DELL SOFTWARE INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2020

2019002108 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/178,158 02/11/2014 David McAleer 59961-P239US 4118
96061 7590 08/12/2020
Shackelford, Bowen, McKinley & Norton, LLP
9201 N. Central Expressway Fourth Floor
Dallas, TX 75231
EXAMINER
FAN, JOHN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
dlovell@shackelford.law
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID McALEER and KELLY NOEL DYER
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. Claims App. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Quest Software
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “managing clustered radio networks.” Spec.
¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
on a monitoring system comprising computer hardware,
maintaining hot-cluster data in a data store, the hot-cluster data
comprising identification of at least one hot cluster;
wherein the at least one hot cluster comprises at least one
remote node that is redundantly served by two or more wireless
access points that are each in communication with the
monitoring system;
selecting, by the monitoring system, a monitoring request
for transmission to the at least one remote node;
transmitting, by the monitoring system, the monitoring
request to the two or more wireless access points as a passive
request such that the monitoring request is subject to one or
more conditions before being transmitted to the at least one
remote node; and
wherein, pursuant to the passive request, the monitoring
system instructs the two or more wireless access points to:
not forward the monitoring request to the at least
one remote node until a control request intended for the
at least one remote node is received from a control
system that is communicably separate from the
monitoring system; and
upon receipt of the control request from the
communicably separate control system, transmit the
monitoring request and the control request to the at least
one remote node together as a piggy-back request.
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nguyen US 6,609,213 B1 Aug. 19, 2003
Abedi US 2009/0190541 A1 July 30, 2009
S. Byun & M. Hur, An index management using CHC-cluster for flash
memory databases, 82 The Journal of Systems and Software, 825–35
(2009) (“Byun”).

REJECTION
Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Abedi, Nguyen, and Byun. Final Act. 6–23.
OPINION
The Examiner finds Abedi, Nguyen, and Byun teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 6–9. The Examiner finds Abedi teaches most limitations
of claim 1. Final Act. 6–8. The Examiner finds Nguyen teaches
selecting, by the monitoring system, a monitoring request
for transmission to the at least one remote node [and]
transmitting, by the monitoring system, the monitoring
request to the two or more wireless access points as a passive
request such that the monitoring request is subject to one or
more conditions before being transmitted to the at least one
remote node
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8. The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills person
in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention
to combine the teaching of Nguyen into Abedi for a system and
method for recovering from a node failure in a computer
clustered based network. One of the ordinary skills would have
been motivated because it lets the cluster monitors the health of
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
4
the stand-alone servers, subsequently, the cluster will be able to
server its users, until the failing server is repaired or replaced in
case there is node server failure in the clustered system.
Final Act. 8–9 (citing Nguyen Abstract). The Examiner finds Byun teaches
“the hot-cluster data comprising identification of at least one hot cluster” as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 9. The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills person
in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention
to combine the teaching of Byun into Abedi and Nguyen for a
method to support portable and remote computer storage nodes.
One of the ordinary skills would have been motivated because it
improves index operation performance by compressing the index
nodes and clustering the hot-cold segments.
Final Act. 9 (citing Byun Abstract).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
[T]he Examiner attempts to combine various teachings regarding
a “cluster” [(Abedi)] defined by levels of interference in a radio
network, a “cluster” [(Nguyen)] that operates as a single unit for
failover purposes, and a “cluster” [(Byun)] of flash memory,
without ever acknowledging and addressing the references’
wildly different usages of the term “cluster.”
Appeal Br. 6–7.
[T]he Examiner purports to modify Abedi with Nguyen to
facilitate “recovering from a node failure in a computer clustered
based network” and so that “the cluster monitors the health of the
stand-alone servers.” Abedi’s clusters, however, do not monitor
“the health of the standalone servers,” do not operate as a single
unified computing unit, and cannot serve as a “spare server” for
a standalone server. Instead, Abedi’s clusters are an organization
of radio entities or transceivers for spectrum allocation purposes
that are merged and de-merged based on interference levels.
Appeal Br. 8.
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
5
“[T]he Examiner’s proposed modification in light of Byun requires
that the cluster of Abedi in view of Nguyen be fundamentally transformed
into some sort of flash memory so as to support ‘clustering the hot-cold
segments’ as stated by the Examiner.” Appeal Br. 9–10.
In response, the Examiner explains “[t]he motivation to combine the
Nguyen and Abedi is based upon the fact they are all refer to the service
clusters that are the collection of computer systems, servers or nodes.” Ans.
7. The Examiner further explains “[t]he motivation to combine Abedi,
Nguyen and Byun is based upon the fact they are all refer to the clusters that
are the collection of computer entities, such as segments, nodes, or servers,
etc.” Ans. 8.
We are persuaded the Examiner erred because the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning as to why the claimed invention would have been
obvious lacks a rational underpinning. We, therefore, do not concur in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Abedi discloses “[a]n interference mitigation method in a wireless
network in which a plurality of nodes share an available frequency spectrum
by performing wireless communication on sub-channels defined within the
available spectrum. The nodes are grouped into clusters.” Abedi Abstract.
Nguyen discloses “[a] system and method for recovering from a
server failure in a computer network, wherein the network contains several
stand-alone, non-clustered, servers, and a cluster, wherein a clustered server
also serves as the spare server.” Nguyen Abstract.
Byun discloses “[a]n index management using CHC-cluster for flash
memory databases.” Byun, Title.
Thus, we agree with Appellant that Abedi, Nguyen, and Byun use the
term “cluster” in different ways. See Appeal Br. 6–8. Thus, without
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
6
additional reasoning, grounded in hindsight, techniques used for a “cluster”
in Nguyen or Byun are not readily-applicable to the different “cluster” of
Abedi. Compare with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007) (“[I]f 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”).
With respect to the Examiner’s reasoning to modify Abedi in light of
Nugyen, the Examiner has not articulated how or why Abedi would have
been modified such that one of Abedi’s clusters uses techniques from
Nguyen and monitors the health of a stand-alone server, and serves the
server’s users upon fail of the stand-alone server. See Final Act. 8–9; see
also Ans. 7.
Further, with respect to the Examiner’s reasoning to further modify
Abedi in light of Byun, the Examiner has not articulated how or why Abedi
would have been modified such that one of Abedi’s clusters uses techniques
from Byun and “improves index operation performance by compressing the
index nodes and clustering the hot-cold segments.” Final Act. 9; see also
Ans. 8.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–10, which depend
from claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
11 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. We also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12–19, which depend from claim
11.
Appeal 2019-002108
Application 14/178,158
7
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
20 for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Abedi, Nguyen Byun 1–20
REVERSED