throbber
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMJVIISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`FILING DATE
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
`
`CONFIRMATION NO.
`
`95/001,485
`
`11/12/2010
`
`7043543
`
`57058.0148
`
`8636
`
`26582
`
`7590
`
`09/29/2015
`
`HOLLAND & HART, LLP
`222 South MaiI1 Street, Suite 2200
`P.O. Box 11583
`SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147
`
`EXAMINER
`
`LEE’ CHRISTOPHER E
`
`ART UNIT
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`09/29/2015
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`PAPER
`
`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.
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`IPR PAGE 1
`
`Raritan V Server Technology
`
`SERVER TECH EXHIBIT 2001
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`AMERICAN POWER CONVERSION CORPORATION
`
`Requester and Respondent
`
`V.
`
`SERVER TECHNOLOGY, INC.
`Patent Owner and Appellant
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`Technology Center 3900
`
`Before JAMES T. MOORE, ANDREW J. DILLON, and JENNIFER L.
`MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`IPR PAGE 2
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`Owner appeals under 35 U.S.C. § l34(b) (2002) from the final
`
`decision of the Examiner adverse to the patentability of claims 1-26, 29-31,
`
`33, 34, 37, 39-43, 46-48, and 50. Requester appeals from the final decision
`
`of the Examiner favorable to the patentability of claims 28, 32, 35, 36, 38,
`
`44, 45, 49, 51-53, and 54-62. Requester also appeals the final decision of
`
`the Examiner regarding claims 1-26 and 28-62, which failed to adopt
`
`various alternate grounds of rejection proposed by Requester. We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 315 (2002).
`
`Invention
`
`The ’543 patent describes a vertical-mount electrical power
`
`distribution plugstrip comprising a long, thin plugstrip body with several
`
`power outlet plugs distributed along the length of one face. A power input
`
`cord is provided at one end, and this supplies operating power to each of the
`
`power outlet plugs through individual relay control. Abstract.
`
`Figure 1, reproduced below, is said to depict a functional block
`
`diagram of an electrical power distribution plugstrip embodiment of the ’543
`
`patent.
`
`IPR PAGE 3
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`As illustrated above, Figure 1 depicts an elongate vertical mount
`
`plugstrip 100 with multiple power outlet plugs 111-126. Plugstrip 100 also
`
`includes a power input cord 108, a user display 104, and a plurality of RJ-11
`
`jacks 106.
`
`IPR PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Appeal 201 5—004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`Claims
`
`Claims 1-26 and 28-62 are subject to reexamination. Claims 1-26,
`
`29-31, 33, 34, 37, 39-43, 46-48, and 50 have been rejected. Claims 28, 32,
`
`35, 36, 38, 44, 45, 49, 51-62 were found patentable. Claims 1-23 are
`
`original patent claims. Claim 27 has been canceled. Claims 24-26 and 28-
`
`62 are added new claims. Claims 1, 15,28, 44, 45, and 53 are independent.
`
`Claims 1 and 53 are illustrative.
`
`1. An electrical power distribution plugstrip connectable to one
`or more electrical loads in a vertical electrical equipment rack,
`the electrical power distribution plugstrip comprising in
`combination:
`
`A. a vertical strip enclosure having a thickness and a
`length longer than a width of the enclosure;
`
`B. a power input penetrating said vertical strip enclosure;
`
`C. a plurality of power outputs disposed along a face of
`said length of the strip enclosure, each among the
`plurality of power outputs being connectable to a
`corresponding one of said one or more electrical
`loads;
`
`. a plurality of power control relays disposed in said
`vertical strip enclosure, each among said plurality of
`power control relays being connected to said power
`input and in independent power controlling
`communication with one or more corresponding
`power outputs among said plurality of power outputs;
`
`. a current-related information display disposed on said
`vertical strip enclosure in current-related information-
`determining communication with at least one among
`
`IPR PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`said power input and said plurality of power outputs;
`and
`
`. a current-related information reporting system
`associated with said vertical strip enclosure and being
`(i) in current-related information—determining
`communication with at least one among said power
`input and said plurality of power outputs, and (ii)
`connectable in current-related information transfer
`
`communication with a separate communications
`network distal from the electrical power distribution
`plugstrip.
`
`53. A fiilly integrated electrical power distribution plugstrip
`connectable to one or more electrical loads in a vertical
`
`electrical equipment rack within a data center, the electrical
`power distribution plugstrip comprising in combination:
`
`A. a unitary vertical strip enclosure having a thiclmess
`and a lengtl1 longer than a width of the enclosure;
`
`. a power input penetrating said vertical strip
`enclosure;
`
`. a plurality of power outputs disposed along a face of
`said length of said strip enclosure, each among the
`plurality of power outputs being connectable to a
`corresponding one of said one or more electrical
`loads;
`
`D. a plurality of power control relays disposed in said
`vertical strip enclosure, each among said plurality of
`power control relays being connected to said power
`input and in independent power controlling
`communication with one or more corresponding
`power outputs among said plurality of power outputs;
`
`IPR PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`E. a current sensing device comprising at least one
`sensor and associated circuitry, disposed in the
`vertical strip enclosure, that senses electrical current
`associated with at least one among said power input
`and said plurality of power outputs and provides
`quantified current information based on the sensed
`electrical current;
`
`. a numerical current display disposed on said vertical
`strip enclosure
`that
`receives and displays
`said
`quantified current information; and
`
`. a current-related information reporting system
`disposed in said vertical strip enclosure comprising a
`network interface controller directly connectable to a
`separate communications network distal from the
`electrical power distribution plugstrip, and that (i)
`receives said quantified measured current information,
`and (ii) communicates said quantified measured
`current information to a remote system through the
`separate communications network.
`
`Prior Art
`
`Wiebe
`Lee
`Ewing
`Liu
`McNally
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,595,494
`U.S. Patent No. 5,650,771
`U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974
`U.S. Patent No. 6,476,729
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,442
`
`Jan. 21, 1997
`July 22, 1997
`Sep. 07, 1999
`Nov. 05, 2002
`May 25, 2004
`
`American Power Conversion Corp., MasterSwitch VM User Guide (1999)
`
`(“MSVM User Guide”);
`
`IPR PAGE 7
`
`

`
`Appeal 201 5—O04779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`American Power Conversion Corp., MasterSwitch VM Power Distribution
`
`Unit: Installation and Quick Start Manual (2000) (“MSVM Quick Start
`
`Manual”);
`
`American Power Conversion Corp., PowerNet SNMP Management
`
`Information Base (MIB) v. 3.1.0 Reference Guide (1999) (“MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide”);
`
`Bay Technical Associates,Owner’s Manual: BayTech Remote Power
`
`Control Unit (January 2000) (the “BayTech Manual”);
`
`Press Release, M2 Communications Ltd., BayTech, “BayTech’s Vertically
`
`Mounted Power Strip Helps Network Managers Keep Equipment Up And
`
`Naming,” M2 Presswire (November 19, 1999) (the “BayTech Article”);
`
`Systems Enhancement Corp., Power Administrator 800 User Guide (1996)
`
`(“PA-800”);
`
`Press Release, Bay Technical Associates, Vertical-Mount Data Center
`
`Power Control, http: /web.archive.org[web/ 19991 1 17210906/
`
`http://www.baytech.net/ (October 13, 1999) (announcing the BayTech RPC
`
`7 and 21 products) (“BayTech Front Webpage”);
`
`Bay Technical Associates, RPC Series: Remote Power Control,
`
`http://web.archive.org/web/20001006052744/www.baytech.net/products/rpc
`
`series.shtml (October 6, 2000) (Section of the BayTech website describing
`
`generally the line of products) (“BayTech RPC Series Webpage”);
`
`Bay Technical Associates, RPC 22 Remote Power Control,
`
`http://web.arcl1ive.org/web/20001 1 0122295
`
`8/www.baytech.net/products/rpc22.sht1n1 (November 1, 2000) (Section of
`
`IPR PAGE 8
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`-
`
`the BayTech website describing specifically the RPC 22 product) (“BayTech
`
`RPC—22 Webpage”);
`
`Betty Yuan, “Remote Control Equals Power,” Teleconnect 60-66 (February
`
`2000) (“Yuan”);
`
`Philips Semiconductors, 87LPC7 62 Microcontroller Data Sheet (August 27,
`
`1999) (“Phillips”);
`
`Technical Paper STP 98-1, Paul Emerald, Allegro Microsystems, Inc., Non-
`
`Intrusive Hall Effect Current-Sensing Techniques Provide Safe, Reliable
`
`Detection and Protection for Power Electronics (May 6, 1998) (“Allegro”);
`
`and
`
`Philips Semiconductors,
`
`IZC-bus Specification (December 1998)
`
`(“IZC
`
`Bus”).
`
`Owner ’s Contentions
`
`Owner contends that the Examiner erred in construing the claim term
`
`“plugstrip.” Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 3~5.
`
`Owner contends the Examiner has failed to clearly articulate a rational
`
`basis for combining various references. Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 5-
`
`8.
`
`Owner contends the Examiner erred in entering the following grounds
`
`of rejections against claims 1-26, 29-31, 33, 34, 37, 39-43, 46-48, and 50:
`
`A. The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as unpatentable over the MSVM references (Owner’s Supplemental App. Br.
`
`8-14);
`
`IPR PAGE 9
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015—004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`B. The rejection of claims 15-17, 20, 21, 24, 30, and 39 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as unpatentable over all of the MSVM references and
`
`Lee (Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 14-15);
`
`C. The rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § l02(e)
`
`as anticipated by McNally (Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 15-18);
`
`D. The rejection of claims 15-17, 20, 21, and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§ l03(a) as unpatentable over McNally and Liu (Owner’s Supplemental
`
`App. Br. 18);
`
`E. The rejection of claims 1-26, 29-31, 33, 37, 39-43, 46, 47, and 50
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as unpatentable over Ewing, Wiebe, and Lee
`
`(Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 19-20); and
`
`F. The rejection of claims 25, 26, 34, 37, 40-43, and 48 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as unpatentable over the MSVM references and Lee, and
`
`further in view of official notice, as exemplified by Wiebe and BayTech
`
`RPC Series Webpage (Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 20-21);
`Finally, Owner contends the Examiner erred in failing to consider
`
`objective evidence of the non-obviousness of claims 1 and 15. Owner’s
`
`Supplemental App. Br. 21-30.
`
`Requester ’s Contentions
`
`Requester contends the Examiner erred in failing to adopt the
`
`following proposed grounds of rejections against claims 1-26 and 27-62:
`
`A. The rejections of independent claim 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a)
`
`as unpatentable over Ewing, Wiebe and Lee (Proposed Ground
`
`IPR PAGE 10
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`-
`
`13); the MSVM references, Lee and Wiebe (Proposed Ground 18);
`
`the MSVM references, BayTech Front Webpage, BayTecl1 RPC
`
`Series Webpage, and BayTech Manual (Proposed Ground 19); and
`
`Ewing, BayTech Front Webpage, BayTech RPC Series Webpage,
`
`BayTech Manual, and Lee (Proposed Ground 22) (Req. App. Br.
`
`9-1 8);
`
`. The rejection of claims 28, 32, 35, 36, 38, 44, 45, 49, 51, 52, and
`
`54-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ewing,
`
`Wiebe and Lee (Proposed Grounds 8 and 13) and as unpatentable
`
`over the MSVM references, Lee, and further in View of official
`
`notice, as exemplified by Wiebe and BayTech RPC Series
`
`Webpage (Proposed Ground 15) (Req. App. Br. 18-24); and
`
`. The rejection of claims 1-26 and 28-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
`
`as unpatentable over BayTech Front Webpage, BayTech RPC
`
`Series Webpage, BayTech RPC-22 Webpage, BayTech Manual;
`
`BayTech Article, and Lee (Proposed Grounds 3, 4, and 10); and
`
`PA-800 and Wiebe (Proposed Grounds 4 and 10) (Req. App. Br.
`
`24-26).
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`Owner’s Appeal
`
`In this proceeding, the claim language should be read in light of the
`
`specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
`
`re Am. Acad. OfSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
`
`Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
`
`10
`
`IPR PAGE 11
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`taking into account any definitions presented in the specification. Id. (citing
`
`In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
`
`However, our reviewing court has repeatedly warned against
`
`confining the claims to specific embodiments described in the specification.
`
`Phillips v. AWH Corp, 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
`
`There is also a “heavy presumption” that a claim term carries its
`
`ordinary and customary meaning. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`“plugstrip ”
`
`Owner argues that “plugstrip” is a structural limitation meaning a
`
`fully-integrated, one-piece, unitary device. Owner argues this definition is
`
`consistent with the ’543 Patent specification and prosecution history.
`
`Further, Owner argues the term “plugstrip” is understood by those of
`
`ordinary skill in the art to mean a one-piece unitary device. Owner’s
`
`Supplemental App. Br. 3-5.
`
`In support of this position, Owner submits the declaration of Carrel
`
`W. Ewing, one of the inventors of the ’543 Patent, who opines that:
`
`To those skilled in the pertinent art at the time of invention in
`issue, the term “electrical power distribution plugstrip” means a
`single “strip” with a power input penetrating the strip, and has
`in, on, or as a part of the one “plugstrip” — not only the recited
`vertical strip enclosure, power input, outlets, relays, and digital
`current display in current—determining communication, but also
`the recited current reporting system.
`Owner’s Supplemental App. Br., Exhibit 6, paragraph 33.
`
`IPR PAGE 12
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`Similarly, Owner submits the declaration of B. Michael Aucoin, the
`
`President of Electrical Expert, Inc., who offers as his opinion:
`
`With the exception of their power infeeds, plugstrips are
`understood and recognized in the pertinent art as being self-
`contained units; with the term “plugstrip” being synonymous in
`the pertinent art with the term “power strip.” Evidence of this
`may be found, for example, in the references relied upon in this
`reexamination proceeding. By the term “self-contained,” I mean
`that the strip structure would not require other structure(s) to
`distribute power or to communicate with an external network
`other than a network cable or wireless connection.
`
`Owner’s Supplemental App. Br., Exhibit 7, paragraph 20.
`
`Owner also submits declarations from Chris Hardin (Exhibit 8) and
`
`KC Mares (Exhibit 9) who each opine that the term “plugstrip” means “a
`
`single, integrated, operation power distribution ‘strip’ with a power input
`
`penetrating the strip, not a separated multi-component system such as
`
`that disclosed in the MSVM references, having a horizontal controller box
`
`connected by a communications cable to physically separate vertical box”
`
`(Hardin Declaration, paragraph 18) or “a single ‘strip’ with a power input
`
`penetrating the strip, not a separated multi-component system such as that
`
`disclosed in the MSVM references, having a horizontal controller box
`
`connected by a communications cable to physically separate vertical
`
`box.” (Mares Declaration, paragraph 21).
`
`(We note that both Hardin (Paragraph 18) and Mares (Paragraph 21)
`
`refer to the disparaged MSMV multi-component system as a “plugstrip.”)
`
`Finally, Owner points out that their proposed limited definition of
`
`“plugstrip” is consistent with the definition applied by the United States
`
`District Court in Nevada in related litigation, which found that definition
`
`12
`
`IPR PAGE 13
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`mandated by: the title of the ’543 Patent; the summary references of the ’543
`
`Patent; the ’543 Patent disclosure; and the illustrations of the ’543 Patent.
`
`Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 3.
`
`First, we note that claims before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R §42.100(b), are construed according to the “broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation” in view of the specification as read by one having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention without importing
`
`limitations into the claims from the specifications.
`
`This standard is in clear contrast to the District Court standard which
`
`utilizes the “ordinary and customary meaning” of disputed terms according
`
`to the Federal Circuit’s guidance in Phillips 12. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303,
`
`1313 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
`
`Under the broadest reasonable standard, as defined above, we find that
`
`the term “plugstrip” is not limited to an integrated, one-piece, unitary device,
`
`as we are not convinced that would be the broadest reasonable interpretation
`
`of one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. Namely,
`
`nothing in the claim requires the plugstrip to be “fiilly integrated.” See TPR
`
`Resp. Br. 5—6. To the contrary, the claim expressly recites that the electrical
`
`power distribution plugstrip comprising in combination, a vertical enclosure
`
`and then identifies the relationship of the other listed elements with respect
`
`to that vertical enclosure, such as being disposed along, on, or in. Notably,
`
`the recited a current—related information reporting system that must only be
`
`“associated with” the vertical enclosure. See TPR Resp. Br. 5 (citing Office
`
`Action, dated Mar. 29, 2012; RAN 69). As such, it would be inconsistent
`
`13
`
`IPR PAGE 14
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`with the plain language of the claims to interpret plugstrip to be a fully-
`
`integrated, one—piece, unitary device.
`
`Moreover, Owner’s specification, at Column 10, linesl7—l 8, sets forth
`
`that PDU 700 “is preferably fully integrated within power distribution
`
`plugstripl00, in FIG. l” (emphasis added). Additionally, as pointed out by
`
`Requester, Owner’s specification describes a second preferred embodiment
`
`which includes network interface components in another chassis. See TPR
`
`Resp. Br. 5—6 (citing ‘543 Patent at col. 3, l. 66 through col. 4, 1. 2).
`
`These facts leads us to the conclusion that recited plugstrip need not
`
`be fiilly integrated. This is particularly true in View of the use of the term
`
`“plugstrip” by two of Owner’s experts when referring to a multi-part prior
`
`art device. Supra.
`
`We will now address Owner’s remaining arguments, seriatim, in the
`
`order those arguments were presented.
`
`Owner argues the Examiner has not clearly articulated reasons, with
`
`rational underpinnings, for combining the references set forth in Grounds 2,
`
`7, 8, 9, 12, and 13. Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 5.
`
`Specifically, Owner argues the Examiner failed to provide reasons
`
`why it would have been obvious to combine the MSVM references with Lee,
`
`or with the Liu reference, given that the MSVM PDU monitors current
`
`overload utilizing an LED indicator, while both Lee and Liu teach the use of
`
`a digital display. Owner argues there is no suggestion within the references
`
`that a display separate from the LED indicator would be desirable. Id. at 7.
`
`The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
`
`invention was made would have found it obvious to add a digital display, as
`
`14
`
`IPR PAGE 15
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`taught by Lee or Liu, to the power strip of the MSVM references to provide
`
`more detailed current information, “such as the values of the line current, the
`
`line voltage, the ambient temperature” or the like. RAN 19, 33-34.
`
`The presence or absence of a reason “to combine references in an
`
`obviousness determination is a pure question of fac .” In re Gartside, 203
`
`F.3d 1305, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
`
`Here we find the Examiner’s basis for these combinations to be sound.
`
`The MSVM references depict providing an indication of current flow
`
`utilizing an LED indicator while each secondary reference in the same field,
`
`Lee and Liu, teach the utilization of digital displays to provide such
`
`information.
`
`[CITES]
`
`; see also Req. Resp. Br. 7-8.
`
`“The 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 v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). More specifically,
`
`“when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing the
`
`same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than one
`
`would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at
`
`417 (quoting Sakraida v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)).
`
`When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
`incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
`either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
`ordinary skill caniimplement a predictable variation, § 103
`likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
`has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
`skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
`devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
`its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
`
`KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
`
`IPR PAGE 16
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`—
`
`Owner makes similar arguments regarding the Examiner’s proposed
`
`combination of Ewing, Wiebe, and Lee, arguing there is no suggestion to
`
`combine the display of Lee with the power distribution system of Ewing as
`
`modified by Wiebe. Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 8.
`
`For the same reasons we set forth above, and set forth by the
`
`Examiner and Requester, we find no error in the Examiner’s proposed
`
`combination of Ewing, Wiebe, and Lee. See Req. Resp. Br. 8-9.
`
`Owner next argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 6, 9,
`
`and 10 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the MSVM
`
`references. Id. at 8.
`
`One basis for Owner’s assertion of error is the Exa1r1iner’s construing
`
`of the overcurrent alarm LED of MSVM as a “current-related information
`
`display” in a manner that is inconsistent with the plain meaning of “display’
`
`9
`
`and inconsistent with the ’543 Patent specification. Id. at 9-1 1.
`
`Owner also asserts error in the Examiner’s finding within the MSVM
`
`references of a display “in current-related information-determining
`
`communication” with the input or the outputs and the finding of a “current-
`
`related information reporting system.” Id. at 11-13.
`
`Finally, Owner asserts the MSVM references fail to show or suggest
`
`an “intelligent power module” and that the intelligent power module is
`
`disposed within the vertical strip enclosure. Id. at 13-14.
`
`The Examiner finds the overcurrent alarm LED of the MSVM PDU
`
`constitutes a current-related information display. RAN 10.
`
`We concur with the Examiner. Under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard, we fmd a “display” in the broadest sense consistent
`
`16
`
`IPR PAGE 17
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`with the Specification is merely a visual indication. The overcurrent alarm
`
`LED of the MSVM references provides a visual indication by lighting green
`
`when the current is under normal levels, flashing green as an overload
`
`condition is approached and lighting red to indicate an overload condition.
`
`Consequently, we find the overcurrent alarm LED necessarily constitutes a
`
`current-related infomiation display. Similarly, we find the overcurrent alarm
`
`LED is necessarily coupled to an output of the MSVM PDU, in order to be
`
`able to visually indicate (display) an overcurrent situation.
`
`The Examiner also finds that the MSVM PDU includes an “intelligent
`
`power module” pointing to the SNMP agent with eight relay-controlled
`
`outlets. RAN 12.
`
`Again, under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
`
`Specification, we find the Examiner has not erred. Relay-controlled outlets
`
`are within the broadest reasonable interpretation of an “intelligent power
`
`module.” As for the Owner’s argument regarding the necessity of the
`
`intelligent power module being disposed within the vertical strip enclosure,
`
`we find the relay-controlled outlets are indeed disposed within the vertical
`
`strip enclosure, and although the SNMP agent may be disposed elsewhere,
`
`we find the presence of relay-controlled outlets within the vertical strip
`
`enclosure teaches this feature. Id. We therefore find no error by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`Next, Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15—l7, 20,
`
`21, 24, 30, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the MSVM references and
`
`Lee. Specifically, Owner urges the MSVM references fail to show the
`
`claimed display in current-determining communication with the input or
`
`17
`
`IPR PAGE 18
`
`

`
`Appeal 201 5-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`— Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`output, and “a one-piece plugstrip current reporting system” as set forth in
`
`claim 15. Owner argues that the “plugstrip current reporting system” must
`
`necessarily be disposed within the plugstrip, whether or not the “plugstrip”
`
`is construed as a one-piece, unitary device. Further, Owner argues the cited
`
`MSVM references fail to show communication between the plugstrip current
`
`reporting system and a distal current reporting system. Owner’s
`
`Supplemental App. Br. 14-15.
`
`The Examiner finds, as we note above, the overcurrent alarm LED of
`
`the MSVM references must necessarily be in current-determining
`
`communication with at least one output in order to detect an overcurrent
`
`condition. The Examiner also finds that the MSVM references teach a
`
`plugstrip current reporting system, which communicates over either the Web
`
`or the Control Console. RAN 14-15.
`
`The Examiner’s position is persuasive. We find the overcurrent alarm
`
`system of the MSVM references is in communication with an output of the
`
`plugstrip, in order to detect an overcurrent situation. We find Owner’s
`
`argument regarding a “one—piece plugstrip current reporting system” is not
`
`commensurate with the scope of the claims appealed, as “one—piece” is not
`
`recited within the claims. Further, we are not persuaded that the
`
`characterization of the “current reporting system” as a “plugstrip current
`
`reporting system” leads to the inescapable conclusion that the entire current
`
`reporting system must be located within the plugstrip. A broad, but
`
`reasonable interpretation of “plugstrip current reporting system” could also
`
`be a “current reporting system” that detects current that enters the plugstrip.
`
`We therefore find no error in the Exa1niner’s position. Moreover, claim 15
`
`18
`
`IPR PAGE 19
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`»
`
`merely recites that the plugstrip current reporting system is “associated with
`
`the vertical strip enclosure.” Req. Resp. Br. 11.
`
`With regard to the rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § l02(e) as anticipated by McNally, Owner again argues the
`
`Examiner has misconstrued the term “display” by once again characterizing
`
`the LED of McNally as a “display.” Further, Owner argues McNally fails to
`
`teach a display in current-related information-determining communication
`
`with the input or outputs, a plugstrip having a current-related information
`
`reporting system or an intelligent power module. Owner’s Supplemental
`
`App. Br. l5—l8.
`
`The Examiner once again finds that an overload indicating LED
`
`comprises a “display” under a broad but reasonable definition of “display.”
`
`Further, the Examiner finds that in order to indicate an overload condition,
`
`the overload indicating LED “display” must necessarily be in
`
`communication with an output. Additionally, the Examiner finds that the
`
`power management circuitry 50 of McNally comprises a current-related
`
`information reporting system, as that circuitry reports to the overload
`
`indicating LED and an audible alarm. Finally, the Examiner notes McNally
`
`discloses outlet relays controlled by microcontroller 62, comprising an
`
`intelligent power module. RAN 28-30.
`
`For the same reasons we set forth above, and set forth by the
`
`Examiner and Requester, with respect to the rejection of these claims as
`
`unpatentable over the MSVM references, we find no error in the Exa1niner’s
`
`position.
`
`IPR PAGE 20
`
`

`
`Appeal 201 5—004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 15-17, 20, 21,
`
`and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over McNally and Liu.
`
`Specifically, Owner argues that MacNally fails to teach a “one—piece
`
`plugstrip current reporting system” and an “intelligent power module.”
`
`Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 18.
`
`The Examiner finds that MacNally discloses a plugstrip current
`
`reporting system which includes power management circuitry 50 in
`
`association with current sensor 52 which is positioned within housing 12.
`
`Once again, the Examiner finds the outlet relays of MacNally, which are
`
`controlled by microcontroller 62, comprise an “intelligent power module.”
`
`RAN 32-34.
`
`For the same reasons we set forth above, and set forth by the
`
`Examiner and Requester, we find no error in the Examiner position.
`
`Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-26, 29-31, 33,
`
`37, 39-43, 46, 47, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over
`
`Ewing, Wiebe and Lee. Owner urges the Examiner erroneously and
`
`inconsistently construed the term “current-related information-determining
`
`communication” within claim 1 and that the load sensor of Ewing merely
`
`indicates the presence of a load and is thus not a current reporting system as
`
`set forth in claim 15. Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 19-20.
`
`The Examiner finds that Ewing discloses multiple power control
`
`relays which each include a current load sensor and wherein each current
`
`load sensor reports the load condition status using an SNMP connection to a
`
`screen interface which allows a user to control individual modules. With
`
`regard to claim 15, the Examiner finds the load sensor of each intelligent
`
`20
`
`IPR PAGE 21
`
`

`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`power module (IPM) provides an indication of the presence or absence of a
`
`load at that module. RAN 36-40.
`
`We find no error or inconsistency in the Examiner’s interpretation
`
`above of “current-related information-determining communication” given
`
`that we hold that the presence or absence of a load at each IPM is the very
`
`definition of whether or not current is flowing through a particular IPM.
`
`Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 25, 26, 34, 37,
`
`40-43, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the MSVM
`
`references and Lee, and further in View of official notice, as exemplified by
`
`Wiebe and BayTech RPC Series Webpage. Specifically, Owner urges that
`
`the cited references fail to show a reporting system disposed in a vertical
`
`strip enclosure and comprising a network interface controller. Owner’s
`
`Supplemental App. Br. 20—21.
`
`The Examiner finds that the MSVM references disclose a Master
`
`Switch VM with an associated Controller that includes a network interface
`
`controller. The Examiner then takes Official Notice that forming an element
`
`in one piece that had previously been formed in two pieces would be well
`
`known to those of ordinary skill in the art. RAN 51-52.
`
`We agree with the Examiner’s position. See In re Larson, 340 F.2d
`
`965, 968 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected
`
`as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in
`
`claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake
`
`disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured
`
`together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among
`
`other reasons, “that the use of a one piece construction i

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket