Kevin B. Leigh et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 27, 2019

14898686 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2019)

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.
14/898,686 12/15/2015 Kevin B. Leigh 90120962 9847
56436 7590 09/27/2019
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
PATEL, MUKUNDBHAI G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2019 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):
chris.mania@hpe.com
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN B. LEIGH and GEORGE D. MEGASON

Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, and
JAMES C. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to finally reject claims 1–13 and 16–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett
Packard Enterprise Development LP. Appeal Br. 1.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed Dec. 15, 2015, the
Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated Oct. 30, 2017,
Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed Mar. 30, 2018, the
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a base layer architecture (“BLA”)
infrastructure device comprising a power base layer (“PBL”) to supply
power to one or more cartridges (electronic device components), a cold
thermal base layer (“cold TBL”) and a hot thermal base layer (“hot TBL”) to
cool and remove heat from the cartridge(s), respectively, and an optical base
layer (“OBL”) and a radio frequency base layer (“RBL”) to transmit and
receive optical and radio frequency signals to and from the cartridge(s),
wherein each base layer comprises a number of cartridge interfaces that
couple the base layers to the cartridges and an interface that couples the base
layer to a rack, either independently or collectively with other base layers.
Spec. ¶ 13.
Appellant’s Figure 1, reproduced below, shows each of these base
layers of the BLA infrastructure device.

Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated July 11, 2018, and Appellant’s Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed Sept. 11, 2018.
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

3
As depicted in Figure 1, BLA infrastructure device 100 includes PBL
102a, OBL 102b, RBL 102c which may be embedded within cold TBL
102d, and hot TBL 102e, wherein each of the base layers includes cartridge
interfaces 106a–e for coupling with one or more cartridges and rack
interfaces 104a–e for coupling with a rack. Spec. ¶¶ 21, 22, and 24. BLA
infrastructure device 100 may include a housing 108 that houses the base
layers and may be electrically, thermally, and/or radio frequency shielding
material. Id. ¶ 34.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 22, reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix to the Appeal Brief, are illustrative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A base layer architecture (BLA) infrastructure device
comprising:
a power base layer (PBL) to supply power to a
cartridge;
a cold thermal base layer (cold TBL) to cool the
cartridge;
a hot thermal base layer (hot TBL) to remove heat
from the cartridge;
an optical base layer (OBL) to transmit an optical
signal to the cartridge; and
a radio frequency base layer (RBL) to transmit a
radio frequency signal to the cartridge;
in which the base layers each comprise:
a rack interface to couple the base layers to a
rack; and
a number of cartridge interfaces to couple
the base layers to the cartridge.

9. A base layer architecture (BLA) infrastructure system,
comprising:
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

4
base layer architecture (BLA) infrastructure device
comprising a number of base layers to receive a number
of cartridges;
a rack, in which the base layers are removably
coupled to the rack; and
a system management device to manage the
number of base layers.

22. A cartridge for a base layer architecture infrastructure
system, the cartridge comprising:
a processor;
a memory;
a power base layer (PBL) interface to removably
connect to a PBL to receive power for the cartridge;
a cold thermal base layer (cold TBL) interface to
removably connect to a cold TBL to cool the cartridge;
a hot thermal base layer (hot TBL) interface to
removably connect to a hot TBL to remove heat from the
cartridge;
and at least one of:
an optical base layer (OBL) interface to
removably connect to an OBL to receive an optical
signal; and
a radio frequency base layer (RBL) interface
to removably connect to and RBL to receive a
radio frequency signal.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:
Lyon et al. (“Lyon”) US 2013/0025818 A1 Jan. 31, 2013
Petruzzo US 2012/0075795 A1 Mar. 29, 2012

REJECTIONS
On appeal, the Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

5
1. Claims 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Lyon;
2. Claims 1–8 and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lyon in view of Petruzzo.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, the applied prior art, and Appellant’s claims and Specification
disclosures, we determine that Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated
anticipation rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office
Action. We offer the following for emphasis only.
The Examiner rejects claims 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
anticipated by Lyon. Final Act. 2–4. Appellant argues these claims as a
group. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), claims 10–13 stand
or fall with claim 9, which we select as representative in our opinion below.
The Examiner finds that Lyon teaches a BLA infrastructure system
having a number of base layers to receive a number of cartridges or servers,
a rack in which the base layers are removably coupled, and a system
management device to manage the number of base layers. Final Act. 2–3.
The Examiner finds that Lyon teaches a rack 101, and that Lyon’s cooling
manifold 200 and interconnection mechanism (which is not shown in the
drawings) are base layers. Id. The Examiner determines that because these
components are part of an assembly of components, they are removably
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

6
coupled. Id. Also, the Examiner finds Lyon’s controller 330 is a system
management device to manage the number of base layers. Id. at 3.
Appellant argues that Lyon fails to disclose base layers to receive a
number of cartridges, wherein the base layers are removably coupled to a
rack. Appeal Br. 5. Appellant asserts that the Examiner characterizes
Lyon’s chassis or rack 101 as both a rack and a base layer. Id. at 6. As
such, Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to explain how rack 101
can be removably coupled to itself. Id. Appellant also contends that Lyon’s
cooling module 200, by itself, cannot be properly characterized as a number
of base layers that receive a number of cartridges because cooling module
200 is merely connected to servers 112 by hoses. Id.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error
because they misapprehend the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner did not
find that rack 101 is a base layer or part of a base layer. Instead, as the
Examiner responds (Ans. 4), the Examiner interprets rack 101 as the rack of
claim 9 and finds that there are two base layers, one of which is not shown in
the drawings, but is described as an interconnection mechanism for
supplying electrical power and communication, and the other of which is the
cooling manifold 200 for cooling the cartridges or servers 112. Thus, the
Examiner found that the rack 101 is a separate structure from either of these
two base layers.
We note that claim 9 requires only a single base layer because “a
number of base layers” broadly covers one or more base layers. Thus, either
of the identified base layers in Lyon would meet this claim recitation. We
further note that Appellant fails to address the interconnection mechanism as
a base layer. Appellant merely challenges the Examiner’s finding that
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

7
Lyon’s cooling manifold 200 is a base layer that receives a cartridge because
the manifold is only connected to the servers via hoses. We disagree. While
Appellant discloses that the base layers and cartridges include interfaces for
connecting together, these interfaces are not described in such a way as to
limit how the term “receiving” is used in claim 9. Accordingly, the hoses
210, 220 of cooling manifold 200 are interfaces that receive each of the
servers 112.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant presents a new argument not raised in
the Appeal Brief, contending that the Examiner improperly interpreted the
terms, “base layer.” Reply Br. 2–4. Appellant also argues for the first time
that the interconnection mechanism cannot be properly characterized as a
base layer, that the cooling manifold and its hoses does not serve as a
foundation or support for any overlying cartridge or server, and that Lyon’s
base layers are not in the rack. Id. 4–7. Under regulations governing
appeals to the Board, any new argument not timely presented in the Appeal
Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of
good cause explaining why the argument could not have been presented in
the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first raised in the brief to
the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834
(BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that arguments and evidence not
timely presented in the principal Brief will not be considered when filed in a
Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument
could not have been presented in the principal brief); Ex parte Borden, 93
USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“Properly interpreted, the
Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

8
been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”).
Appellant has provided this record with no such showing and, therefore, this
argument has been waived. In addition, we note that these arguments are
based on limitations not appearing in the claims such as base layers serving
as supports for overlying cartridges. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (rejecting appellant’s nonobviousness argument as
based on limitation not recited in claim); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348
(CCPA 1982) (“Many of appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because,
as the solicitor has pointed out, they are not based on limitations appearing
in the claims.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 9–13.
Rejection 2
After review of the Examiner’s and Appellant’s opposing positions,
the applied prior art, and Appellant’s claims and Specification disclosures,
we determine that Appellant has identified reversible error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection as to claims 1–8, 16–18, and 21, but are insufficient to
identify reversible error in the obviousness rejection as to claims 19, 20, and
22. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we
affirm the stated obviousness rejection as to claims 19, 20, and 22 only for
substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action, but otherwise reverse
this rejection as to claims 1–8, 16–18, and 21. We offer the following for
emphasis only.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–8 and 16–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lyon. Final Act. 5–15. Appellant argues independent
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

9
claim 22 and dependent claims 16, 17, and 18 separately, but otherwise
argues the remaining claims as a group.
In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), claims 19 and 20
stand or fall with claim 9 from which they depend. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19 and 20 for the reasons discussed above
with respect to Rejection 1.
Claims 1–8, 16–18, and 21
The Examiner finds that Lyon discloses a BLA infrastructure device
having a PBL to supply power, a cold TBL to cool cartridges, a hot TBL to
remove heat from the cartridges, an OBL to transmit optical signals to the
cartridge, and an RBL to transmit a radio frequency signal to the cartridges,
wherein each of the base layers comprise a rack interface to couple the base
layers to a rack and a number of cartridge interfaces to couple the base
layers to the cartridge. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner finds that Lyon
teaches the rack provides electrical power and optical communication
connections essential to operate servers, but fails to show “well known
essential and specific details” of these connections. Id. at 6. However, the
Examiner finds that Petruzzo teaches details of a PBL 510 and an OBL 520,
540. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
provide the known details of providing power and communication signals to
each server via a PBL and an OBL as taught by Petruzzo in the BLA
architecture device of Lyon to increase modularity and flexibility. Id.
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the Examiner has failed to present
any evidence that Lyon’s radio frequency sensors have a rack interface to
couple such sensor to the rack and cartridge interfaces to couple the
cartridges to the sensors. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner responds that
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

10
each server can use the optical and radio frequency network, but that the
connection details for each server are not shown. Ans. 10–11. The
Examiner then indicates that Petruzzo is relied on for such details. Id.
However, the Examiner fails to direct our attention to any disclosure in
Petruzzo of any connection details for an RBL for transmitting and receiving
radio frequency signals to and from servers. Thus, the combination of Lyon
and Petruzzo fails to teach or suggest any connection details for an RBL
including a rack interface to couple Lyon’s radio frequency sensors to the
rack and cartridge interfaces to couple the servers to the sensors. Absent
such a teaching, the Examiner’s conclusion lacks sufficient rational
underpinning. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[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.”), quoted with
approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
1, and claims 2–8, 16–18, and 21 which depend therefrom.
Claim 22
After review of the opposing positions articulated by Appellant and
the Examiner, and the appeal record before us, we determine that
Appellant’s arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 22. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356,
1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated obviousness
rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer and the Final Office Action. We offer
the following for emphasis only.
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

11
The Examiner finds that Lyon teaches a cartridge 112 for a BLA
infrastructure system comprising processor 1110, memory 1120, a cold TBL
interface (Figs. 2, 6) to removably connect to a cold TBL 210 to cool the
cartridge, a hot TBL interface (Figs. 2, 6) to removably connect to a hot TBL
to remove heat from the cartridge, and at least one of an RBL interface to
removably connect to an RBL to receive a radio frequency signal, an OBL
interface to removably connect to an OBL to receive an optical signal, and a
PBL interface to removably connect to a PBL to receive power for the
cartridge. Final Act. 13–14. The Examiner further finds that Lyon teaches
rack 101 for providing electrical power and optical communication
connections essential to operate servers, but does not show well known
essential and specific details. Id. at 14. However, the Examiner finds that
Petruzzo teaches details of a PBL 510 and an OBL 520, 540. Id. Therefore,
the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to provide the
known details of providing power and communication signals to each server
via a PBL and an OBL as taught by Petruzzo in the BLA architecture device
of Lyon to increase modularity and flexibility. Id. at 14–15.
Appellant argues that neither Lyon nor Petruzzo discloses a cartridge
having each of the noted interfaces that allows the cards to removably
connect to each of a PBL, a cold TBL, a hot TBL, and at least one of an
OBL and an RBL. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant contends that claim 22 does
not simply recite that the cartridge has connections, but that “the cartridge
has multiple interfaces that allow the cartridge to removably connect to each
of multiple base layers.” Id. at 16–17. Appellant asserts that the Examiner
failed to present evidence that either reference discloses a cartridge with
interfaces for connection to each of the recited base layers. Id. at 17.
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

12
Appellant’s arguments with regard to claim 22 are not persuasive of
reversible error. As Appellant states, claim 22 requires a cartridge having
interfaces that removably connect to each of a PBL, a cold TBL, a hot TBL,
and at least one of an OBL and an RBL. As discussed above, and as the
Examiner finds, Lyon teaches cold and hot TBL’s that removably connect to
each server or cartridge 112. Thus, each cartridge must have an interface
which removably connects with the TBL interfaces. While Lyon neither
depicts the details of the PBL nor, therefore, the details of an interface with
the servers or cartridges, Petruzzo teaches a PBL and an OBL that
removably connect to each server and thus each server or cartridge includes
an interface to removably connect to the PBL and the OBL. Appellant does
not challenge the obviousness of adding such interfaces to Lyon’s cartridges.
We are, therefore, satisfied that the record sufficiently supports the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of the claimed cartridge and that
Appellant fails to identify reversible error in either the Examiner’s findings
or reasoning in this regard.
As before, Appellant raises new arguments in the Reply Brief
contending that the Examiner improperly interpreted the terms, “base layer,”
that computing environment of Figure 10 would most likely constitute an
individual server and not a base layer that connects to a server, and that the
cooling manifold and its hoses cannot properly be characterized as a base or
a layer. Reply Br. 13–15. Absent a showing of good cause explaining why
the argument could not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2). Appellant has provided this record with no such
showing and, therefore, these arguments have been waived. Again, we note
that these arguments are based on limitations not appearing in the claims.
Appeal 2018-008824
Application 14/898,686

13
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claim 22.
DECISION
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and
in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 9–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated
by Lyon and rejecting claims 19, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lyon in view of Petruzzo is affirmed.
However, for the reasons given above and in the Appeal and Reply
Briefs, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–8, 16–18, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lyon in view of Petruzzo is
reversed.

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
9–13 § 102(a)(1); Lyon 9–13
1–8, 16–22 § 103; Lyon,
Petruzzo
19, 20, 22 1–8, 16–18,
21
Overall Outcome 9–13, 19, 20,
22
1–8, 16–18,
21

AFFIRMED-IN-PART