Ex Parte Mathew et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 23, 2012

10465676 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 23, 2012)

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.
10/465,676 06/19/2003 Tisson K. Mathew P16492 4214
28062 7590 03/23/2012
BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
WHIPPLE, BRIAN P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2012 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 TISSON K. MATHEW and CHETAN HIREMATH
____________

Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 31-45. Claims 1-30 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a method, apparatus, and system for
communicating internet protocol (IP) formatted information across an
intelligent platform management bus (IPMB) and for transparently enabling
IP-based communications over an IPMB. See Abstract; Spec. 1:10-15.
Claim 31 is reproduced below with key disputed limitations emphasized:
31. A method comprising:
selecting an intelligent platform management bus address of a
second network device from a table stored in a first network device;
and
transmitting an internet protocol packet from the first network
device to the intelligent platform management bus address of the
second network device via an internet protocol over intelligent
platform management bus protocol stack on an intelligent platform
management bus.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Leung US 6,038,628 March 14, 2000
Thubert US 6,603,769 B1 Aug. 5, 2003
(filed Apr. 29, 1999)

THE REJECTION
Claims 31-45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Leung and Thubert. Ans. 3-5.

Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676

3
THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative independent claim 31, the Examiner finds
that Leung describes many of the limitations, including that Leung’s Figure
3 teaches an IPMB protocol stack on an IPMB that performs the physical
and data link layer functionalities consistent with Appellants’ disclosure.
See Ans. 4, 7-8. The Examiner relies on Thubert to teach selecting an IPMB
address of the second network device from a table stored in a first network
device and for reasons to combine the references. See id.
Appellants argue the cited art fails to disclose or suggest the recited
transmitting step because the recited IPMB cannot be construed to be or is
not equivalent to physical and data link layers based on how an IPMB is
defined in the disclosure. App. Br. 7-81; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants also
assert that an Ethernet network would change the principle of operation of
the present application. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2.

ISSUES
(1) Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 31 by
finding that Leung and Thubert would have taught or suggested an
“intelligent platform management bus,” giving the term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification?
(2) Would combining Thubert’s teachings with Leung destroy
Leung’s principle of operation?

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 26,
2008.
Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676

4
ANALYSIS
The crux of this appeal focuses on the broadest reasonable
construction for the key disputed limitation in claim 31, “an intelligent
platform management bus” or an IPMB. During examination of a patent
application, a claim is given its broadest reasonable construction “in light of
the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004
(citation and internal quotations omitted)). We must therefore construe the
phrase, IPMB, in light of Appellants’ disclosure as one of ordinary skill
would interpret it. See id.
When discussing server management, Appellants state that the
management is often implemented with an Intelligent Platform Management
(IPMI), which may use the IPMB. Spec. 1:8-11; 3:3-7. Additionally,
Appellants mention “[a] certain IPMB is based on a 2-wire serial bus that
provides a standardized interconnection between different devices, or
boards, or blades within a chassis.” Spec 3:23-24 (emphasis added). We
disagree with Appellants (App. Br. 7- 8) that these descriptions of certain or
specific IPMB embodiments define the recited IPMB. See SuperGuide
Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that the modified
Open System Interconnect (OSI) architecture disclosed in the Specification
discusses that the physical layer and data link layer are part of IPMB or the
IPMB performs the layers’ functionalities and that the Examiner did not
concede that the IPMB differs from the physical and data link layers (see
Ans. 8-9). Appellants discuss an example where the network nodes are
operated according to a modified OSI architecture, where the IPMB may
Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676

5
perform the physical and data link layer functionalities. Spec. 7:10-14, 21-
22. Appellants’ Figure 3 also shows this modification, where the IPM
Controllers 114 and 124 communicate over an IPMB, and the IPMB
provides the data link layer and physical layer of the protocol stack. Spec.
12:17-18, 21-23; Fig. 3. We therefore find that the recited IPMB protocol
stack and IPMB includes a modified OSI architecture where the IPMB
performs some of the data link and physical layer functions.
Leung shows a modified OSI architecture where the mapped IPMB
perform some of the physical and data link layers’ functionalities. See Fig.
3. Specifically, Leung’s modified architecture replaces the data link and
physical layers with databus managers 40A-B, physical layers 34A-B, and
bus 26. See Fig. 3. Leung shows at least no distinct data link layer and
explains the databus manager manages the transfer of the converted Ethernet
packets through the physical layers of the first and second node and a bus.
See col. 3, ll. 29-44, 55-61; Fig. 3. Thus, Leung’s architecture uses the
databus manager, physical layer, and bus to perform the data link and
physical layers’ functions. We therefore find that the Examiner’s mapping
of Leung’s databus managers, physical layers, and bus to the recited “[IP]
over [IPMB] protocol stack on an [IPMB]” is broad, but reasonable in light
of the disclosure. See Ans. 4, 7-8.
We also find that Appellants' discussion of the Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2184 is misplaced. Reply Br. 3. This
section relates to claims that invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. No
such limitation has been argued to exist in claim 31. Appellants also
contend that the prior art does not teach or suggest any aspect of an IPMI.
Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676

6
App. Br. 8. This argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 31,
which fails to recite an IPMI.
Lastly, Appellants assert that including an Ethernet network would
change the principle of operation of the present application. App. Br. 6-7;
Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded. Notably, the test set forth is whether the
proposed modification would change the principle of operation of the prior
art invention being modified -- not the principle of operation of the present
application. See App. Br. 6 (citing In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959)).
We find that the proposed modification of including Thubert’s teaching of
selecting a bus address from a table (Thubert, Abstract) would not change
Leung’s principle of operation of transferring data over a memory mapped
bus (Leung, Abstract). Also, Appellants state that the server management
functions require connectivity through Ethernet devices and do not function
seamlessly (Spec. 4:22-26) but does not describe that server management
cannot function within an Ethernet environment (see id.). In fact, the
Examiner demonstrates otherwise. See Ans. 6-7.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of independent claim 31 and claims 32-45 not separately
argued with particularity (App. Br. 6-8).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 31-45 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 31-45 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-013321
Application 10/465,676

7
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

babc