`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF C03-[MERGE
`Unileai Slates Patent and Trad:-mark Office
`Addlcss-.C'.OI\-'[1'\"1lS5lO.\l'E.R FOR PATENTS
`}’.0..T3ux l-150
`Al|:k;md:Ii'.L \-'i1'giI)iz| 1231311450
`u \\-u'.lIS}!do.gCW
`
`.n\I’1"I.I(.‘A'1"ION NO.
`
`["']I[.INC': D.»\Tii
`
`1"'IRS'1' NAME]? L\'\-'l".NTOR
`
`.-’\'l_]'(}RNTiY I)O('K]i'1' NO.
`
`(‘0N'l"IRMA'|'ION NO.
`
`051001.485
`
`1 l!12I2U1D
`
`T0-4.1543
`
`37053.0 HS
`
`8636
`
`YSQU
`265 82
`HOLLAND & HART, LLP
`222 South Main Slrccl, Suite 2200
`PO. Box I158}
`SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84147
`
`U‘)!3*).I’2LJ 15
`
`EXAM [NEE
`LEE. CHRISTOPHER E
`
`ART 1_|N1"l'
`
`.1993
`
`1-".-’§l’l:R N 1_Jl\-1.BER
`
`MAIL DA IL
`DELI\-’J'_"RY MODE
`
`00:’251:’20] 5
`PA I-’l..".R
`
`Please find below andlor attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`P"l'0Lv9OA (Rev. 04:0?)
`
`(cid:53)(cid:68)(cid:85)(cid:76)(cid:87)(cid:68)(cid:81)(cid:3)(cid:89)(cid:3)(cid:54)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:89)(cid:72)(cid:85)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:72)(cid:70)(cid:75)(cid:81)(cid:82)(cid:79)(cid:82)(cid:74)(cid:92)
`Raritan v Server Technology
`(cid:54)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:57)(cid:40)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:55)(cid:40)(cid:38)(cid:43)(cid:3)(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)(cid:19)(cid:20)
`SERVER TECH EXHIBIT 2001
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)
`I P R PAG E 1
`
`
`
`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.
`
`MC KEOWN, /ldnu'nf.s'!rcztr've Patent Jucige.s'.
`
`DILLON, Admz'ni.s'mm've Patent .Im1ge
`
`DECISION ON APPEAL
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:21)
`
`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 I-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 I-26 and 28-62. which failed to adopt
`
`various alternate grounds of rejection proposed by Requester. We have
`
`jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 3 I 5 (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 ofone 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.
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:22)
`
`IPR PAGE 3
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`Fig. 1
`
`/"°°
`
`As illustrated above. Figure I depicts an elongate vertical mount
`
`plugstrip 100 with multiple power outlet plugs l
`
`I I-126. Plugstrip I00 also
`
`includes a power input cord 108, a user display 104, and a plurality of RJ-l l
`
`jacks l06.
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:23)
`
`IPR PAGE 4
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`C/aims
`
`Claims I-26 and 28-62 are subject to reexamination. Claims I-26.
`
`2_9—3l. 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 I
`
`-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 I 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 ofthe 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;
`
`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;
`
`E. a current—related information display disposed on said
`vertical strip enclosure in current-related information-
`determining communication with at least one among
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:24)
`
`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 infomration reporting system
`associated with said vertical strip enclosure and being
`(i) in current—related infomratiomdetermining
`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 comnntnications
`network distal from the electrical power distribution
`plugstrip.
`
`53. A fully 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 i_n combination:
`
`A. a unitary 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;
`
`. 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;
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:25)
`
`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 infomiation to a remote system through the
`separate communications network.
`
`Prt'()r /l rt
`
`Wiebe
`
`Lee
`
`Ewing
`Liu
`
`McNally
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,595,494
`
`Jan. 21, I997
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,650,77l
`US. Patent No. 5,949.974
`U.S. Patent No. 6,476,729
`U.S. Patent No. 6,741,442
`
`July 22, I997
`Sep. 07. I999
`Nov. 05, 2002
`May 25. 2004
`
`American Power Conversion Corp.. MasterSwitch VM User Guide ( I999)
`
`(“MSVM User Guide”);
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:26)
`
`IPR PAGE 7
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`America.n Power Conversion Corp., MasterSwitcl1 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. I .0 Reference Guide (1999) (“MSVM
`
`PowerNet Guide”):
`
`Bay Technical Associates._Owner’s Manual: BayTecli Remote Power
`
`Control Unit (January 2000) (the “BayTech Manual");
`
`Press Release, M2 Communications Ltd._. BayTecl1_. “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, Vertica/-M()um’ Data Center
`
`Power (.'omrml_, htt
`
`:.="'r’web.arcl1ive.ori:.-'web/ I999] I l72l0906/
`
`http2;"/www.baytech.netr’ (October 13. 1999) (announcing the BayTech RPC
`
`7 and 2| products) (“BayTech Front Webpage”);
`
`Bay Technical Associates, RPC Series: Remote Power Control.
`
`littp://web.arcl1ive.orgfweb/20001006052744/www.baytech.net/products/rpc
`
`sen'es.shtmI (October 6, 2000) (Section ofthe BayTech website describing
`
`generally the line of products) (“BayTech RPC Series Webpage"):
`
`Bay Teclmical Associates. RPC 22 Remote Power Control.
`
`http2!/web.archive.org/web/2000l 1 0122295
`
`S/www.baytech.net..t'products;’rpc22.slitn1l (November 1. 2000') (Section of
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:27)
`
`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. 87LPC762 Microcontroller Data Sheet (August 27,
`
`1999) (‘‘Phillips");
`
`Teclmical Paper STP 98-1, Paul Emerald. Allegro Microsystems, Inc. Non-
`
`lntrusive Hall Effect Current—Sensing Techniques Provide Safe, Reliable
`
`Detection and Protection for Power Electronics (May 6, I998) (_“Allegro")_;
`
`and
`
`Philips Semiconductors,
`
`l3C—bus Specification (December 1998)
`
`(“l3C
`
`Bus").
`
`Owner '5 (.'()n! em 1' (ms
`
`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. 0wner’s Supplemental App. Br. 5-
`
`8.
`
`Owner contends the Examiner erred in entering the following grounds
`
`of rejections against claims l—26, 29-31. 33. 34. 37. 39—43. 46-48. and 50:
`
`A. The rejection ofclaims 1-3. 6. 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C_ § l03(a)
`
`as unpatentable over the MSVM references (Owner’s Supplemental App. Br.
`
`8-14);
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:28)
`
`IPR PAGE 9
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7.043.543 B2
`
`B. The rejection ofclaims l5—l 7, 20, 2|, 24. 30, and 39 under
`
`35 U.S.C. § l03(a) as unpatentable over all oftlie MSVM references and
`
`Lee (Owner's Supplemental App. Br.
`
`l4—l5):_
`
`C. The rejection ofclaims l-- -3. 6, 9. and I0 under 35 U.S.C. § l02(e)
`
`as anticipated by McNally (Owner‘s Supplemental App. Br. 15-18):
`
`D. The rejection ofclaims 15--17, 20, 21, and 39 under 35 U.S.C‘-.
`
`§ l03(a) as unpatentable over McNally and Liu (Owner’s Supplemental
`
`App. Br. I8);
`
`E. The rejection ofclaims I-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
`
`fiirther in View ofofficial notice, as exemplified by Wiebe and BayTech
`
`RPC Series Webpage (Owner’s Supplemental App. Br. 20-2] );
`
`Finally. Owner contends the Examiner erred in failing to consider
`
`objective evidence of the non-obviousness of claims I and 15. Owner’s
`
`Supplemental App. Br. 21~-30.
`
`R€é[ue—.rtei'
`
`ls‘ ConIe:m'on.5'
`
`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
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:19)
`
`IPR PAGE 10
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7.043.543 B2
`
`I3); the MSVM references, Lee and Wiebe (Proposed Ground I8);
`
`the MSVM references, BayTech Front Webpage, BayTech 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.
`
`9-18);
`
`B. The rejection of claims 28. 32. 35. 36. 38. 44. 45, 49. 51. 52, and
`
`54-62 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a') as unpatentable over Ewing.
`
`Wiebe and Lee (Proposed Grounds 8 and I3) and as unpatentable
`
`over the MSVM references, Lee. and further in view of official
`
`notice, as exemplified by Wiebe and BayTecl1 RPC Series
`
`Webpage (Proposed Ground 15) (Req. App. Br.
`
`l8—24); and
`
`C. The rejection ofclaims I-26 and 28-62 under 35 U.S.C.. § I03(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 I0) (Req. App. Br.
`
`24-26).
`
`Claim lm‘erpretcm'on
`
`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. ()/‘Sci'. Tech. Ctr.. 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The
`
`Office must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language,
`
`10
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:20)
`
`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.
`
`Phi!/fps v. AWN ("m'p., 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 Ft't'nes.s. Inc. v. Brmrswfck Cm'p.,
`
`288 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
`
`"plug.s‘m'p ”
`
`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 tenn “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 ‘S43 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, paragaph 33.
`
`ll
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:21)
`
`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._. Exliibit 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 MS VM 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 2| ).
`
`(We note that both Hardin (Paragraph I8) and Mares (Paragraph 21)
`
`refer to the disparaged MSMV multi—eomponent system as a “plugstrip.”)
`
`Finally. Owner points out that their proposed limited definition of
`
`“p1ugstrip" is consistent with the definition applied by the United States
`
`District Court in Nevada in related litigation, which found that definition
`
`12
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:22)
`
`IPR PAGE 13
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7.043.543 B2
`
`mandated by: the title of the ‘S43 Patent; the sumtnary references of the ‘S43
`
`Patent; the ‘S43 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. l(}()(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 Pht'lh’p.s' v. AWN C0)-'p.. 4I5 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 “fillly 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 infomiation 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
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:23)
`
`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 frilly-
`
`integrated. one—piece, unitary device.
`
`Moreover, Owner’s specification. at Column l0. linesl 7—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, l. 2).
`
`These facts leads us to the conclusion that recited plugstrip need not
`
`be fully integrated. This is particularly true in view of the Lise of the term
`
`“p1ugstrip" by two of Owner’s experts when referring to a nmIti—part prior
`
`art device. Supra.
`
`We will now address Owner‘s remaining arguments, .x-erfafin-r.
`
`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. Owners 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
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:24)
`
`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 I9. 33-34.
`
`The presence or absence ofa reason “to combine references in an
`
`obviousness determination is a pure question of fact.” In re Ga;-‘wide. 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 L.iu._ teach the utilization of digital displays to provide such
`
`information.
`
`[CITES]
`
`; see afsr.) 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 7 v. Tefcjflex Inc.. 550 U.S. 398. 416 (2007). More specifically,
`
`“when a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each perfomiing 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 Sczki-'m'dcz v. /lg Pm. 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 can implement a predictable variation, § I03
`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.
`
`15
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:25)
`
`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 ofEwing, 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 l—3._ 6. 9,
`
`and l0 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § l03(a) over the MSVM
`
`references. Id. at 8.
`
`One basis for Owner's assertion of error is the Examiner’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"
`
`and inconsistent with the ’543 Patent specification.
`
`Id. at 9-] I.
`
`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 l 1-~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 ofthe MSVM PDU
`
`constitutes a current-related information display. RAN 10.
`
`We concur with the Examiner. Under the broadest reasonable
`
`interpretation standard. we find a “display” in the broadest sense consistent
`
`16
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:26)
`
`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.
`
`Conseqtlently. we find the overcurrent alarm LED necessarily constitutes a
`
`current-related information 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—control|ed 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 l5—17. 20.
`
`21. 24. 30. and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(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
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:27)
`
`IPR PAGE 18
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`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 l4—l 5.
`
`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 Examiner’s position. Moreover, claim 15
`
`18
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:20)(cid:28)
`
`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.
`
`I 1.
`
`With regard to the rejection of claims l—3. 6. 9. and I0 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 ir1fonnation—determinin g 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. 15-18.
`
`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
`
`coimnunication 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 Exan1iner’s
`
`position.
`
`19
`
`(cid:44)(cid:51)(cid:53)(cid:3)(cid:51)(cid:36)(cid:42)(cid:40)(cid:3)(cid:21)(cid:19)
`
`IPR PAGE 20
`
`
`
`Appeal 2015-004779
`Reexamination Control No. 95/001,485
`
`Patent US 7,043,543 B2
`
`Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims l5—l 7, 20, 21 _.
`
`and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § l03(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 I2.
`
`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 i_n the Examiner position.
`
`Owner argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims l—26_. 29—3 1. 33.
`
`37, 39—43_._ 46, 47. and 50 under 35 U.S.C.‘. § l03(a) as unpatentable over
`
`Ewing. Wiebe and Lee. Owner urges the Examiner erroneously and
`
`inconsistently construed the term “current-related information—dete