Ex Parte Childress et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 31, 201611422100 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111422,100 0610512006 37945 7590 06/02/2016 DUKEW, YEE YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C. P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rhonda L Childress 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. POU920060007US 1 3666 EXAMINER RINES, ROBERT D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/02/2016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RHONDA L. CHILDRESS, DAVID B. KUMHYR, MICHAEL J. SPISAK Appeal2013-009894 Application 11/422, 100 Technology Center 3600 Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, NINA A. MEDLOCK, and AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1, 5-8, 11-15 and 18-25. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2013-009894 Application 11/422, 100 BACKGROUND Appellants' invention is directed to a method for brokering decisions based on jurisdiction between policy engines in an enterprise data processing system (Spec. 1 ). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for processing requests in an enterprise system having a plurality of computer clusters, the method comprising: a computer receiving the requests from a plurality of policy engines to add a same resource to the plurality of computer clusters in the enterprise system; in response to the requests, the computer determining a highest priority computer cluster, in the plurality of computer clusters, to which to add the same requested resource based on predetermined rules that identify priorities for assigning the same requested resource to the plurality of computer clusters, respectively, in which the predetermined rules include a set of rules for adding the same requested resource based on an assignment of the plurality of computer clusters to organizations associated with the 1 1•, .. 1• • 1 pmrancy or poncy engmes; ana in response to the requests, the computer adding the same requested resource to the highest priority computer cluster identified using the predetermined rules but not adding the same requested resource to another of the plurality of computer clusters. The Examiner relies on the following prior art references as evidence of unpatentability: Johnson Benzinger Slater US 2002/0049841 Al US 7 ,426,551 B 1 US 7,590,746 B2 2 Apr. 25, 2002 Sept. 16, 2008 Sept. 15, 2009 Appeal2013-009894 Application 11/422, 100 Appellants appeal the following rejection: Claims 1, 5-8, 11-15, and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benzinger, Johnson, and Slater. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims because the prior art does not disclose determining a highest priority computer cluster to which to add the same requested resource based on predetermined rules? FACTUAL FINDINGS We adopt the Examiner's findings as our own. Final Office Act. 4--7. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis that follows. ANALYSIS We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants' argument that the prior art does not disclose determining the highest priority computer cluster to which to add the same requested resource. The crux of this argument is that, according to Appellants, neither Johnson nor Slater discloses adding a same resource but rather disclose adding files. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's response to this argument found on pages 6-8 of the Answer. The Examiner finds that the term "resource" is understood from reading the Appellants' Specification to be additional serving capacity or hardware (Ans. 6). This finding is supported by Appellants' disclosure at paragraphs 37 and 40, which disclose that when there is a high volume of web transactions, additional resources (i.e., serving capacity or hardware) are added to a web 3 Appeal2013-009894 Application 11/422, 100 cluster in accordance with predefined rules. The Examiner finds that Johnson discloses managing content requests by managing the allocation of available content delivery hardware (a same resource) and that this allocation is done in accordance with preset rules (Ans. 7, 10). Appellants' argument that Slater does not disclose adding a same resource but rather just adding files in not persuasive because Johnson is relied on for teaching this subject matter. Slater is relied on for teaching competing requests for a same resource or capacity and adding the requested resource or capacity to servers that are providing the content (col. 15, lines 1-10, lines 30-45). We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants' argument that the prior art does not determine the highest priority computer cluster because Johnson discloses in paragraphs 10 and 102 that the priority of service of a client receives is in accordance with r....... 1•, ""n • • •, , ~uancy or ~erv1ce pnorny parame1ers. We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants' argument that the proposed modification of the prior art would not be made when the prior art is considered as a whole. Appellants argue that the prior art references solve very different problems and that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to modify the references as proposed by the Examiner because the references cannot be combined to solve the problem solved in claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that because Johnson, Slater, and Benzinger are directed to managing resources in a distributed environment, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be led to combine their respective teachings to achieve the predictable result of 4 Appeal2013-009894 Application 11/422, 100 reducing hardware requirements and costs by more efficiently and effectively managing system resources (Ans. 10). We are not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants' arguments, directed to claims 22-25, that the cited prior art does not disclose the subject matter of these claims. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings on page 10 of the Final Action and response to this argument found on page 11 of the Answer. We have considered the other arguments advanced by Appellants in response to the rejections but do not find these arguments persuasive. In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 22-25. We will also sustain the rejection as it is directed to the remaining claims because Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner is affirmed. TIME PERIOD 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)(l) (iv). ORDER AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation