Ex Parte Chopra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

12762141 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/762,141 04/16/2010 CHANDAN CHOPRA AUS920100033US1 2759
75916 7590
IBM AUS IPLAW (GLF)
c/o Garg Law Firm, PLLC
4521 Copper Mountain Lane
Richardson, TX 75082
12/16/2016 EXAMINER
TODD, GREGORY G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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):
dpandy a @ garglaw. com
uspto@garglaw.com
garglaw @gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHANDAN CHOPRA, PRASHANT ANANT PARANJAPE, and
VASU VALLABHANENI
Appeal 2016-001861
Application 12/762,141
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-001861
Application 12/762,141
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 16—35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 16 under appeal read as follows (emphasis and
bracketing added):
16. A computer usable program product comprising a
computer usable storage device including computer usable code for
addressing a workload partition (WPAR), the computer usable code
comprising:
[(A)] computer usable code for receiving, from a second data
processing system, a packet of data at a software stack executing in a
first data processing system, the packet being directed to the WPAR
executing in the first data processing system, the packet including a
combined address, wherein the combined address combines a first
part to identify the first data processing system to the second data
processing system over a data network and a second part to identify
the WPAR executing in the first data processing system-,
[(B)] computer usable code for determining whether the
combined address includes an identifier that is reserved;
[(C)] computer usable code for using, responsive to the
identifier not being reserved, the identifier to identify the WPAR in
the first data processing system; and
[(D)] computer usable code for sending the packet to the
WPAR.
Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 16—35 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Craft et al. (US 2007/0233897 Al).
2
Appeal 2016-001861
Application 12/762,141
Appellants ’ Contention 1
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
16 because:
Craft teaches no address that includes a first part and a
second part, where the first part can be used to reach a data
processing system over a data network and the second part can
be used to identify a WPAR in that data processing system.
Amended claim 16 calls for receiving the packet from a second
data processing system into the WPAR’s host data processing
system.
App Br. 12, Appellants’ emphasis omitted, panel emphasis added.
Problems exist where the examiner argues “218 shows
WPAR1 having a network address of 1.1.1.11, WPAR2 has a
network address of 1.1.1.12, etc. Craft clearly uses the network
aliasing feature disclosed by Appellant to have each WPAR
appear as a distinct data processing system [Thus, by Craft
disclosing each WPAR having a distinct network IP address,
Craft’s WPAR meets Appellant’s definition of a data processing
system.]” (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 8-9), and where the examiner
argues “Craft clearly discloses exchanging data from an
application in one WPAR to another application and exchanging
such data with a packet using an IP destination address (at least
paragraph 18)” (Examiner’s Answer, p. 9). First problem is that
the WPARs are located in the same data processing system, and
therefore their inter-communications are not really identify [ing]
the first data processing system to the second data processing
system over a data network. Second, Craft does not teach or
suggest that WPAR-to-WPAR communication use the WPAR
identifiers; therefore, such WPAR-to-WPAR communications
do not occur using the combined address as in claim 16. And
lastly, the WPARs are not themselves qualified as the first data
1 The contention of error we discuss is dispositive. Appellants’ other
contentions of error are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-001861
Application 12/762,141
processing system and the second data processing system for the
reasons described above.
Reply Br. 3, emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 16—35 as being anticipated
because Craft fails to disclose the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contention, we agree. Claim 16 recites “a
first part to identify the first data processing system to the second data
processing system over a data network.” We agree with Appellants “Craft
teaches no address that includes a first part and a second part, where the first
part can be used to reach a [second\ data processing system over a data
network and the second part can be used to identify a WPAR in that data
processing system.” App. Br. 12, emphasis added.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ Appeal Brief arguments by
providing additional analysis that finds “by Craft disclosing each WPAR
having a distinct network IP address, Craft's WPAR meets Appellant's
definition of a data processing system.” Ans. 9, emphasis added. We
disagree with Examiner’s finding that it is reasonable to treat the “WPAR”
and “data processing system” limitations of claim 16, as indistinct
limitations, i.e., as being interchangeable. As support for this finding, the
Examiner points to selected paragraphs of Appellants Specification as being
4
Appeal 2016-001861
Application 12/762,141
definitional. Ans. 8. However, the Examiner’s selection of definitional
paragraphs omits those paragraphs which contradict the Examiner’s ultimate
finding that the WPAR and data processing system are indistinct. For
example, the Specification discloses:
Workload partition is a technology that allows separating
users and applications by employing software techniques instead
of forming separate hardware partitions. In other words, a data
processing system can be so configured as to allow one or more
virtual partitions to operate within the data processing system’s
operating system. Such a virtual partition is called a workload
partition, or WPAR.
12. We conclude that the claim limitations “data processing system” and
“workload partition (WPAR)” are not interchangeable for purposes of the
rejection. Rather, an artisan reading Appellants’ disclosure as a whole
would recognize the terms are distinct with the term “data processing
system” being directed to hardware, and the term “workload partition” being
directed to software.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 16—35 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) On this record, claims 16—35 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
5
Appeal 2016-001861
Application 12/762,141
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 16—35 is reversed.
REVERSED
6