UNITED STA 1ES p A 1ENT 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.
`
`95/001,485
`
`11112/2010
`
`7043543
`
`57058.0148
`
`8636
`
`26582
`7590
`HOLLAND & HART, LLP
`P.O BOX 8749
`DENVER, CO 80201
`
`10/24/2013
`
`EXAMINER
`
`LEE, CHRISTOPHER E
`
`ART UNIT
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`3992
`
`MAIL DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`10/24/2013
`
`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
`
`RARITAN EXHIBIT 1003
`
`

`
`Right of Appeal Notice
`(37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Control No.
`
`95/001 ,485
`Examiner
`
`Patent Under Reexamination
`
`7043543
`Art Unit
`
`3992
`Christopher E. Lee
`-- The MAILING DATE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address. --
`
`Responsive to the communication(s) filed by:
`Patent Owner on 22 July, 2013
`Third Party(ies) on 21 August, 2013
`
`Patent owner and/or third party requester(s) may file a notice of appeal with respect to any adverse decision
`with payment of the fee set forth in 37 CFR 41.20(b)(1) within one-month or thirty-days (whichever is
`longer). See MPEP 2671. In addition, a party may file a notice of cross appeal and pay the 37 CFR
`41.20(b)(1) fee within fourteen days of service of an opposing party's timely filed notice of appeal. See
`MPEP 2672.
`
`All correspondence relating to this inter partes reexamination proceeding should be directed to the Central
`Reexamination Unit at the mail, FAX, or hand-carry addresses given at the end of this Office action.
`
`If no party timely files a notice of appeal, prosecution on the merits of this reexamination proceeding will be
`concluded, and the Director of the USPTO will proceed to issue and publish a certificate under 37 CFR 1.997 in
`accordance with this Office action.
`
`The proposed amendment filed 22 July, 2013
`
`[gl will be entered D will not be entered*
`
`*Reasons for non-entry are given in the body of this notice.
`
`1 a. [gl Claims 1-62 are subject to reexamination.
`1 b. D Claims __ are not subject to reexamination.
`2. [gl Claims 27 have been cancelled.
`3. D Claims __ are confirmed. [Unamended patent claims].
`4. [gl Claims 28,32,35,36,38,44,45,49 and 51-62 are patentable. [Amended or new claims].
`[gl Claims 1-26,29-31 ,33,34,37,39-43,46-48 and 50 are rejected.
`5.
`6. D Claims __ are objected to.
`7. D The drawings filed on __ D are acceptable. D are not acceptable.
`8. D The drawing correction request filed on
`is D approved.
`D disapproved.
`9. D Acknowledgment is made of the claim for priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f). The certified copy
`has:
`D been received. D not been received. D been filed in Application/Control No. __ .
`10. D Other __
`
`Attachments
`1. D Notice of References Cited by Examiner, PT0-892
`2.
`[gjlnformation Disclosure Citation, PT0-1449 or PTO/SB/08
`3. o __
`
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-2066 (9·04)
`
`Right of Appeal Notice {37 CFR 1.953)
`
`Part of Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 2
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 2
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Inter Partes Reexamination
`
`1.
`
`This is an Inter Partes Reexamination of United States Patent Number US 7,043,543 82,
`
`which issued to Ewing et al. [hereinafter '543 Patent].
`
`5
`
`Receipt Acknowledgement
`
`2.
`
`Receipts are acknowledged of Patent Owner's response filed on July 22nd, 2013
`
`(hereinafter "the Response") and Third Party requester's written comments filed on August 21st,
`
`2013 (hereinafter "the Comments") to the Inter Partes REX Action Closing Prosecution mailed
`
`10
`
`on June 21st, 2013 (hereinafter "the previous Office action (6/21 /13)").
`
`Claims 28, 44, 45, and 53 have been amended; no claim has been canceled; and no
`claim has been newly added since the previous Office action (6/21/13) was mailed 1
`the claims 1-26 and 28-62 are subject to reexamination in this inter partes reexamination.
`
`. Currently,
`
`15
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`The Patent Owner files the information disclosure statements on July 22nd, 2013 and on
`3.
`August 51
`h, 2013, however, they fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR §§ 1.97, 1.98 and
`MPEP § 609 because of the inclusion of the court proceedings. Nevertheless, the court
`proceedings listed in the information disclosure statements have been given due consideration.
`
`20
`
`Consideration by the Examiner of the information submitted in an information disclosure
`
`statement means nothing more than considering the documents in the same manner as other
`
`documents in Office search files are considered by the Examiner while conducting a search of
`
`the prior art in a proper field of search. See MPEP § 609.
`The Patent Owner is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of
`
`25
`
`information contained in these information disclosure statements or the submission of any
`
`missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with
`
`the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification
`requirements for statements under 37 CFR § 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
`In order to expedite issuance of reexamination certificates, the Office eliminates printing
`
`3o
`
`of the listing of documents on reexamination certificates (See Official Gazette of the USPTO
`
`1 The original claims 1-23 have not been amended since the instant inter partes reexamination request was filed on
`
`November 121h, 2010.
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 3
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 3
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`issued on October 11th, 2011, vol. 1371, Number 2, page 95 -"Elimination of the Listing of Prior
`
`Art Documents on Reexamination Certificate").
`
`Summary of Inter Partes Reexamination Prosecution
`
`5
`
`4.
`
`In the original Third Party requester's request filed on November 1 ih, 2010 (hereinafter
`
`"the Request"), the following references, either by itself or in combination with one or more
`
`additional references, were alleged to render at least some of the claims unpatentable.
`
`The references cited by the Third Party requester are
`
`• MasterSwitch TM VM User Guide (hereinafter "MSVM User Guide")
`
`10
`
`• MasterSwitch TM VM Power Distribution Unit Installation and Quick Start Manual
`
`(hereinafter "MSVM Quick Start Manual")
`
`• PowerNet® SNMP Management Information Base (MIB) v3.1.0 Reference Guide
`
`(hereinafter "MSVM PowerNet Guide")
`
`• Download of www.BayTech.net from web.archive.org (hereinafter "BayTech Website")
`
`15
`
`• Owner's Manual for BayTech Remote Power Control Unit (hereinafter "BayTech
`
`Manual")
`
`• M2 Communications Ltd., "BayTech," M2 Presswire, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, U.S.A.,
`
`November 19, 1999 (hereinafter "BayTech Article")
`
`• Power Administrator™ 800 User Guide (hereinafter "PA-800")
`
`20
`
`• McNally et al., U.S. Patent No. 6,741,442 (hereinafter "McNally")
`
`• Lee, U.S. Patent No. 5,650,771 (hereinafter "Lee")
`
`• Liu, U.S. Patent No. 6,476,729 (hereinafter "Liu")
`
`• Ewing et al., U.S. Patent No. 5,949,974 (hereinafter "Ewing '974")
`
`• Wiebe, U.S. Patent No. 5,595,494 (hereinafter "Wiebe")
`
`25
`
`•
`
`a press release announcing the BayTech RPC 7 and 21 products dated October 13,
`
`1999 (hereinafter "BayTech Front Webpage")
`
`• a section of the BayTech website describing generally the RPC line of products dated
`
`October 6, 2000 (hereinafter "BayTech RPC Series Webpage")
`
`• a section of the BayTech website describing specifically the RPC 22 product dated
`
`3o
`
`November 1, 2000 (hereinafter "BayTech RPC-22 Webpage")
`
`• Betty Yuan, "Remote Control Equals Power," February 2000, Teleconnect (hereinafter
`
`"Betty")
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 4
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 4
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`• Philips 87LPC762 Microcontroller Data Sheet, dated August 27, 1999 (hereinafter
`
`"Philips 87LPC762")
`
`• Allegro Technical Paper STP 98-1, "Non-Intrusive Hall Effect Current-Sensing
`
`Techniques Provide Safe, Reliable Detection and Protection for Power Electronics," by
`
`5
`
`Paul Emerald, dated May 6, 1998 (hereinafter "Paul")
`
`•
`
`12C Bus Specification, dated December, 1998 (hereinafter "12C Specification")
`
`Here is the reexamination prosecution history of the '543 Patent listed in chronological.
`
`5/9/06
`
`The original '543 Patent was issued.
`
`10
`
`11/12/1 0
`
`The Third Party requester filed a request for inter partes reexamination of the
`
`'543 Patent.
`
`11/23/1 0
`
`The Third Party requester was notified the filing date 11/12/10.
`
`1/15/11
`
`a) The Third Party requester's reexamination request was granted, and the original
`
`claims 1-23 were determined to be subject to reexamination.
`
`b) The First Action on the Merits (FAOM) was issued with the original claims 1-3, 6,
`
`9, 10, 15-17, 20, and 21 under rejection and the original claims 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-14,
`
`2/22/11
`
`3/31/11
`
`4/6/11
`
`18, 19, 22, and 23 being confirmed.
`The Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.956 "requesting extension
`of time for one month to respond to an Office action," and it was granted on
`
`2/24/11.
`The Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.956 "requesting extension
`of time for 45 days to respond to an Office action," and it was dismissed on
`
`4/1/11.
`The Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.956 "requesting
`reconsideration of the petition for extension of time filed on 3/31/11 ,"and it was
`
`denied on 4/12/11 .
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`4/15/11
`
`The Patent Owner filed the response to the FAOM mailed on 1/15/11, however it
`
`was not entered according to the notification of defective paper in a
`
`30
`
`5/9/11
`
`reexamination mailed on 6/03/11.
`The Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.182 to suspend inter partes
`
`reexamination proceeding, and it was dismissed on 7/18/11.
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 5
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 5
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`5/1 0/11
`
`The Third Party requester filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 for suspension
`
`or waiver of page limit requirement, and it was dismissed as moot on 6/14/11.
`
`5/16/11
`
`The Third Party requester filed the written comments to the FAOM and the
`
`Patent Owner's response filed on 4/15/11, however it was not entered because
`
`the Patent Owner's response filed on 4/15/11 was defective paper.
`
`5/23/11
`
`The Third Party requester filed an opposition to Patent Owner's petition under
`
`37 CFR § 1 .182 to suspend inter partes reexamination proceeding filed on
`
`5/9/11.
`
`6/20/11
`
`7/8/11
`
`The Patent Owner newly filed the response to the FAOM mailed on 1/15/11.
`
`The Third Party requester newly filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 for
`
`suspension or waiver of page limit requirement, and it was granted-in-part on
`
`9/14/11 .
`
`5
`
`10
`
`7/15/11
`
`The Patent Owner filed an opposition to Requester's renewed petition under 37
`
`CFR § 1.183 for suspension or waiver of page limit requirement filed on 7/8/11.
`
`15
`
`7/20/11
`
`The Third Party requester filed the written comments to the FAOM and the
`
`Patent Owner's response filed on 6/20/11, however it was expunged according
`
`to the petition decision on 9/14/11 .
`
`8/23/11
`
`The Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.181 to vacate the decision
`
`to grant inter partes reexamination proceeding, in part, as ultra vires, and it was
`
`20
`
`25
`
`denied on 4/5/12.
`
`9/6/11
`
`The Third Party requester filed an opposition to Patent Owner's petition under
`
`37 CFR § 1.181 to vacate the decision to grant inter partes reexamination
`
`proceeding, in part, as ultra vires.
`
`9/29/11
`
`The Third Party requester filed the written comments to the FAOM and the
`
`Patent Owner's response filed on 6/20/11.
`
`3/29/12
`
`The second action of non-ACP (non-final action) was issued with the original
`
`claims 1-23 and the newly added claims 24-50 under rejection, and was mailed.
`
`5/25/12
`
`The Patent Owner filed a petition under 37 CFR § 1.183 for suspension or
`
`waiver of page limit requirement, and it was granted on 8/9/12.
`
`30
`
`5/30/12
`
`The Patent Owner filed the response to the second action of non-ACP (non-final
`
`action) mailed on 3/29/12.
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 6
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 6
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`6/28/12
`
`The Third Party requester filed the written comments to the second action of
`
`non-ACP (non-final action) and the Patent Owner's response filed on 5/30/12.
`
`6/21/13
`
`7/22/13
`
`The Action Closing Prosecution (ACP) was mailed.
`
`The Patent Owner filed the response to the ACP Office action mailed on
`
`6/21/13.
`
`8/21/13
`
`The Third Party requester filed the written comments to the ACP Office action
`
`and the Patent Owner's response filed on 7/22/13.
`
`The Examiner issues the instant Right of Appeal Notice (RAN) Office action.
`
`Statutory Basis for Grounds of Rejections- 35 USC §112, §102 and §103
`
`5.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first and second paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of
`making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the
`art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same and shall
`set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly
`claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
`
`6.
`
`The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. §102 that form
`
`the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office Action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless-
`
`(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another
`filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an
`application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent,
`except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351 (a) shall have the effects
`for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application
`designated the United States and was published under Article 21 (2) of such treaty in the English language.
`
`7.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. §103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office Action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in
`section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art
`are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to
`a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be
`negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
`
`This patent under reexamination currently names joint inventors. In considering
`patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. §103(a), the Examiner presumes that the subject
`matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein
`were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Patent Owner is advised of the obligation
`
`5
`
`10
`
`15
`
`20
`
`25
`
`30
`
`35
`
`4o
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 7
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 7
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not
`commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the Examiner to consider
`the applicability of 35 U.S.C. §1 03(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. §1 02(e), (f) or (g) prior art under
`35 U.S.C. §1 03(a).
`
`5
`
`Ground #1
`
`Third Party requester's Grounds of Rejections to be considered
`
`• Claims 1-14 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over MSVM User Guide in view of
`
`MSVM Quick Start Manual and MSVM PowerNet Guide
`
`10 Grounds #2 and #9
`
`• Claims 15-24, 29, 30, 33, 39, 46, and 53 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over
`
`MSVM User Guide in view of MSVM Quick Start Manual, MSVM PowerNet Guide, and
`
`Lee [US 5,650,771 A]
`
`Ground #3
`
`15
`
`• Claims 1-14 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over 8ayTech Front Webpage in view
`
`of 8ayTech RPC Series Webpage, 8ayTech RPC-22 Webpage, 8ayTech Manual, and
`
`8ayTech Article
`
`Grounds #4 and #1 0
`
`• Claims 15-26 and 28-50 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over 8ayTech Front
`
`20
`
`Webpage in view of 8ayTech RPC Series Webpage, 8ayTech RPC-22 Webpage,
`
`8ayTech Manual, 8ayTech Article, and Lee [US 5,650,771 A]
`
`Grounds #5 and #11
`
`• Claims 1-26 and 28-50 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over PA-800 in view of
`
`Wiebe [US 5,595,494 A] and Lee [US 5,650,771 A]
`
`25
`
`Ground #6
`
`• Claims 1-14 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over McNally [US 6,741,442 81]
`
`Ground #7
`
`• Claims 15-23 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over McNally [US 6,741,442 81] in
`
`view of Liu [US 6,476,729 81]
`
`3o
`
`Grounds #8 and #13
`
`• Claims 1-26, 28-50, and 53 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over Ewing '97 4 [US
`
`5,949,974 A] in view of Wiebe [US 5,595,494 A] and Lee [US 5,650,771 A]
`
`Ground #12
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 8
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 8
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`• Claims 25, 30, 34-36, and 39-41 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over McNally [US
`
`6,741,442 81] in view of Liu [US 6,476,729 81] and Betty
`
`Ground #14-1
`
`• Claims 25, 40, and 41 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable as failing to comply with the
`
`5
`
`written description requirement (new matter)
`
`Ground #14-2
`
`• Claims 51, 52, and 60-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable as failing to comply with
`
`the written description requirement (lack of enablement)
`
`Ground #15
`
`10
`
`• Claims 25, 26, 28, 31, 32, 34-38, 40-45, and 47-52 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable
`
`over MSVM User Guide in view of MSVM Quick Start Manual, MSVM PowerNet Guide,
`
`Lee [US 5,650,771 A], and what was well known in the art, as exemplified by Wiebe [US
`
`5,595,494 A] and BayTech RPC Series Webpage
`
`Ground #16
`
`15
`
`• Claims 51, 52, and 60-62 of '543 Patent to be unpatentable as failing to particularly point
`
`out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention
`
`(indefiniteness)
`
`Ground #17
`
`• Claims 53-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable as failing to comply with the written
`
`20
`
`description requirement (new matter) and as failing to particularly point out and distinctly
`
`claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention (indefiniteness)
`
`Ground #18
`
`• Claims 53-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over MSVM User Guide in view of
`
`MSVM Quick Start Manual, MSVM PowerNet Guide, Lee [US 5,650,771 A], and Wiebe
`
`25
`
`[US 5,595,494 A]
`
`Ground #19
`
`• Claims 53-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over MSVM User Guide in view of
`
`MSVM Quick Start Manual, MSVM PowerNet Guide, Lee [US 5,650,771 A], BayTech
`
`Front Webpage, BayTech RPC Series Webpage, and BayTech Manual
`
`3o
`
`Ground #20
`
`• Claims 53-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over McNally [US 6,741,442 81] in
`
`view of Liu [US 6,476,729 81] and Wiebe [US 5,595,494 A]
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 9
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Ground #21
`
`Page 9
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`• Claims 53-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over McNally [US 6,741,442 81] in
`
`view of Liu [US 6,476,729 81 ], Bay Tech Front Webpage, Bay Tech RPC Series
`
`Webpage, and BayTech Manual
`
`5
`
`Ground #22
`
`• Claims 53-62 of the '543 Patent to be unpatentable over Ewing '974 [US 5,949,974 A] in
`
`view of BayTech Front Webpage, BayTech RPC Series Webpage, BayTech Manual,
`
`and Lee [US 5,650,771 A]
`
`10
`
`Analysis of Proposed Third Party Requester's Rejections
`
`Re Ground #1 : MSVM User Guide in view of MSVM Quick Start Manual and MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide
`
`8.
`
`Summary of Adoption of the claim rejections proposed by the Third Party requester:
`
`• Adopted -Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10
`
`15
`
`• Not Adopted- Claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11-14
`
`9.
`
`Claims 1-3, 6, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §1 03(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over MSVM User Guide in view of MSVM Quick Start Manual and MSVM PowerNet Guide.
`
`Referring to claim 1, MSVM User Guide discloses an electrical power distribution
`
`plug strip (i.e., Master Switch VM Power Distribution Unit in Fig. 1) connectable to one or more
`
`20
`
`electrical loads in a vertical electrical equipment rack (See page 1 and vertical strip in Fig. 1 ),
`
`the electrical power distribution plugstrip (i.e., said Master Switch VM Power Distribution Unit)
`
`comprising in combination:
`
`• A. a vertical strip enclosure (i.e., MasterSwitch ™ VM Power Distribution Unit enclosure
`
`stands for Master Switch Vertical-Mount Power Distribution Unit enclosure; See cover
`
`25
`
`page and page 1) having a thickness and a length longer than a width of the enclosure
`
`(See Fig. 1 );
`
`• B. a power input (i.e., "electrical input" on said MSVM PDU) penetrating said vertical
`
`strip enclosure (See page 42);
`
`• C. a plurality of power outputs (i.e., "electrical outputs: 16 NEMA 5-15 outlets" on said
`
`3o
`
`MSVM PDU; See page 42) 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 ("Each MasterSwitch VM unit is equipped with eight
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 10
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 10
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`switched 5-15 outlets and eight always-on 5-15 outlets in a vertically mounted
`
`configuration" that were connectable to electrical loads; See page 1 and Fig. 1 on page
`
`2);
`
`• D. a plurality of power controls (i.e., operations to turn on and off power at the outlets),
`
`5
`
`each among said plurality of power controls being in independent power controlling
`
`communication with one or more corresponding power outputs among said plurality of
`
`power outputs (i.e., switched outlet 2 in Fig. 1 on page 2);
`
`• E. a current-related information display (i.e., overcurrent alarm LED 7 of Fig. 1) disposed
`
`on said vertical strip enclosure (See Fig. 1) in current-related information-determining
`
`10
`
`communication (i.e., indicating an overload on said MSVM PDU; See pages 1-2) with at
`
`least one among said power input and said plurality of power outputs (i.e., said
`
`overcurrent alarm LED is lit up green when operating under normal load condition; when
`
`it is flashing green, it is approaching its maximum load; and when it is solid red, it has
`
`exceeded its maximum load; See page 5); and
`
`15
`
`•
`
`F. a current-related information reporting system (i.e., means for operating MasterSwitch
`
`VM to transmit current information from the current sensor over either the Web or the
`
`Control Console- viz., reporting current information; See page 6) associated with said
`
`vertical strip enclosure (i.e., the current measurement from the current sensor of
`
`MasterSwitch VM is displayed on the first screen that appears when you log on and is
`
`20
`
`used to generate alarms that you define; See page 11) and being
`
`o
`
`(i) in current-related information-determining communication with at least one
`
`among said power input and said plurality of power outputs (i.e., current sensor
`
`measuring the total current being used by devices connected to the unit; See
`
`page 11 ), and
`
`25
`
`o
`
`(ii) connectable in current-related information transfer communication with a
`
`separate communications network (i.e., TCP/IP, TFTP/FTP, Telnet/Web, or
`
`SNMP network for communication; See pages 25-28) distal from the electrical
`
`power distribution plugstrip (See page 6).
`
`The extra reference MSVM Quick Start Manual shows that a characteristic not expressly
`
`3o
`
`disclosed in the reference MSVM User Guide is inherent, such that: an electrical power
`
`distribution plugstrip connectable to one or more electrical loads in a vertical electrical
`
`equipment rack (See page 1 and the Figure on page 4) comprising in combination:
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 11
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 11
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`• A. a vertical strip enclosure having a thickness and a length longer than a width of the
`
`enclosure (i.e., said Figure shows that said MSVM being vertically mounted);
`
`• B. a power input penetrating said vertical strip enclosure (i.e., the wiring of the power
`
`inlet penetrating the end of the power strip in the Figure on page 7);
`
`5
`
`• 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 (See page 1 and the Figure on
`
`page 4).
`
`Therefore, the combination of MSVM User Guide and MSVM Quick Start Manual (in fact, both
`
`10
`
`of the references describe aspects of the product MasterSwitch TM VM Power Distribution Unit)
`
`provides a fuller picture of the functionality of the product MasterSwitch TM VM Power Distribution
`
`Unit.
`
`However, MSVM User Guide and MSVM Quick Start Manual do not expressly teach a
`
`plurality of power control relays disposed in said vertical strip enclosure for said plurality of
`
`15
`
`power controls, each among said plurality of power control relays being connected to said
`
`power input.
`
`MSVM PowerNet Guide discloses PowerNet® Simple Network Management Protocol
`
`(SNMP) management information base (MIB) v3.1.0 to manage APC products (e.g., the product
`
`MasterSwitch™ VM Power Distribution Unit) which allow (or enable) using SNMP-based
`
`20 management, wherein
`
`• D. a plurality of power control relays (i.e., eight relay-controlled outlets) disposed in a
`
`vertical strip enclosure (i.e., said MasterSwitch ™ VM Power Distribution Unit enclosure;
`
`See page 33), each among said plurality of power control relays being connected to
`
`power input and in independent power controlling communication with one or more
`
`25
`
`corresponding power outputs among a plurality of power outputs (See pages 33-40,
`
`Chapter 6: How to Manage a MasterSwitch VM).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
`
`was made to have coupled said PowerNet® Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP)
`
`management information base (MIB), as disclosed by MSVM PowerNet Guide, to said electrical
`
`3o
`
`power distribution plugstrip (i.e., Master Switch VM Power Distribution Unit), as disclosed by
`
`MSVM User Guide and MSVM Quick Start Manual, for the advantage of allowing to use SNMP
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 12
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 12
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`to manage said electrical power distribution plugstrip (i.e., Master Switch VM Power Distribution
`
`Unit) of its plurality of relay-controlled outlets (See MSVM PowerNet Guide, page 33).
`
`Actually, the combination of MSVM User Guide, MSVM Quick Start Manual, and MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide (in fact, all of the references describe aspects of the product MasterSwitch TM
`
`5
`
`VM) provides a fuller picture of the functionality of the product MasterSwitch TM VM, i.e., Power
`
`Distribution Unit and managing it using SNMP Network.
`
`Referring to claim 2, MSVM PowerNet Guide teaches the electrical power plugstrip
`
`comprising
`
`10
`
`•
`
`at least one intelligent power section (i.e., SNMP agent with eight relay-controlled
`
`outlets) disposed in the vertical strip enclosure (i.e., MasterSwitch ™ VM Power
`
`Distribution Unit) and in which is disposed at least one of the plurality of power control
`
`relays (i.e., said eight relay-controlled outlets; See pages 28 and 33).
`
`15
`
`Referring to claim 3, MSVM PowerNet Guide teaches the electrical power plugstrip
`
`comprising
`
`• an external power manager application (i.e., PowerNet® SNMP MIB) external to the
`
`vertical strip enclosure in network communication (i.e., NMS) with the intelligent power
`
`section (i.e., SNMP agent) disposed in the vertical strip enclosure (i.e., MasterSwitch ™
`
`20
`
`VM Power Distribution Unit enclosure; See page 6),
`
`o whereb/ a user of the external power manager (i.e., a user of said PowerNet®
`
`SNMP MIB) may control power provided to selectable ones of said plurality of power
`
`outputs (i.e., providing commands to control such as on, off, reboot, delayed on/off,
`
`and sequenced reboot; See pages 35-40).
`
`25
`
`Referring to claim 6, MSVM User Guide teaches
`
`•
`
`the current-related information display (i.e., overcurrent alarm LED 7 of Fig. 1) is in
`
`current determining communication with all among the plurality of power outputs (i.e.,
`
`2 The recitation in the claim "whereby a user of the external power manager may control power provided to selectable
`ones of said plurality of power outputs" has not been given patentable weight because it has been held that the
`functional "whereby" statement does not define any structure and accordingly cannot serve to distinguish. In re
`Mason, 114 USPQ 127, 44 CCPA 937 (1957).
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 13
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 13
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`"electrical outputs: 16 NEMA 5-15 outlets" on MSVM PDU; See page 42) through at
`
`least one current sensing device (See pages 2-3).
`
`Referring to claims 9 and 10, MSVM PowerNet Guide teaches that said intelligent power
`
`5
`
`section (i.e., SNMP agent with eight relay-controlled outlets) comprises
`
`• an intelligent power module (i.e., relay-controlled outlets by SNMP agent) having at least
`
`one of the plurality of power control relays (i.e., said relays) and the corresponding
`
`power output for such one power control relay (i.e., said power outlets; See pages 28
`
`and 33).
`
`10
`
`These rejections in the above were adopted in the previous Office action (6/21/13)
`
`essentially as proposed by the Third Party requester ("Claim Chart Exhibit N'}, and they are
`
`being maintained as rejected in the previous Office action (6/21/13).
`
`15
`
`10.
`
`The proposed rejections of claims 4, 5, 7, 8, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
`
`being unpatentable over MSVM User Guide in view of MSVM Quick Start Manual and MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide are not adopted for the reasons as noted below.
`
`The claim 4 recites the limitations "a plurality of intelligent power sections disposed in the
`
`vertical strip enclosure" and "each said intelligent power section being in independent
`
`20
`
`communication with at least a corresponding one or more among the plurality of power outputs".
`
`However, the electrical power distribution plugstrip (i.e., Master Switch VM Power Distribution
`
`Unit) disclosed in the references MSVM User Guide, MSVM Quick Start Manual, and MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide does not comprise a plurality of intelligent power sections disposed in the
`
`vertical strip enclosure. In fact, the similar feature "SNMP agent" to the claimed subject matter
`
`25
`
`"intelligent power section" is disclosed by the mentioned references with the exception of
`
`teaching a plurality of SNMP agents, and further, each said SNMP agent being in independent
`
`communication with at least a corresponding one or more among the plurality of outlets.
`
`The Third Party requester asserts that each of the eight individually managed power
`
`outlets of the MasterSwitch TM VM is relay controlled, and meets the limitation of an "intelligent
`
`3o
`
`power section" according to its broadest reasonable interpretation. However, the asserted
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation by the Third Party requester is not proper because the
`
`broadest reasonable interpretation of the asserted element "the eight individually managed
`
`Paper No. 20130828
`
`IPR Page 14
`
`

`
`Control Number: 95/001,485
`Art Unit: 3992
`
`Page 14
`Inter Partes REX Right of Appeal Notice
`
`power outlets of the MasterSwitch ™ VM" is not in consistent with the specification, i.e., a
`
`plurality of intelligent power modules (IPMs) disposed in the vertical strip enclosure shown in
`
`Figs. 1 and 3 (See MPEP 2258 G. a