VCE Company, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 17, 2021

2020000543 (P.T.A.B. May. 17, 2021)

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.
14/460,713 08/15/2014 Timothy Allen Cox V69138 1210US.1 (0029.8) 1010
116834 7590 05/17/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/DELL-VCE
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
HOANG, PHUONG N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2021 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):
ipdocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIMOTHY ALLEN COX
____________

Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–5, 7, and 8, which constitute all of the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

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 VCE IP
Holding Company LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

3
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to “a system,
method, apparatus, and computer program product for generating a cabling
plan for a computing system.” Spec. ¶ 1.2
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for building a computing system, the method
comprising:
generating a cabling plan for the computing system
including a plurality of components within one or more racks,
generating the cabling plan including processing circuity
automatically at least:
accessing an elevation plan defining a respective
mount position for each of the plurality of components of
the computing system within the one or more racks;
determining one or more port pairs to be used for
interconnecting the plurality of components, wherein each
port pair of the one or more port pairs comprises a pair of
ports for connecting two components of the plurality of
components;
determining, for each port pair of the one or more
port pairs, a cable length to use to connect the pair of ports
in the port pair, wherein the cable length is determined
based at least in part on mount positions defined by the
elevation plan for the two components connected by the
port pair, and wherein for each of at least one port pair of
the one or more port pairs, determining the cable length
includes:

2 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 15, 2014 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed Nov. 29, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed May 13,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 6, 2019 (“Ans.”); and
the Reply Brief filed Oct. 30, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

4
determining a horizontal distance between a
position of a first port in the port pair and a vertical
routing position at which a cable connecting the first
port and a second port in the port pair will be routed
vertically from a mount position of a component on
which the first port is implemented toward a mount
position of a component on which the second port
is implemented; and
determining the cable length to use to connect
the pair of ports in the port pair further based on the
horizontal distance; and
generating the cabling plan defining, for each port pair of
the one or more port pairs, the cable length to use to connect the
pair of ports in the port pair; and
building the computing system by a user, according to the
cabling plan, including using at least a cable with the cable length
to connect the pair of ports in the port pair.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Einsweiler et al.
(“Einsweiler”)
US 2010/0057393 A1 Mar. 4, 2010
Anderson et al.
(“Anderson”)
US 2012/0234778 A1 Sept. 20, 2012
Razafinjatovo et al.
(“Razafinjatovo”)
US 2014/0067339 A1 Mar. 6, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 5, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Razafinjatovo and Anderson. Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

5
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Razafinjatovo, Anderson, and Einsweiler. Final Act. 11.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 Rejections
Claims 1–3 and 7
Claim 1 recites (emphasis added):
determining, for each port pair of the one or more port pairs, a
cable length to use to connect the pair of ports in the port pair . . .
determining the cable length includes: determining a horizontal
distance between a position of a first port in the port pair and a
vertical routing position at which a cable connecting the first port
and a second port in the port pair will be routed vertically from a
mount position of a component on which the first port is
implemented toward a mount position of a component on which
the second port is implemented.
Appellant argues that Anderson, as cited, teaches a track having an
entrance port and an exit port, but “does not teach or suggest determining the
distance between the entrance port 381 and exit port 389, much less
determining the claimed horizontal distance between the claimed
position of a first port in the port pair and the claimed vertical routing
position.” Appeal Br. 4. Appellant also argues that Anderson’s “inter-rack
patch cables” that “have a first common length” and “may come in one of
many standard lengths” do not teach “determining the claimed horizontal
distance between the claimed position of a first port in the port pair and
the claimed vertical routing position.” Id. at 5. Specifically, Appellant
argues that Anderson’s teaching “that a portion of a cable connecting two
ports can be run in a horizontal or vertical direction does not constitute a
teaching of determining a horizontal distance between two ports with the
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

6
particular relationship recited in the claims, and does not teach or suggest
actually determining the cable length to use based on the horizontal distance
between those ports.” Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually, where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner does not rely on Anderson to teach the claimed
determining a horizontal distance. Instead, the Examiner relies on
Razafinjatovo’s teaching that the calculation of a length of cable includes the
“location of the racks” and “location of the connectors (ports of the
devices),” which are disposed horizontally and vertically “in rows and
columns” to teach determining the horizontal and vertical positions for the
ports in a port pair. Ans. 17 (citing Razafinjatovo ¶¶ 69, 80–81, 83, 85–87);
see Final Act. 5 (citing Razafinjatovo ¶¶ 24, 69). The Examiner relies on
Anderson to teach only “defining cable length.” Ans. 14–15 (citing
Anderson ¶¶ 35, 45, 102, 177, 182, 193, Figs. 10, 24, 25); see also Final Act.
6–7.
As cited by the Examiner, Razafinjatovo discloses “determin[ing] . . .
the location and the length of each cable to be used.” Razafinjatovo ¶ 69.
Razafinjatovo explains that the “calculation of the length of cables is carried
out here according to the location of the racks . . . the location of the devices
within the racks . . . the location of the connectors on the devices . . . the
position of the connectors relative to their location.” Id. ¶ 81. Specifically,
the “racks are disposed here in rows, forming aisles,” and “[e]ach rack
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

7
comprises a vertically disposed volume.” Id. ¶¶ 85–86. Razafinjatovo
describes “[k]nowing the position of a rack” and “determin[ing] the position
of each connector of that rack.” Id. ¶ 87. Additionally, Anderson discloses
that “patch cables 510 having different lengths may be utilized” and “patch
cables 510 all having a common length may be utilized,” with the “common
length ranging from about one meter to about twenty meters” or “from about
two meters to about ten meters.” Anderson ¶ 182.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why Anderson’s determining
a cable length to utilize, combined with Razafinjatovo’s determining cable
length by determining the positions of the connectors in the racks as they are
disposed horizontally and vertically, does not teach the claimed determining
cable length by “determining the cable length includes: determining a
horizontal distance between a position of a first port in the port pair and a
vertical routing position” as claimed.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, along with dependent claims 2, 3, and 7, which are not argued
separately. See Appeal Br. 6.
Claim 5
Claim 5 additionally recites “determining . . . a minimum cable length
needed to connect the pair of ports in the port pair” and “determining a
shortest cable length from a plurality of available cable lengths satisfying the
minimum cable length.”
The Examiner finds that Razafinjatovo’s determines the cable length
and defining a list of each cable required to be ordered teaches the disputed
limitation. Final Act. 9 (citing Razafinjatovo ¶¶ 24, 83); see also Ans. 19.
According to the Examiner, “[t]he length to be required would be the
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

8
minimum length or shortest length to meet requirement.” Ans. 19. The
Examiner determines that teaching—combined with Anderson’s teaching of
a shortest cable length of one meter (Anderson ¶ 182)––teaches the disputed
limitation. Ans. 19.
Appellant argues that Razafinjatovo does not teach “determining a
shortest cable length from a plurality of available cable lengths.” Appeal Br.
6–7. Specifically, Appellant argues that the references do not “contemplate
the determination of the shortest necessary cable length, much less
comparing that determined shortest cable length against the lengths of
available cables to determine the shortest available cable that satisfied the
minimum length,” as required by the claims. Reply Br. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument. As cited by the
Examiner, Razafinjatovo discloses “defin[ing] a list of each cable required to
be ordered according to its type and its length (compared to the standardized
cable lengths in existence).” Razafinjatovo ¶ 83.
Based on the current record and the Examiner’s findings, we agree
with Appellant that the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence or
provided sufficient explanation as to how Razafinjatovo’s defining a list of
required cable teaches or suggests “determining a shortest cable length from
a plurality of available cable lengths satisfying the minimum cable length”
as claimed. The Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning as to why
the person of ordinary skill in the art would apply Razafinjatovo’s defining a
list of each cable required to be ordered, based on its length and compared to
standardized cable length, and necessarily determining a minimum cable
length needed and the shortest cable length from a plurality of available
cable lengths that satisfy the minimum cable length. Instead, the cited
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

9
sections of Razafinjatovo merely teach broadly defining a list of cables
required from cables available for order. See Razafinjatovo ¶ 83.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s finding that
the combination of Razafinjatovo and Anderson teaches the disputed
limitation is in error because it is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Accordingly, we are constrained on the record before us to reverse the
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of dependent claim 5.
Claim 8
Claim 8 additionally recites:
wherein the horizontal distance comprises one or more of: a
horizontal distance between the position of the first port and a
side of a rack including the mount position of the component of
which the first port is implemented; or a horizontal distance
between the position of the first port and a location of a cable
channel usable for vertically routing cables within the rack
including the mount position of the component on which the first
port is implemented.
The Examiner finds that Anderson’s rack system’s positioning and
channeling of the cables teaches the claimed horizontal distance. Final Act.
10–11 (citing Anderson ¶¶ 94, 98, 182, Figs. 4–8, 18–19); see Ans. 21–22.
Appellant argues that “the claimed cable length is not the same as the
claimed horizontal distance,” and therefore Anderson’s determining cable
length “does not teach or suggest determining the claimed horizontal
distance.” Appeal Br. 8; see Reply Br. 5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The cited sections of
Anderson disclose a “rack system . . . on which one or more connector
assemblies (e.g., distribution modules . . . ) can be mounted.” Anderson
¶ 94. In Anderson, “distribution cables . . . are routed (e.g., via cable
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

10
raceways) between the distribution modules 400.” Anderson ¶ 98. The
“racks . . . include one or more vertical cable guides/channels . . . along with
the distribution cables . . . may be routed between the distribution modules.”
Id. Also, “the rack system . . . may include two or more adjacent racks,”
which “may be arranged in a row with the first side . . . of one rack . . . being
located adjacent to the second side . . . of another rack.” Id. ¶ 95.
As cited by the Examiner for claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends,
and as explained above, Razafinjatovo states that the “calculation of the
length of cables is carried out here according to the location of the racks
. . . the location of the devices within the racks . . . the location of the
connectors on the devices . . . the position of the connectors relative to their
location.” Razafinjatovo ¶ 81. In Razafinjatovo, the racks are in rows and
comprise vertical volumes, and “[k]nowing the position of a rack” allows for
“determin[ing] the position of each connector of that rack.” Id. ¶ 87.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why Anderson’s cables
between the racks, disposed horizontally and vertically, do not teach
“horizontal distance” as claimed. Appellant also does not persuasively
explain why Razafinjatovo’s determining cable length by determining the
positions of the connectors in the racks does not teach “determining the
cable length” including “determining a horizontal distance” as required in
claim 1, upon which claim 8 depends.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 8.
Appeal 2020-000543
Application 14/460,713

11
Claim 4
Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of claim 4,
which depends from claim 3. See Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 4.

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–4, 7, and 8.
We reverse the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 5.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5, 7, 8 103 Razafinjatovo,
Anderson
1–3, 7, 8 5
4 103 Razafinjatovo,
Anderson,
Einsweiler
4
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7, 8 5

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED IN PART