Ex Parte Chetuparambil et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2014

11550092 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MADHU K. CHETUPARAMBIL,
JAMES S. JOHNSTON, CHRISTOPHER D. PRICE,
BRIAN L. PULITO, and WILLIAM M. QUINN
____________________

Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JENNIFER D. BAHR, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
ANNETTE R. REIMERS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Madhu K. Chetuparambil et al. (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The Claimed Subject Matter
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter.
1. In a clustered environment for an e-meeting, an e-meeting
affinity method comprising:
identifying in affinity logic coupled to a sprayer and
executing in memory of a computer, a clone amongst a set of
clones supporting an e-meeting and having session affinity with
a participant to the e-meeting, each clone in the set of clones
having a configuration for hosting e-meetings on behalf of a
cluster of servers as if only a single server had been established
to host e-meetings; and,
establishing session affinity between the clone and other
participants to the e-meeting for requests relating to the e-
meeting while permitting parallel session affinity to other
clones for requests from the other participants not relating to
the e-meeting.

Evidence
The Examiner relied on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Blume
Gbadegesin
Pulito
US 2004/0059785 A1
US 2005/0055435 A1
US 2006/0026290 A1
Mar. 25, 2004
Mar. 10, 2005
Feb. 2, 2006
Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092

3
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pulito and Gbadegesin.
Claims 3, 5-9, 13, and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Pulito, Gbadegesin, and Blume.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Pulito and Blume.

OPINION
Obviousness based on Pulito and Gbadegesin
In contesting this rejection, Appellants state that “claims 2 and 4 stand
or fall together with independent claim 1, and claims 12 and 14 stand or fall
together with independent claim 11.” App. Br. 6. Further, Appellants argue
independent claims 1 and 11 together. Id. at 9-11. Thus, we select claim 1
as representative, with claims 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14 standing with claim 1. 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner cited paragraphs [0017], [0018], and [0021]-[0024] of
Pulito as disclosing the step of “identifying in affinity logic coupled to a
sprayer and executing in memory of a computer, a clone amongst a set of
clones supporting an e-meeting and having session affinity with a participant
to the e-meeting.” Ans. 4. The Examiner cited paragraphs [0030]-[0031]
and [0035]-[0036] of Pulito as disclosing “establishing session affinity
between the clone and other participants to the e-meeting”; and cited
paragraphs [0018], [0019], [0022], and [0030] of Pulito as disclosing “each
clone in the set of clones having a configuration for hosting e-meetings on
Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092

4
behalf of a cluster of servers as if only a single server had been established
to host e-meetings.” Id. at 4-5.
Appellants argue that paragraphs [0017], [0018], and [0023] of Pulito
“teach routing affinity amongst different proxy servers,” but “do not teach
the presence of different CLONES such that each CLONE supports an e-
meeting and has session affinity with a PARTICIPANT to the e-meeting.”
App. Br. 10.
Appellants’ argument is not convincing, for the reasons set forth in the
paragraph bridging pages 24 and 25 of the Answer. The Examiner considers
a single SIP proxy server in the cluster of SIP proxy servers in Pulito to be
“a clone amongst a set of clones,” as called for in claim 1. Ans. 25. The
Examiner’s position is consistent with Appellants’ Specification, which
refers to “a responsive clone or process in a server group, often referred to in
the art as a node, where both the requesting client and the responsive clone
or node have engaged in a communicative session.” Spec., para. [0005].
Further, paragraphs [0018] and [0024] of Pulito disclose that the client 102
may establish a persistent connection to any one of the SIP proxy servers
108 to achieve redundant functionality, and paragraph [0023] discloses
maintaining session affinity between the client 102 and SIP proxy servers
through the reverse proxies. Paragraph [0024] further discloses that the
persistent connection permits exchange of asynchronous real-time data
between users running applications such as eMeeting®. We agree with the
Examiner that a client who establishes such a persistent connection is a
“participant,” as called for in claim 1. See Ans. 24-25.
Appellants additionally argue that none of the cited references teaches
“reducing resource consumption for an e-meeting . . . while preserving
Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092

5
individual session affinity of each participant for requests not related to the
e-meeting.” App. Br. 10-11. This argument is not commensurate in scope
with claim 1, which does not require reducing resource consumption.
Rather, as noted by the Examiner, claim 1 calls for “establishing
session affinity between the clone and other participants to the e-meeting for
requests relating to the e-meeting while permitting parallel session affinity to
other clones for requests from the other participants not relating to the
e-meeting.” See Ans. 25-26. The Examiner finds that Pulito discloses
establishing session affinity between the SIP server and multiple clients
directing eMeeting® requests to the SIP server which handles subsequent
client requests relating to the maintained session, thereby satisfying the
claim limitation of “establishing session affinity between the clone and other
participants to the e-meeting for requests relating to the e-meeting.” Id. at
26 (citing Pulito, paras. [0024], [0036], [0030]). Moreover, the Examiner
points out that Pulito’s use of a session specific HTTP identifier for
identifying and maintaining a client/server session reduces the processing
needed for determining to which host to send client requests. Id. (citing
Pulito, para. [0036]). Appellants do not specifically contest the Examiner’s
findings.
The Examiner acknowledges that Pulito does not explicitly disclose
establishing such session affinity for requests relating to the e-meeting while
permitting parallel session affinity to other clones for requests from the other
participants not relating to the e-meeting. Ans. 5. The Examiner found that
Gbadegesin teaches this feature, and determined it would have been obvious
to incorporate this feature into Pulito to “provide the advantage of being able
to establish secondary connections for the participants to communicate to
Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092

6
other clones.” Id. at 5 (citing Gbadegesin, paras. [0288]-[0292], [0299]-
[0303]; id., figs. 25, 26); id. at 27 (additionally citing Gbadegesin, paras.
[0314]-[0316]). Appellants do not identify any error in the Examiner’s
findings with respect to the teachings of Gbadegesin or in the Examiner’s
reasoning in combining the teachings of Gbadegesin with Pulito. Rather,
Appellants merely baldly allege that the Examiner has quoted certain
paragraphs of Gbadegesin “without any explanation” (App. Br. 11).
For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not apprise us of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We therefore sustain the
rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2, 4, 11, 12, and 14, which fall with claim
1, as unpatentable over Pulito and Gbadegesin.

Obviousness based on Pulito, Gbadegesin, and Blume
In contesting this rejection, Appellants merely rely on their arguments
asserted against the rejection of claims 1 and 11. App. Br. 11. Thus, for the
reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claims 3, 5-9, 13,
and 15-19 as unpatentable over Pulito, Gbadegesin, and Blume.

Obviousness based on Pulito and Blume
In contesting the rejection of claim 10, Appellants merely rely on their
arguments asserted against the rejection of claims 1 and 11.1 App. Br. 11.
For the reasons, discussed above, these arguments are not convincing. Thus,

1 Claim 10, unlike claims 1 and 11, does not require establishing session
affinity between the clone and other participants of the e-meeting for
requests relating to the meeting while permitting parallel session affinity for
requests not relating to the e-meeting. Consequently, Appellants’ argument
with respect to that feature is not germane to the rejection of claim 10.
Appeal 2011-010837
Application 11/550,092

7
we also sustain the rejection of claim 10 as unpatentable over Pulito and
Blume.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

hh