Ex Parte Archer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 27, 201613668503 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/668,503 11105/2012 47478 7590 06/29/2016 IBM (ROC-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 8601 Ranch Road 2222 Ste. 1-225 AUSTIN, TX 78730 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Charles J. ARCHER 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ROC920100149US2 5147 EXAMINER KRISHNAN, RAJESHWARI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2441 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/29/2016 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): office@klspatents.com kate@klspatents.com hanna@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES J. ARCHER, MICHAEL A. BLOCKSOME, TODD A. INGLETT, JOSEPH D. RATTERMAN, and BRIAN E. SMITH Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1 and 4--6, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Br. 1. Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a routing data communications packets in a parallel computer. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of routing data communications packets in a parallel computer, the parallel computer comprising a plurality of compute nodes organized for collective operations through at least one data communications network, each compute node comprising an operating system kernel and a system-level messaging module, the system-level messaging module comprising a module of automated computing machinery that exposes a messaging interface to applications, each compute node including a routing table that specifies, for each of a multiplicity of route identifiers, a data communications path through the compute node, the method comprising: initializing, by the operating system kernel, a compute node's routing table \vith a predefined set of startup routing table entries, including initializing the compute node's routing table to include entries for each data communications path through the compute node that connects the compute node to another compute node in an operational group organized for collective operations; receiving in a compute node a data communications packet, the data communications packet including a route identifier value that identifies a specification of a data communications path through each of a plurality of compute nodes that the data communications packet traverses; determining whether the compute node's routing table contains an entry for the data communications packet's route identifier value; and creating by the operating system kernel an entry for the data communications packet's route identifier value in the compute node's routing table if the compute node's routing table 2 Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 does not have an entry for the data communications packet's route identifier value; if the compute node's routing table does not have an entry for the data communications packet's route identifier value, retrieving from the routing table in dependence upon the route identifier value the specification of a data communications path through the compute node; and routing, by the compute node, the data communications packet through the compute node according to the data communications path identified by the compute node's routing table entry for the data communications packet's route identifier value. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Flamm er us 5,488,608 Jan. 30, 1996 Nakamura US 6,553,031 B 1 Apr. 22, 2003 Hoenicke US 2006/0227774 Al Oct. 12, 2006 REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 5---6. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoenicke in view ofFlammer. Final Act. 6-10. Claims 4---6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hoenicke in view of Flammer and Nakamura. Final Act. 10-13. 3 Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. Section 112, Second Paragraph The Examiner concludes that the limitation in claim 1 reciting "'if the compute node's"' is indefinite "because ifthe routing table does not have an entry for the route identifier value, it would not be possible to retrieve the data communications path specified in the routing table for that route identifier." Final Act. 5. In reaching that conclusion, the Examiner looked at each claim limitation separately, without considering sequential ordering or the interdependence of the limitations. Ans. 3. Appellants argue the claim as a whole is not indefinite. Br. 5---6. Reading the claim as a whole, Appellants argue the claim recites three steps that occur if the compute node's routing table does not have an entry for a route identifier value: creating an entry, retrieving the created entry, and routing the communication. Br. 5. Appellants further argue that "[b]ecause the claims make clear that the routing table may not have an entry for the route identifier value at one step and in another step the entry is created, the limitation at issue is not indefinite." Br. 5---6. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in concluding the claim limitation is indefinite. "A claim is indefinite if, when read in light of the specification, it does not reasonably apprise those skilled in the art of the scope of the invention." Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., 314 F.3d 1313, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although it is generally improper to read 4 Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 a specific order of steps into method claims, such an order is required if "as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written" or if the specification "'directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction.'" Altiris, Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). We agree with Appellants that the logic and grammar of the claims require a specific order of what happens if a route identified value is not initially found in the routing table and that three ordered steps must follow. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding the claims indefinite. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4---6 as indefinite. Claim 1 (Section 103 Rejection) Appellants argue Flammer does not teach "creating by the operating system kernel an entry for the data communications packet's route identifier value in the compute node's routing table," as recited in claim 1. Br. 6-9. According to Appellants, Flammer teaches creating an entry in a routing table for a source node. However, Appellants argue, Flammer does not teach the claim limitation "because a source node identifier is not a route identifier value." Br. 8. The Examiner finds Hoenicke teaches, inter alia, a "data communications packet including a route identifier value that identifies a specification of a data communication path." Final Act. 8. Although the Examiner notes that Hoenicke does not teach determining if the routing table contains a specific route identifier value and updating the table if it does not, the Examiner finds Flammer teaches updating a routing table if the table 5 Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 does not contain routing information for a specific packet. Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to modify Hoenicke to include creating routing table entries "in order to reduce overheads in packet processing." Final Act. 10. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants' arguments are directed to the references individually, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings that Hoenicke teaches using route identifier values (see Hoenicke i-fi-f 15, 29-31) and Flammer teaches creating entries in a routing table when it does not contain routing information (see Flammer 4:52-67). We further agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 10) that it would have been obvious to modify Hoenicke in view of Flammer with the creating limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Claims 4-6 (Section 103 Rejection) Appellants argue Nakamura teaches a line interface unit with a limited number of routing information entries. Br. 9-10. However, Appellants argue Nakamura does not teach a node that has a maximum number of entries. Id. Therefore, according to Appellants, the Examiner erred in 6 Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 finding Nakamura teaches "wherein the compute node's routing table includes a maximum number of entries, and the total number of data communications paths through the compute node is greater than the maximum number of entries in the compute node's routing table," as recited in claim 4. Id. Appellants further argue that Hoenicke and Flammer do not teach or suggest the limitation of claim 4. Id. The Examiner finds Nakamura teaches a sub routing table for storing a limited number of routing information entries. Final Act. 11 (citing Nakamura 3: 4--11). The Examiner further finds that if the cache memory is filled, it will delete an entry to make room for an additional entry. Ans. 5---6 (citing Nakamura 2:40-41, 2:48-52). Accordingly, the Examiner finds "it is evident that the sub routing tables in Nakamura'031 can store only a certain maximum number of entries, based on the capacity of the cache memory in the line interface modules" and therefore teach the additional limitation. Ans. 5---6; see also Final Act. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. Nakamura discloses a sub routing table with a limited number of entries (Nakamura 3:4--12) which is the same as a maximum number of entries. Additionally, Nakamura's teaching that the entries may need to be deleted to accept additional routing entries (Nakamura 2:48-52) means that the number of data communication paths is greater than the maximum number that can be stored. Although Nakamura does not use the same language, there is no such requirement in an obviousness analysis. See In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978) (An ipsissimis verbis test is not required). 7 Appeal2015-003689 Application 13/668,503 To the contrary, the Examiner's findings are reasonable the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the cited combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher- Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 4, along with the rejections of claims 5 and 6, which are not argued separately. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1 and 4---6 as obvious. For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1 and 4---6 as indefinite. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation