Ex Parte Zhuo et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 6, 2011

10985198 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 6, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte HAIHONG ZHUO and ANIL V. RAO
____________
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198
1

Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MICHAEL R. ZECHER, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
Filed on November 10, 2004. The real party in interest is Dell Products
L.P. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 2-8, 11-16, and 19-23. (App. Br. 2.)
Claims 1, 9, 10, 17, and 18 have been cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method, system, and computer readable
medium for determining the functionality (e.g., supported commands and
command parameters) of a platform management subsystem, and providing
such information to software applications. (Spec. 5, ll. 2-8.)
Illustrative Claim
2. A method of providing information associated with
functionality of a platform management subsystem to software
applications, the method comprising:

determining, for a plurality of platform management
commands, whether functionality associated with respective
commands is supported by the platform management
subsystem; and

storing results of the determining in a file accessible to at
least presentation layer applications;

wherein the determining whether the functionality is
supported by the platform management subsystem comprises:

identifying a parameter of a command associated
with the platform management subsystem;

attempting to set the parameter to each of a
plurality of parameter values; and

Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

3
determining if respective parameter values are
supported based on a completion code provided by the
platform management subsystem.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Ratcliff US 5,987,515 Nov. 16, 1999
Angelo US 6,463,495 B1 Oct. 8, 2002

“IPMI: Intelligent Platform Management Interface Specification
Second Generation,” v2.0, Document Revision 1.0, pp. 1, 235 (Feb. 12,
2004) (hereinafter “IPMI”).

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 2-8, 11-16, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Ratcliff, IPMI, and Angelo.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that that Angelo’s disclosure of a “Set
Status/Value/Parameter function” that allows the status of a device to be
changed amounts to the mere setting of a parameter in a computer system.
(App. Br. 6.) In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellants argue that
Angelo’s “Set Status/Value/Parameter function,” at best, teaches or suggests
changing a device from one state to another (e.g., from ON to OFF or from
OFF to ON), and does not teach or suggest setting the device to a “plurality
of parameter values” (e.g., both ON and OFF), as recited in independent
claim 2. (Reply Br. 2.) Therefore, Appellants allege that Angelo does not
teach or suggest “attempting to set the parameter to each of a plurality of
parameter values,” as claimed. (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2.) Further,
Appellants contend that the Examiner fails to articulate a sufficient rationale
for the proffered combination. (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 3-4.)
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

4
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that the claimed “attempting to set the parameter
to each of a plurality of parameter values” can be construed as setting
parameters to two states: an ON and OFF state. (Ans. 17.) Consequently,
the Examiner finds that Angelo’s disclosure of changing the status of a
device, such as switching the device from an ON state to an OFF state,
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. (Id.) Put another way, the
Examiner finds that Angelo’s disclosure of powering down a hard drive
amounts to setting the hard drive to an OFF state and, therefore, teaches or
suggests setting a parameter to a different state, as claimed. (Id.) Further,
the Examiner provides reasons that would have led an ordinarily skilled
artisan to combine the teachings Ratcliff, IPMI, and Angelo. (Id. at 18-21.)
The Examiner asserts that such reasoning constitutes a sufficient rationale
for the proffered combination. (Id.)

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of
Ratcliff, IPMI, and Angelo renders independent claim 2 unpatentable? In
particular, the issue turns on whether:
(a) the proffered combination teaches or suggests “attempting to
set the parameter to each of a plurality of parameter values,” as recited in
independent claim 2; and
(b) the Examiner provides a sufficient rationale for the proffered
combination.

Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (hereinafter “FF”) are shown by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Ratcliff
FF 1. Ratcliff discloses an Internet Protocol (hereinafter “IP”) Assist
command for high performance Local Area Network/Wide Area Network
connections that allows dynamic configuration of IP functions in gateway
devices and enables virtual IP addressing. (Col. 9, ll. 47-50.) Moreover,
Ratcliff’s figure 5 depicts some of the functions supported and used by
Transmission Control Protocol (hereinafter “TCP”)/IP and on the Open
Systems Adaptor (hereinafter “OSA”) platform. (Id. at ll. 63-64.) Ratcliff
discloses customizing the set of functions to include more or less elements
selectively as applications require. (Col. 10, ll. 62-64.)
IPMI
FF 2. IPMI discloses that “platform management” refers to the
monitoring and control functions that are built into the platform hardware
and primarily used to monitor the health of the system hardware. (1: ¶
[02].) In particular, IPMI discloses that the configuration of Firmware
Firewall capabilities is supported by commands that allow software to
enable/disable individual commands and command sub-functions, and to
discover which commands or command sub-functions can be configured on
a given implementation. (235: ¶ [04].)
Angelo
FF 3. Angelo discloses a method and system of intrachassis computer
component command and control that uses an existing power rail as a
network connection for internal system components. (Col. 3, ll. 14-17.)
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

6
According to Angelo, the method and system includes advantageous
functions, such as roll call enumeration and command authentication and
verification. (Id. at ll. 17-20.)
FF 4. Angelo’s figure 4a depicts a generic command format of a
data/instruction block. (Col. 7, ll. 30-32.) In particular, Angelo discloses
that the function portion of the generic command format indicates the typical
functions to be performed, including: 1) an Enter/Exit/Assign authentication
code function that changes the authentication mode by allowing a device to
be switched between authenticated and unauthenticated command, or
assigning/changing the authentication key; 2) a “Get Status/Value” function
that polls a device for its’ current status (e.g., the current speed of a fan or
the current temperature of a system); and 3) a “Set Status/Value/Parameter”
function that changes the status of a device (e.g., changing the speed of a fan
or powering down a hard drive). (Id. at ll. 35-50.)

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 2
Independent claim 2 recites, inter alia, “attempting to set the
parameter to each of a plurality of parameter values.”
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section supra, Angelo discloses a
computer component command and control system that provides functions
such as command authentication and verification. (FF 1.) In particular,
Angelo discloses a generic command format. (FF 2.) Angelo discloses that
the function portion of the generic command format includes an
Enter/Exit/Assign authentication code function and Set
Status/Value/Parameter function. (Id.) Angelo discloses that the
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

7
Enter/Exit/Assign authentication code function changes the authentication
mode of a device by switching the device between authenticated and
unauthenticated command, whereas the Set Status/Value/Parameter function
changes the status of a device (e.g., powering down a hard drive). (Id.)
We find that Angelo’s disclosure of authenticating and verifying a
command teaches or suggests determining whether the functionality
associated with each command is supported by the computer component
command and control system. (See FF 1-2.) In particular, we find that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that changing the function
portion of Angelo’s generic command format, which includes switching the
authentication mode and setting the status of a device associated therewith to
an ON or OFF state, amounts to determining whether command parameters
associated with the device are supported by Angelo’s system. Moreover, we
find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have also understood that the
status of a device would, at some point in time, be returned to its previous
state (i.e., from an ON state to an OFF state, or vice versa). Put another
way, we agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have readily appreciated that Angelo’s disclosure of setting the status of a
command parameter associated with a device (e.g., hard drive) to either an
ON or OFF state teaches or suggests attempting to set a command parameter
to each of a plurality of parameter values (i.e., both an ON and OFF state),
as claimed. (Ans. 17.) Thus, we find that Angelo teaches or suggests the
disputed claim limitation.
Rationale to Combine
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner fails
to provide a sufficient rationale for the proffered combination. (App. Br. 6-
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

8
10; Reply Br. 3-4.) The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int'l Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften, it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents; . . . and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the
art, all in order to determine whether there was an apparent
reason to combine the known elements in a the fashion claimed
by the patent at issue.

Id. at 418. Additionally, the Court instructs that:
“[[r]]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by
mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness”… however, the
analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can
take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person
of ordinary skill in the art would employ.

Id. (citation omitted).
Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s
suggestion for the proposed modification in the prior art suffices as an
articulated reason to establish the prima facie case of obviousness. In
summary, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of the claimed
invention would have combined Ratcliff’s disclosure of an IP Assist
command along with TCP/IP and OSA supported functions (FF 1), IPMI’s
disclosure of platform management and corresponding functions for
command discovery (FF 2), and Angelo’s disclosure of determining whether
command parameters associated with a device are supported by the
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

9
computer component command and control system. (FFs 3 and 4.) This
proffered combination would predictably result in authenticating and
verifying different variations of commands that are supported by a platform.
(See FF 3.)
Further, as prescribed by the controlling case law, while it is often
necessary for an Examiner to identify a reason for combining the familiar
elements obtained from the prior art in establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness, the identification of such a reason is not a sine qua non
requirement. See KSR 550 U.S. at 418-19. So long as the Examiner
provides an articulated reasoning with some kind of a rational underpinning
to substantiate the obviousness rejection, such a conclusion is proper. See
id. at 418. In this case, the Examiner provided more than just a mere
conclusory statement. The Examiner states that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to incorporate the teachings of IPMI with
Ratcliff’s system for the purpose of standardizing methods for
interfacing/communicating data and information between systems/devices.
(Ans. 7-8; 18-19.)
The Examiner also states that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
been motivated to incorporate the teachings of Angelo with the combination
of Ratcliff and IPMI in order to provide an advantage of using an existing
power rail as a network between system components to be used for
command authentication and verification (see FF 3), as opposed to the
standard IPMI architecture that has the disadvantage of requiring additional
physical connection and device support to interconnect components in a
server-style system. (Ans. 9-11; 20-21.) In our view, such statements
suffice as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to support the
Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

10
proffered combination. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in
concluding that the combination of Ratcliff, IPMI, and Angelo renders
independent claim 2 unpatentable.
Claims 11 and 19
Independent claims 11 and 19 either recite the same or similar claim
limitation as independent claim 2. (See App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 2-3.)
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed supra, the Examiner has not erred
in concluding that the combination of Ratcliff, IPMI, and Angelo renders
independent claims 11 and 19 unpatentable.
Claims 3-8, 12-16, 20-23
Since Appellants argue the rejection of independent claims 2, 11, and
19, and dependent claims 3-8, 12-16, and 20-23, as a single group (See App.
Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-5), dependent claims 3-8, 12-16, and 20-23 fall with
independent claims 2, 11, and 19, respectively. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

V. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 2-8, 11-16, and 19-23
as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-8, 11-16, and
19-23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).

Appeal 2009-011662
Application 10/985,198

11
AFFIRMED

ELD