
Application 12/577,866
For both issues one and two, Appellants summarize the cited
references and assert in a conclusory fashion that the limitations of the
claims are not disclosed in or suggested by those references. This approach
fails to persuade us that the Examiner's detailed findings to the contrary are
in error. It is well settled that mere attorney's arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re
De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Merely asserting that the
cited prior art references do not disclose a claim limitation is insufficient to
show error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii)(2010); see also In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 7, 8, and 14. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2---6, and 9-
13, which claims are dependent from claims 1 or 8, and are not argued
separately with particularity. (App. Br. 4.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4