Ex Parte Malone et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2016

11046476 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111046,476 01/28/2005 Christopher G. Malone
56436 7590 02/26/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82189385 2212
EXAMINER
SA VAN!, A VINASH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3749
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER G. MALONE, THANEM. LARSON
and GLENN C. SIMON
Appeal2012-006929
Application 11/046,4 7 6
Technology Center 3700
Before MARC S. HOFF, STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-9, 30-33 and 35--45. Claims 5, 10-29
and 34 are cancelled. The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 6-9, 30-33 and 35-
43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2006) as being unpatentable over Bishop (US
6,535,382 B2, issued Mar. 18, 2003), Whalley (US 2006/0112286 Al, pub.
May 25, 2006) and Sharma (US 2003/0200050 Al, pub. Oct. 23, 2003)
The Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP, a Texas limited partnership wholly-owned by
Hewlett-Packard Corporation of Palo Alto, California.
Appeal2012-006929
Application 11/046,476
(Ans. 5-22); and claims 44 and 45 under§ 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Bishop, Whalley, Sharma and Battat (US 6,289,380 Bl, issued Sept.
11, 2001) (Ans. 22-23). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Claims 1 and 30 are independent:
1. An airflow distribution apparatus for
usage in a data center comprising:
at least one airflow sensor coupled to a
plurality of fans in at least one server in the data
center;
a controller coupled to the at least one airflow
sensor; and
a management application executable on the
controller that automates change and configuration
management of software across multiple computing
devices and platforms and is configured to monitor
airflow for the fan plurality and control cooling in
the data center as a function of the sensed airflow,
and further configured to map airflow in three
dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan
location.
(App. Br. 17 (Claims App'x)).
30. An airflow processmg apparatus for
usage in a data center comprising:
means for automating change and
configuration management of software across
multiple computing devices and platforms;
means for monitoring airflow in a ventilation
system including a plurality of fans in at least one
server in the data center using the means for
automating change and configuration management
of software;
2
Appeal2012-006929
Application 11/046,476
means for controumg cooling in the
ventilation system as a function of sensed airflow
using the means for automating change and
configuration management of software; and
means for mapping airflow in three
dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan
location.
(App. Br. 19 (Claims App'x)).
Bishop describes a critical environment room 10 for containing a
plurality of electronic module cabinet assemblies l 4a-n. The critical
environment room 10 includes a supervising controller 16 for monitoring
and controlling environmental characteristics. (See Bishop, col. 9, 11. 3-21
and Fig. 1 ). Each cabinet assembly l 4a-n is associated with a cooling
controller 21-24. Each cooling controller 21-24 includes a flow sensor 51
to measure the flow of air through a damper in the controller into the
associated cabinet assembly l 4a-n. (See Bishop, col. 9, 11. 55-66 and Fig.
2). Each flow sensor 51 is electrically coupled to the supervisory controller
16 by way of the cooling controller 21-24 that includes it. (See Bishop, col.
10, 11. 3-11 ). Each cabinet assembly l 4a-n includes shelf members 13 6
mounting electronic modules 26, 28, 30, 32, 34. Each electronic module 26,
28, 30, 32, 34 includes one or more small fans 218 fluidically coupled to the
cooling controller 21-24 associated with the cabinet assembly l 4a-n
housing the electronic module by way of a plenum space 151 in the cabinet
assembly. (See Bishop, col. 11, 1. 66 - col. 12, 1. 4 and Fig. 5; see also id.,
col. 12, 11. 26-37). In this manner, the plurality of fans 218 of the electric
modules 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 are coupled to the flow sensor 51 of the
associated cooling controller 21-24. (See Final Act. 4).
3
Appeal2012-006929
Application 11/046,476
Whalley describes a data center including a network central computer
203 and data center components 1 OJ. (See Whalley, para. 26 and Fig. 2).
The central computer 203 executes a software management application
which monitors the workload, power load and heat load of the data center
components 101; optimizes and balances the workload of each data center
component in view of the heat and power load; and relocates applications
between the data center components in order to implement the optimization
and balance. (See Whalley, paras. 38 and 39). The Examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
Bishop's supervisory controller 16 providing a similar management
application executable on the supervisory controller. (See Final Act. 5-6).
The Examiner finds that neither Bishop nor Whalley would have
suggested configuring the supervisory controller to map airflow in three
dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan location. (See Final Act.
6). Sharma describes system 10 for controlling atmospheric conditions
within a data center. (See Sharma, para. 2). The system 10 includes
atmospheric sensors 12, a central processing unit ("CPU") 14 and an
atmospheric control unit 16. (Sharma, para. 14). Sharma teaches that the
atmospheric control sensors 12 could be fluid velocity sensors; that the
atmospheric control sensors 12 communicate electronically with the CPU
14; and that "the CPU 14 is capable of keeping track of the location of each
atmospheric sensor 12 such that the output of each can be 'mapped'."
(Sharma, para. 15).
Sharma does not describe either "means for mapping airflow in three
dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan location," as recited in
independent claim 30, or a management application configured to map
4
Appeal2012-006929
Application 11/046,476
airflow in three dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan location,
as recited in claim 1. At most, Sharma describes mapping measurements
taken by fluid velocity sensors within a data center. It does not describe
mapping those measurements as a function of fan location. (See App. Br.
13; Reply Br. 4). Even if Sharma did describe either "means for mapping
airflow in three dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan location,"
as recited in independent claim 30, or a management application configured
to map airflow in three dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan
location, as recited in claim 1, it only teaches controlling the cooling of a
data center based on a map of temperature measurements taken within the
data center. (See, e.g., Sharma, paras. 16-18; see also App. Br. 13). Sharma
suggests no reason to modify a software management application used to
control the cooling of a data center in order to map airflow in three
dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan location.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
had reasons to modify the systems described by Bishop, already modified to
use a software management application as taught by Whalley, to map
airflow in three dimensions as a function of sensed airflow and fan location
"in order to enable a data center operator to accurately adjust the setting of
the cooling equipment in accordance with the dynamic load conditions so as
to reduce energy consumption." (Ans. 13). As support for this finding, the
Examiner cites paragraph 28 of Sharma. Paragraph 28 of Sharma teaches
operating a cooling system relatively more efficiently "by virtue of a more
precise method of tracking and using actual temperature measurement as an
input to cooling system control," however. (Id.) The Examiner has not
established that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to
5
Appeal2012-006929
Application 11/046,476
configure a software management application perform the recited mapping
function. The Examiner's reasoning on pages 25-28 of the Answer is not
persuasive.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9,
30-33 and 35--43 under§ 103(a) (2006) as being unpatentable over Bishop,
Whalley and Sharma. In rejecting claims 44 and 45, each of which depends
from claim 1, the Examiner finds that Battat "teaches a network
management system (see Fig. 1) that is configured to perform hardware
fault, asset, and configuration management operations for a plurality of
servers for the purpose of allowing a network administrator to manage all
components of a heterogeneous networked computer system." (Final Act.
21 ). This teaching does not remedy the deficiency in the combined
teachings of Bishop, Whalley and Sharma discussed in connection with
claims 1 and 30. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 44 and
45 under §103(a) as being unpatentable over Bishop, Whalley, Sharma and
Battat.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-9,
30-33 and 35--45.
REVERSED
6