Ex Parte Dalberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201412019673 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEVIN J. DALBERG and LIN A. NEASE ____________ Appeal 2012-009321 Application 12/019,673 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BETH Z. SHAW, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–3, 8–19, 22, and 23. Claims 4–7, 20, and 21 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 3. We affirm. Appeal 2012-009321 Application 12/019,673 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to server load balancing that is performed by network switches. Spec. 3. Claim 1, which is an illustrative independent claim, recites: 1. A method for server load balancing within a network, the method comprising: a master switch of the network generating a server load balancing algorithm based on availability information received by the master switch from multiple application servers, wherein the server load balancing algorithm is configured to distribute workload across the multiple application servers; and the master switch publishing the server load balancing algorithm to other switches of the network for application thereby to determine how to distribute network packets among the multiple application servers. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1–3, 8–14, 22, and 23 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Manczak (US 7,536,693 B1, issued May 19, 2009), Dani (US 7,426,561 B2, issued Sept. 16, 2008), Islam (US 2004/0103194 A1, published May 27, 2004), and Cotton (US 5,623,489, issued Apr. 22, 1997). Ans. 5–13. The Examiner rejected claims 15–17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Manczak, Dani, and Islam. Ans. 13–16. The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 19 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Manczak, Dani, Islam, and Mehta (US 7,808,897 B1, issued Oct. 5, 2010). Ans. 17–18. Appeal 2012-009321 Application 12/019,673 3 ISSUES Appellants present numerous contentions that the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 8–19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are improper. Appeal Br. 8–19. Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issue: Do the combined teachings of Manczak, Dani, and Islam teach or suggest a master switch of a network that generates a server load balancing algorithm? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of Appellants’ contentions that the rejections are improper. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions that the Examiner’s rejections of 1–3, 8–19, 22, and 23 are improper. Claim 1 Appellants’ contention that the rejection of claim 1 is improper is generally directed to whether the references teach a master switch of a network that generates a server-load balancing algorithm. Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 5–6. The relevant limitation of claim 1 recites: “a master switch of the network generating a server load balancing algorithm.” The Examiner found that this limitation is taught by Dani. Ans. 7. The portions of Dani cited by the Examiner in the rejection teach a switch having a load balancing process that may implement any known algorithm for load balancing. Dani, col. 5, ll. 28–38. Dani further teaches in the cited portions that the algorithm uses Appeal 2012-009321 Application 12/019,673 4 weights corresponding to ports and that these weights can be automatically adjusted by the switch. Dani, col. 5, ll. 38–43; col. 7, ll. 5–12. Appellants acknowledge Dani teaches a switch that implements any known algorithm for balancing loads. Appeal Br. 9. However, Appellants argue that implementing a load balancing algorithm does not amount to a switch that generates a load balancing algorithm. Id. In light of the Examiner’s findings, we find this argument unpersuasive. The Examiner cites to specific portions in columns 5 and 7 of Dani that teach a switch that automatically updates weights used in a load- balancing algorithm. Ans. 7, 20–21. We understand the Examiner’s position to be that an algorithm is generated by updating the weights, which are components of the algorithm. In other words, implementing the load balancing algorithm of Dani involves generating the algorithm with the updated weights before the algorithm is executed. Accordingly, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that Dani does not teach or suggest a switch that generates a server load balancing algorithm. Although Dani’s disclosure is sufficient to sustain the rejection of claim 1, we observe that the Examiner found Islam also discloses generating a server load balancing algorithm. Ans. 21. In particular, the Examiner cites to portions of Islam that teach a load balancing algorithm that updates the active servers that can handle requests. See Islam ¶ 48. Appellants contend that Islam does not disclose generating a server load balancing algorithm, but only implements algorithms for server load balancing. Reply Br. 6–7. However, Appellants’ Specification states that the server load balancer “can collect information as to the availability of the other application servers 110 and use that information to generate server load balancing algorithms.” Appeal 2012-009321 Application 12/019,673 5 Spec. p. 5, ll. 19–22. Thus, consistent with Appellants’ disclosed technique, Islam takes into account server availability to generate a load balancing algorithm. Accordingly, we find unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments that Islam does not teach or suggest generation of a server load balancing algorithm. Because the combination of Manczak, Dani, and Islam teaches or suggests a master switch of a network that generates a server load balancing algorithm, Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Manczak, Dani, Islam, and Cotton. Claims 10 and 15 Appellants’ contentions that the rejections of independent claims 10 and 15 are improper presents us with the same issue discussed in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 12–18; Reply Br. 6. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11–14, 16–19, 22, and 23 Appellants contend that the rejections of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11–14, 16–19, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are improper for the same reasons as those presented by Appellants for the respective independent claims. Appeal Br. 11–12, 15, 18–20. Appellants do not present any additional arguments for these claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed supra with reference to their respective independent base claims. Appeal 2012-009321 Application 12/019,673 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 8–19, 22, and 23 are affirmed. AFFIRMED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation