Ex Parte Morris et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 5, 201311359645 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte TERREL MORRIS and COLIN E. BRENCH ____________ Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, HUNG H. BUI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judges. QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-23. Claims 4, 15, and 19 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention The Appellants’ invention relates to providing network subsystem information to a user via indicators that are activated at a desired location and/or in a desired sequence to prompt the user to make connections in accordance with the selected configuration. (App. Br. 8-9.) Exemplary Claim Claims 1, 10, and 16 are independent. Independent claim 1 is representative of the invention, and reads as follows: 1. A method for configuring a component in a computer system, comprising: indicating an installation location and an installation sequence for the component according to a configuration map through the activation of a first indicator; installing the component at the installation location corresponding to the first indicator; performing an electrical connectivity test of the component; and confirming the installation of the component in accordance with the installation location and the installation sequence of the configuration map through the activation of a second indicator. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Moore US 2,776,405 Jan. 1, 1957 Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 3 Turner US 5,603,619 Feb. 18, 1997 McDermott US 6,545,445 B1 Apr. 8, 2003 Burroughs US 7,072,995 B1 Jul. 4, 2006 Bresniker US 2003/0084359 A1 May 1, 2003 Fudali US 2005/0073503 A1 Apr. 7, 2005 Moroney US 2005/0209877 A1 Sep. 22, 2005 Redmond US 2007/0016312 A1 Jan. 18, 2007 Rejections (1) Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker in view of Turner. (Ans. 4-8.) (2) Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker and Turner, and further in view of Fudali. (Ans. 5-6.) (3) Claims 10, 12, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker and Turner, and further in view of McDermott. (Ans. 9-13.) (4) Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker, McDermott, and Turner, and further in view of Fudali. (Ans. 12.) (5) Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker, and further in view of Moore, McDermott, Turner, and Redmond. (Ans. 13-18.) Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 4 (6) Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker, Moore, McDermott, Turner, and Redmond, and further in view of Fudali. (Ans. 17-18.) (7) Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker, Turner, and McDermott, and further in view of Burroughs. (Ans. 18-19.) (8) Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker, Moore, Turner, McDermott, and Redmond, and further in view of Burroughs. (Ans. 19-20.) (9) Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bresniker and Turner, and further in view of Moroney. (Ans. 20-21.) ISSUE Appellants challenge all of the Examiner’s rejections. Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bresniker, as the primary reference. In particular, the issue turns on whether Bresniker teaches or suggests “a first indicator indicating an installation location and sequence” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 16. (App. Br. 14.) Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 5 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as set forth in the Examiner’s Answer. We decide the issue presented based on the arguments actually raised. With respect to claim 1, Appellants concede that Bresniker discloses LEDs 322 that indicate startup progress and errors of the server management card (SMC 300E), Appellants contend, however, that Bresniker fails to teach or even suggest that the LEDs 322 “‘indicat[e] an installation location or installation sequence for the component’ as required by claim 1.” (App. Br. 14 (emphasis added).) Appellants also take issue with the Examiner’s finding that Bresniker teaches “indicating an installation location,” as recited in claim 1 because “signaling a spare board resident in a system to become operational . . . is not the same as ‘indicating an installation location’ . . . .” (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner responds that “[t]he indicating in Bresniker is done as the installation is occurring,” and that the LEDs “indicate the startup progress or as stated in the previous rejection ‘LED’s [sic] in Bresniker are indicative of a specific physical location and specific physical components at the location and are also indicative of start-up progress.” (Ans. 21-22 (emphasis added).) The Examiner also adds that “[i]t was known at the time of the invention that LED’s [sic] can indicate all manners of status and would have been obvious to try at the time of the invention when attempting to show the ‘operational health of cards 300’ as described in paragraph [0003] and [0034].” (Ans. 22 (emphasis added).) The paragraphs relied on by the Examiner, however, do not support either of the stated responses. Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 6 First, while Bresniker discloses LEDs 322, eight of which are “status LEDs” (Bresniker [0033]), Bresniker does not teach that any of those LEDs shows the “operational health of cards 300.” The paragraph of Bresniker on which the Examiner relies states that “[t]he operational health of cards 300 and system 100 are monitored by SMC 300E to ensure the reliable operation of the system 100.” Bresniker [0034]. We find no teaching or suggestion in that paragraph that the monitoring of the operational health of cards 300 is indicated by the status LEDs 322 or that the operational health refers to status of any particular card 300. Instead, we find that Bresniker teaches that LEDs 322 are coupled to three buses 554B, 554D, and 554 F (Bresniker [0051]) which the SMC 300E card uses to communicate with power supply units 114 to obtain configuration and the operational state of the power supply units 114 (Bresniker [0052]). At best, Bresniker discloses status LEDs 322 that indicate the status of the power supply units 114, but not of cards 300. Yet the Examiner’s rejection assumes that the “operational health of cards 300” monitored by the SMC 300E may be indicated by LEDs 322; an assumption that rests unsupported (Ans. 22) and is at odds with the express teachings in Bresniker. Concerning the Examiner’s determination that it would have been obvious to try (Ans. 22) we find insufficient the rationale supporting it. While we agree that it was known at the time of the invention that LEDs can indicate status, as shown in Bresniker, the Examiner fails to state a rationale for why a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, having that knowledge, would indicate either the signaling of a spare card to become operational or a specific card’s startup progress via LEDs 322. Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 7 More specifically, the Examiner failed to establish that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would find it obvious to indicate via status LEDs in Bresniker the location of a spare card becoming operational or the location of a specific card whose status is monitored during startup (and the sequence thereof as required in claim 1). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Bresniker and Turner. With respect to claims 10 and 16, independent claim 10 recites similar language to that discussed with respect to claim 1, namely: “indicating a component upgrade location . . . through the activation of a third indicator.” (App. Br. 29.) Similarly, independent claim 16 recites: “indicating a connection location for the component . . . through a third indicator.” (App. Br. 30.) Appellants argue error in the rejections of claims 10 and 16 based on the same contentions discussed above with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 19-22.) Finding that the Examiner relied on the same facts and conclusions to reject claims 10 and 16, and having made a determination that the Examiner erred, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 16. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 10, and 16, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 16, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5-9, 11-14, 17-18, and 20-23. Appeal 2010-009759 Application 11/359,645 8 DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-14, 16-18, and 20-23 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation