Ex Parte Antani et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201612605136 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/605,136 10/23/2009 Snehal S. Antani RSW920080377US1 (490) 1026 46320 7590 CRGO LAW STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 12/30/2016 EXAMINER WOO, ANDREW M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SNEHAL S. ANTANI, ERIK J. BURCKART, and ROHIT D. KELAPURE Appeal 2015-004968 Application 12/605,1361 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2015-004968 Application 12/605,136 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants have filed a Request for Rehearing concerning the Decision on Appeal (“Decision”) dated September 30, 2016, which affirmed the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12. ANALYSIS The Request for Rehearing concerns all pending claims, including independent claims 1,5, and 9 drawn to a method, system, and computer program product, respectively, for enforcing performance goals in an n-Tier distributed caching system. Req. Reh’g 3; App. Br. 11—13 (Claims App’x). The Examiner rejected the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over de Bonet, Plamondon, Hartsell, and Jayaraman, Non-Final Act. 6—21, and the Board sustained the rejection, Decision 5. Appellants argue the Board’s Decision overlooked Appellants’ arguments regarding Plamondon, which Appellants argue fails to teach “an n-tier cache in which performance metrics are collected for each cache ser[v]er so as to detect one demonstrating a performance likely to breach an SLA.” Req. Reh’g 4 (citing Reply Br. 4). We have considered Appellants’ argument in the Request for Rehearing, but are not persuaded any points were misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in our Decision. Appellants’ argument conflates two claim limitations and corresponding findings of the Examiner (and the Board): (1) “collecting performance metrics” for each cache server in the respective tier nodes, and (2) “identifying a cache server [among those in the tier nodes] likely to breach at least one term” of a service level agreement (SLA). App. Br. 11— 13 (Claims App’x). Regarding the first limitation, the Examiner found (and 2 Appeal 2015-004968 Application 12/605,136 the Board’s Decision agreed) Plamondon teaches the recited “collecting performance metrics” at paragraphs 389 and 617. Non-Final Act. 7—8; Decision 3. Appellants’ Appeal Brief did not mention Plamondon, but rather only argued Hartsell’s and de Bonet’s alleged teachings. App. Br. 7— 9. Appellants did not argue the Examiner’s findings regarding Plamondon until (belatedly) in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a)(2). Neither the Reply Brief nor the Request for Rehearing, moreover, persuasively demonstrates error in the Examiner’s finding. See Decision 3 (citing Plamondon 1617 (“detecting or determining an operational condition, status, characteristic and/or performance of. . . the caching device . . . and one or more servers.”) (emphasis added)). Regarding the second limitation, “identifying a cache server . . . likely to breach,” Appellants’ Request for Rehearing (like the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) argues a single reference when the Examiner relied on a combination of references as teaching this limitation. See Decision 4—5. Specifically, the Examiner cited the combined teachings of Hartsell, Plamondon and de Bonet. Id. (citing Non-Final Act. 8—9). Because “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually” where the rejection is “based on [a] combination^ of references,” we are not persuaded of error. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425^426 (CCPA 1981). DECISION Appellants’ Request for Rehearing is granted to the extent that the Decision has been reconsidered in light of the arguments made in the Request for Rehearing, but is denied in all other respects. 3 Appeal 2015-004968 Application 12/605,136 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). DENIED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation