Ex Parte Bartley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

12948547 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/948,547 11/17/2010
133905 7590 10/03/2016
IBM CORPORATION- POUGHKEEPSIE (JVL)
C/O LESLIE A. VAN LEEUWEN
6123 PEBBLE GARDEN CT.
AUSTIN, TX 78739
Timothy Simon Bartley
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.
AU920100017US1 4029
EXAMINER
LUO, ANTHONY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
leslie@vI-patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY SIMON BARTLEY and SCOTT ANTHONY EXTON
Appeal2014-009439
Application 12/948,547
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1-24 under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to managing network connection pools by
monitoring existing network connections that have timed out. Specification
[0001].
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method implemented by an information handling system comprising:
Appeal2014-009439
Application 12/948,547
identifying a connection request to connect to an external network entity;
selecting one or more connections from a connection pool that
includes one or more currently unused connections with the external
network entity;
validating one of the selected connections by comparing an idle time
associated with each of the selected connections to a maximum idle
time value, the maximum idle time value corresponding to an amount
of time allowed for open connections by the external network entity,
wherein the maximum idle time value was previously identified at the
information handling system; and
using the validated connection to connect to the external network entity.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Batra (US Patent Number 6, 105,067; issued August
15, 2000) and Adams (US Patent Application Publication Number
2007/0266320 Al; published November 15, 2007). Final Rejection 7-15.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams and Gholmieh (US Patent Number
8,094,554 B2; issued January 10, 2012). Final Rejection 16-21.
Claims 4, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Gholmieh and Maeda (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2010/0042745 Al; published February 18,
2010). Final Rejection 22-25.
Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Gholmieh, Maeda and Unnold (US Patent
2
Appeal2014-009439
Application 12/948,547
Application Publication Number 2004/0196182 Al; published October 7,
2004). Final Rejection 26-27.
Claims 6, 12, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Gholmieh, Maeda and Gorsuch (US Patent
Application Publication Number 2004/0160910 Al; published August 19,
2004). Final Rejection 27-32.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams and Groninger (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2008/0304850 Al; published December 11, 2008).
Final Rejection 32-36.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Groninger and Kim (US Patent Number
7,289,804 B2; issued October 30, 2007). Final Rejection 36-37.
Claims 21and22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Groninger, Kim and Hammadou (US
Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0066790 Al; published iviarch
12, 2009). Final Rejection 37-39.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Groninger, Kim, Hammadou and Suehiro
(US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0199226 Al; published
August 6, 2009). Final Rejection 39-40.
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Batra, Adams, Groninger, Kim, Hammadou, Suehiro and
Mounier (US Patent Application Publication Number 2009/0235037 Al;
published September 17, 2009). Final Rejection 40-41.
3
Appeal2014-009439
Application 12/948,547
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 11, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
September 3, 2014), the Answer (mailed July 3, 2014) and the Final
Rejection (mailed January 21, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised
in the Briefs.
Appellants argue, "Batra's 'maximum idle time' may be entered by a
user, such as a Web administrator" and there is nothing within Batra that
teaches or suggests "a maximum idle time value corresponding to an amount
of time allowed for open connections by the external network entity" as
claimed. Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner finds "Batra does not
explicitly disclose the maximum idle time value corresponding to an amount
of time allowed for open connections by the external network entity" and
relies upon Adams' teaching of "[i]f an application over a network has been
idle for some time then the connection will time out" to address Batra's
noted deficiency. Final Rejection 9 (citing Adams, paragraph 9, lines 10-
11).
Appellants argue that "while Adams notes that a connection may time
out, Adams does not teach or suggest 'comparing' an idle time associated
with a connection to a 'maximum idle time' in order to validate the
connection, as taught and claimed by Appellant." Appeal Brief 10.
Appellants further argue, "Appellant is well aware that connections time out,
which is why Appellant teaches and claims validating a selected connection
by comparing the amount of time the connection has been idle with a
maximum idle time corresponding to an amount of time allowed (by the
4
Appeal2014-009439
Application 12/948,547
external network entity) for open connections." Appeal Brief 10. We find
Appellants' argument persuasive and agree with Appellants that "neither
Batra nor Adams, nor a combination of the two, teaches or suggests
validating a selected connection by comparing the idle time associated with
the connection to a previously identified maximum idle time value that
corresponds to an amount of time allowed for open connections by an
external network." Appeal Brief 10.
DECISION
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and
13 is reversed, as well as, the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
dependent claims 2---6, 8-12 and 18-24.
REVERSED
5