Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 19, 2016

13034799 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/034,799
58139 7590
IBM CORP, (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
02/25/2011
02/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hong Cai
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.
CN920100002US 1 1516
EXAMINER
POLLACK, MEL VIN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2016 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HONG CAI, JUN JIE CAI, WEI GONG,
LIN QUAN JIANG, JING L V, XIN SHENG MAO,
HENG WANG, HAI HONG XU, KE ZHANG, and
MIN JUN ZHOU
Appeal2014-003552
Application 13/034, 799
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2014-003552
Application 13/034, 799
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application "relates to the field of data processing, and
more specifically, to a method, apparatus, and related computer program
product for handling a tenant client request of a multi-tenant application."
Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for providing a service to multiple tenants of an
application, the method comprising:
binding a tenant context of a tenant to a request in response
to receiving from a client the request associated with one of the
multiple tenants; and
with respect to an access to an isolation point of the
application in the request, redirecting, by a processor, the access
to the isolation point to a partition based on the tenant context
bound to the request, wherein the partition is pre-established for
the tenant with respect to the application.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 6-9, 14--17, and 22-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Fry (US 8,271,641 B2; Sept. 18, 2012).
Claims 2-5, 10-13, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fry and Kothari (US 2010/0023937 Al; Jan.
28, 2010).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, and we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. Claim 1
recites, among other things, "binding a tenant context of a tenant to a request
in response to receiving from a client the request associated with one of the
2
Appeal2014-003552
Application 13/034, 799
multiple tenants." App. Br. 28. Independent claims 9 and 17 recite similar
limitations. App. Br. 29, 30-31. Appellants' specification defines the
"tenant context" recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as "an object
such as an identifier describing a specific tenant associated with a request
when an application is being visited." Spec. i-f 30. The Examiner found
Fry's "tenant process space" teaches the claimed "tenant context" but has not
adequately explained how a "tenant process space" teaches "an object such
as an identifier describing a specific tenant associated with a request when
an application is being visited." See, e.g., Final Act. 3, 7; Ans. 8-9.
Moreover, the Examiner has not shown Fry discloses "binding a
tenant context ... in response to receiving from a client the request
associated with one of the multiple tenants" as required by independent
claims 1, 9, and 17. The Examiner found this limitation encompasses
"associating tenant contexts (tenant process spaces) to tenant/ client requests,
such that [a] table may be used for matching." Final Act. 2-3, 7; Ans. 8-9.
However, as noted above, the Examiner has not established that the claimed
"tenant context" includes a "tenant process space." And the Examiner has
not provided adequate evidence to support the finding that Fry discloses
"associating tenant contexts (tenant process spaces) to tenant/ client requests,
such that [a] table may be used for matching." The portion of Fry cited by
the Examiner with respect to this limitation does not explicitly mention these
elements, and the Examiner has not adequately explained why the cited
portion of Frye supports the Examiner's finding. See Final Act. 2-3, 7; Ans.
8-9.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Because claims 2-8, 10-16,
3
Appeal2014-003552
Application 13/034, 799
and 18-24 depend from either claim 1, 9, or 17, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of these claims.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejections of claims 1-24.
REVERSED
4