Ex Parte Larson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 20, 2010

10460288 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 20, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte THANE M. LARSON and LOREN M. KOEHLER
____________

Appeal 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, MARC S. HOFF, and
THOMAS S. HAHN, Administrative Patent Judges.

RUGGIERO, 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 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Appeal Brief (filed October 31, 2007) and the
Answer (mailed January 29, 2008). Only those arguments actually made by
Appellants have been considered in this decision. Arguments which
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived (see 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii)).
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to an intercoupling apparatus including a
substantially rigid coupling element for coupling a plurality of rack
mountable server computer systems in a network topology. Further included
in the intercoupling apparatus is a network management processor which is
integral with the coupling element. (See generally Spec. 4:10-17).
Representative claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as
follows:
1. An intercoupling apparatus comprising:
a substantially rigid coupling element for coupling a plurality of rack
mountable server computer systems in a network topology;
a network management processor integral to said coupling element
and coupled to said plurality of rack mountable server computer systems;
and
wherein said network management processor is for performing a
management function of said plurality of rack mountable server computer
systems.
Appeal 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288

3
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner’s Answer cites the following references:
Fung US 2002/0007464 A1 Jan. 17, 2002
Hewlett Packard Company, HP Blade Server Data Sheet (Dec. 2001)
[hereinafter HP].
Claims 1-20, all of the appealed claims, stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Fung.2
Claims 1-20 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based
upon a public use or sale of the invention more than one year prior to the
filing of the application as evidenced by HP.

ANALYSIS
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-20 based on Fung.
Appellants’ arguments with respect to the anticipation rejection of
representative claim 1 initially focus on the contention that, in contrast to the
claimed invention, Fung does not disclose a network management processor
which is coupled to a plurality of rack mountable server systems.3
According to Appellants (App. Br. 11), Fung’s disclosed apparatus
illustrated in Figure 1 and discussed at paragraph [0040] is itself a rack
mountable server system that includes server system units 52, management
modules (MMs) 53, and server modules (SMs) 54. In Appellants’

2 Although the Examiner’s stated rejection (Ans. 6) is based on under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e), the Fung reference additionally qualifies under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as the publication date of Jan. 17, 2002, is more than one year prior
to Appellants’ application filing date of Jun. 11, 2003.
3 Appellants argue rejected claims 1-20 together as a group and make
particular reference only to independent claim 1. See App. Br. 10.
Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative of all claims on appeal. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288

4
interpretation (id.), Fung has only a single server system which includes a
management module (MM) but there is no disclosure of a management
processor which is coupled to a plurality of server systems, as is claimed.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive, as we find ample
support within the disclosure of Fung to support the Examiner’s stated
position (Ans. 3-4, 9). In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s
interpretation of Fung, which determines that the multiple SMs 54
correspond to the claimed server computer systems. This is confirmed by
Fung’s disclosure that each server module (SM) 54 provides a fully
independent server that includes a processor, memory, mass storage, and
input/output ports (Fig. 1; ¶ [0040], ll. 1-8).
Further included in Fung is a management module (MM) 53 which is
coupled to the plurality of SMs 54 in chassis 55 which also includes
switches 59 and a backplane 58 (Figs. 1-2; ¶ [0040], ll. 8-14). Also, as
discussed by the Examiner (Ans. 9), although the system of Fung includes
multiple management processor modules, there is no claim language that
precludes having more than one management processor.
We also find unpersuasive Appellants’ argument (App. Br. 8) that the
Examiner has not properly interpreted the claim terminology “server
computer systems” as it is defined and described in the Specification.
Appellants, however, have not pointed to any specific definition or
description in the Specification for “server computer systems” that would
distinguish over the SMs of Fung which the Examiner has asserted as
corresponding to the claimed “server computer systems.” It is noteworthy
that Appellants’ Specification describes stackable elements 331-338
illustrated in Appellants’ Figure 3 as each being a “server computer system,”
Appeal 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288

5
which is remarkably similar to the server system illustrated in Figure 1 of
Fung.
We also make the observation that, in an alternative interpretation of
Fung, the plural server system units 52, each of which include SMs 54 and
integral management processor modules 53, can be interpreted as the
plurality of server computer systems which are coupled to the backplane 58
and switches 59 of the coupling element (Figs. 1-2; ¶ [0040], ll. 1-8).
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding that all of the claimed
limitations are present in the disclosure of Fung, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-
20 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1-20 based on HP.
We also sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1-20
based on HP. At the outset, we note that, while the Examiner has couched
the stated rejection as being based on the “public use or sale” clause of
35 U.S.C. § 102(b), Appellants have made no arguments directed to whether
the system described in the HP document meets the “public use or sale”
portion of the statute. Instead, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 8-9) are
directed solely to whether what is described in the HP document anticipates
the claimed invention.
In arguments which are similar to those asserted against the Fung
reference, Appellants contend (App. Br. 8-9) that the HP document discloses
a single server computer system housed in a chassis that accommodates a
number of processor-based blade servers, and not a plurality of coupled
server computer systems as claimed. Similar to our finding with respect to
Appeal 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288

6
Fung discussed supra, however, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3-4, 8-9)
that the “hp blade server” illustrated and described at the bottom of page 3 of
the HP document corresponds to the claimed server computer system as it
includes a processor, memory, disk drive, etc., as well as an I/O subsystem.
A plurality of these blade servers, i.e., server computer systems, are mounted
in the blade server chassis (HP 3). We further agree with the Examiner’s
finding that the HP document discloses a management processor in the form
of a “management blade” which is integral with a chassis mounted
intercoupling “management LAN blade” (HP 4).
Lastly, although the Examiner’s stated rejection relies on the “public
use or sale” provision of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as previously discussed, the HP
document also is anticipatory of the claimed invention under the “printed
publication” clause of the statue as its publication date of December 2001 is
more than one year prior to Appellants’ June 11, 2003, application filing
date.

CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis above, we conclude that the Examiner did not
err in rejecting claims 1-20 for anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102
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)(v) (2009).

Appeal 2009-005463
Application 10/460,288

7
AFFIRMED

babc

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528