Le-Sheng Chou et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 31, 2019

14865955 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 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.
14/865,955 09/25/2015 Le-Sheng CHOU 077369-104053USPT 9567
143588 7590 07/31/2019
Nixon Peabody LLP
799 Ninth Street NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20001
EXAMINER
IRADUKUNDA, HERVE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2185
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2019 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):
ipairlink@nixonpeabody.com
nppatent@nixonpeabody.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LE-SHENG CHOU and SZ-CHIN SHIH
___________

Appeal 2018-0085731
Application 14/865,955
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of
claims 1–20, all pending claims.2 App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates generally to systems and methods for
sharing input/output (“I/O”) using “universal sleds,” in which “each

1 Appellants assert the real party in interest is Quanta Computer, Inc.
Appeal Brief 3.
2 In this Opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed February
20, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 17, 2018), the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 20, 2018), the Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed September 25, 2017), and the Specification (“Spec.,”
filed September 25, 2015).
Appeal 2018-008573
Application 14/865,955

2

computing module can be slid into and out of the server rack (i.e., a sled).”
Spec. ¶¶ 1, 2. Appellants’ Figure 1 is reproduced below.

Figure 1 illustrates exemplary server system 100 for sharing I/O using
universal sleds. Spec. ¶ 9. Universal sleds 140 and 150 (“UNIVERSAL
Appeal 2018-008573
Application 14/865,955

3

SLED 1” and “UNIVERSAL SLED 2”) are coupled with midplane board
110 via bus 104. Id. ¶ 21. I/O sled 130 is coupled to midplane board 106
via bus 102. Id.
Claims 1, 13, and 18 are the independent claims. Independent system
claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A system for sharing input/output by universal sleds,
comprising:
a first universal sled comprising a first switch and a first
universal node;
a second universal sled comprising a second switch and a
second universal node, wherein the first universal sled and
second universal sled have interchangeable physical dimensions;
a midplane board comprising a management processor and
a midplane switch;
an input/output sled; and
a bus, wherein the midplane switch is connected to the first
universal sled via the bus, connected to the second universal sled
via the bus, and connected to the input/output sled via the bus.
Independent claims 13 and 18 recite similar elements in differing
claim styles.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4–8, 10, 12–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Boyd (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2014/0149658 A1). Final Act. 7–18.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Boyd
and Kandula et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0167101 A1)
(“Kandula”). Final Act. 19–20.
Appeal 2018-008573
Application 14/865,955

4

Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Boyd
and Abraham et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0109896 A1)
(“Abraham”). Final Act. 20–21.
Claims 11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Boyd and Chandrasekhar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2014/0052309 A1) (“Chandrasekhar”). Final Act. 22–24.

ANALYSIS
Section 102 Rejection
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Boyd expressly
discloses all elements and, in particular, finds Boyd discloses the recited
universal sleds that each comprise a corresponding switch (i.e., a first
universal sled that comprises a first switch). Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4.
More specifically, the Examiner finds the recited first and second universal
sleds read on information handling systems 102 of Boyd’s Figure 1 (also
systems 102a and 102b of Boyd’s Figure 2). Id. (citing Boyd ¶¶ 19, 43,
Figs. 1, 2). Furthermore, the Examiner finds the recited first and second
switches that are comprised in the recited first and second universal sleds
read on Boyd’s switch interfaces 104 of Boyd’s Figure 1 (also switch
interfaces 104(a) through 104(d) of Boyd’s Figure 2). Id.
Appellants argue Boyd does not expressly disclose a switch in
information handling systems 102. App. Br. 10. More specifically,
Appellants argue Boyd identifies only switch 110 (of Boyd’s Figures 1 and
2) as a switch and specifically identifies switch interface 104 as an interface
to switch 110. Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue switch interfaces 104 serve to
Appeal 2018-008573
Application 14/865,955

5

communicatively couple systems 102 with switches 110, but are not
themselves switches as required by claim 1. Id. (citing Boyd ¶ 46).
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. “A claim is anticipated
only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either
expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal
Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
An anticipatory reference is not required to duplicate word for word what is
in the claims. Standard Havens Prods, Inc. v. Gencor Indus, Inc., 953 F.2d
1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Rather, a reference anticipates a claim if it
discloses the claimed invention “such that a skilled artisan could take its
teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and
be in possession of the invention.” In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed.
Cir. 1995) (emphasis in the original)(citation omitted). In other words, the
prior art references must be considered from the perspective of a person of
ordinary skill in the art.
Boyd teaches,
A switch interface 104 may comprise any system, device,
or apparatus configured to provide an interface between its
associated information handling system 102 and switches 110.
In some embodiments, switches 110 may comprise Peripheral
Component Interconnect Express (“PCIe”) switches, in which
case a switch interface 104 may comprise a switch card
configured to create a PCIe-compliant interface between its
associated information handling system 102 and switches 110.
Boyd ¶ 21. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure of Boyd
teaching that switch interface 104 performs any switching function.
Furthermore, the Examiner has not asserted that such a feature is inherent in
the Boyd’s disclosure of switch interface 104. Still further, the Examiner
has not explained that the above-quoted disclosure of Boyd or any other
Appeal 2018-008573
Application 14/865,955

6

disclosures of Boyd would be understood, from the perspective of an
ordinarily skilled artisan, as teaching that switch interface 104 is itself a
switch as recited.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent system claim 1 as anticipated by Boyd. Independent claims 13
and 18 include similar recitations that require each universal sled to
comprise a switch. The Examiner rejects claims 13 and 18 applying the
same disclosure of Boyd for these switch-related elements (Final Act. 13–
14, 16–18) and Appellants argue the Examiner erred for essentially the same
reasons as for claim 1 (App. Br. 13–27; Reply Br. 4–10). Therefore, for the
same reasons as independent claim 1, we are persuaded the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 13 and 18. Dependent claims 2, 4–8, 10, 12, 14–17, and
20 each depend, directly or indirectly, from one of claims 1, 13, and 18.
Thus, for the same reasons as their respective base claims 1, 13, and 18, we
are persuaded the Examiner erred.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2,
4–8, 10, 12–18, and 20.

Section 103 Rejections
Claims 3, 9, 11, and 19 each depend, directly or indirectly, from one
of independent claims 1, 13, and 18. The Examiner’s rejections of these
claims do not rely on the additional references to overcome the above-
identified deficiency in the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 18. Morever, the
Examiner does not show that the disputed recitation would have been
obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill in the art based on the cited teachings
of Boyd. Accordingly, for the same reasons as claims 1, 13, and 18, we are
Appeal 2018-008573
Application 14/865,955

7

persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 9, 11, and 19, and we do
not sustain the rejections of claims 3, 9, 11, and 19.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting all pending
claims 1–20 is reversed.

REVERSED