Ex Parte Darrington et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 16, 201612270164 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/270,164 11113/2008 David L. Darrington 46296 7590 02/18/2016 MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC P.O. BOX548 CARTHAGE, MO 64836-0548 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. ROC920080l49US1 1670 EXAMINER CHANG,TOMY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/18/2016 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): derekm@ideaprotect.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte DAVID L. DARRINGTON, MATTHEW W. MARKLAND, PHILIP JAMES SANDERS, and RICHARD MICHAEL SHOK Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' present patent application relates to scheduling work in a multi-node computer system based on checkpoint characteristics for an application stored in a checkpoint profile. Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A multi-node computer system comprising: a plurality of compute nodes that each comprise a processor and memory; a network connecting the plurality of compute nodes; a checkpoint monitor that monitors a plurality of jobs executing on the computer system during checkpointing and stores checkpoint characteristics for each job in a plurality of checkpoint profiles; and a job scheduler that determines when and where to load a new job into the plurality of compute nodes depending on the checkpoint characteristics in the plurality of checkpoint profiles. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saha (US 2010/0011026 Al; Jan. 14, 2010) and Bansal (US 2009/0300623 Al; Dec. 3, 2009). See Ans. 2-5. Claims 3, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saha, Bansal, and Sahoo (US 2006/0168473 Al; July 27, 2006). See Ans. 4-5. Claims 5, 11-13, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saha, Bansal, and Barsness (US 2009/0043873 Al; Feb. 12, 2009). See Ans. 6-8. 2 Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 Claims 7 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Saha, Bansal, and Jia (US 2008/0216089 Al; Sep. 4, 2008). See Ans. 8-9. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 8, and 16 Appellants argue the Examiner applies impermissible hindsight reasoning in finding motivation to combine Saha and Bansal to reject claim 1. Br. 6-8. In particular, Appellants argue Saha teaches using checkpoint execution time to determine checkpoint intervals while Bansal teaches determining a job start time based on priority constraints, including job execution time. Br. 6. Appellants contend these teachings result in creating time intervals in different ways for different purposes. Br. 7. According to Appellants, an ordinarily skilled artisan would not be motivated to combine these teachings because placement of a job based on checkpoint execution time may have the opposite effect of placement of a job based on priority constraints, as taught by Bansal. Br. 8. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to Appellants' arguments, describing the features of Saha and Bansal (Ans. 10-11 ), which the ordinary skilled artisan would have combined consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). The Examiner further explains that an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine inputing the statistical data of Saha, such as the checkpoint time intervals, with the job scheduler of Bansal to use with the other constraints taught by Bansal. Ans. 11. As motivations for this combination, the Examiner provides automating the scheduling of future checkpoint jobs and optimizing checkpoint scheduling in relation to other types of jobs executed in the 3 Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 network. Id. With respect to the types of constraints, the Examiner finds Bansal further teaches manipulation of start time which affects allocation of resources. Ans. 12 (citing Bansal i-f 91). We agree with the Examiner's findings regarding the manner in which an ordinarily skilled artisan would combine the references and the motivation for such a combination. Although, the Supreme Court stated that "[a] factfinder should be aware, of course, of the distortion caused by hindsight bias and must be cautious of arguments reliant upon ex post reasoning" (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421 ), we are satisfied that the combination of Saha and Bansal is not based on hindsight bias. In fact, the proposed combination involves nothing other than requiring the ordinarily skilled artisan to use common sense in combining prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in the claimed system. Therefore, we are also unpersuaded by Appellants' contention that an ordinarily skilled artisan would be deterred from combining the teachings of Saha and Bansal merely because the job placement criteria used by Saha and Bansal may result in different job placement. Br. 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 or claims 8 and 16, which are argued based on the same reasons presented for claim 1. Br. 9. Claims 4, 9, and 18 Claim 4 recites "[t]he multi-node computer system of claim 1 further comprising a user interface that allows a system administrator to edit one or more checkpoint characteristics in the plurality of checkpoint profiles." The Examiner rejected claim 4 as unpatentable over the combination of Saha and Bansal, citing paragraph 13 of Saha. Final Act. 4. Appellants argue the 4 Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 because Saha discloses adjusting the checkpoint while "the claim limitation is more than just adjusting the checkpoint." Br. 8-9. The Examiner responds that adjusting checkpoint jobs affects how long a job takes to execute, which is a checkpoint characteristic as recited in claim 4. Ans. 13. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that Saha's adjusting the checkpoint comprises editing the "checkpoint characteristics," as recited in claim 4. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 4 or claims 9 and 18, which are not argued separately. Br. 8-9. Claims 5, 12, 13, and 19 Claim 5 recites "[t]he multi-node computer system of claim 1 wherein the job scheduler loads the new job into one or more compute nodes that has one or more jobs executing with similar checkpoint characteristics as the checkpoint characteristics for the new job." The Examiner rejected claim 5 as unpatentable over the combination of Saha, Bansal, and Barsness, citing paragraph 26 of Barsness. Final Act. 6. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 5 because Barsness teaches checking the characteristics of a node, but is silent regarding jobs executing on the node having similar checkpoint characteristics to the job to be scheduled. Br. 10 (citing Barsness i-f 26). The Examiner responds that Barsness teaches ensuring that a node has sufficient memory for a job that is loaded onto the node. Ans. 14-15. The Examiner finds this teaches the limitations of claim 5. Ans. 15. The cited portion of Barsness is silent as to checkpoint characteristics of a job to be loaded, instead teaching monitoring the memory usage of the node itself before loading the job. Barsness i-f 26. The Examiner finds this 5 Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 disclosure sufficient to teach or suggest the limitations of claim 5, but does not explain how monitoring the memory usage of a node is the same as monitoring checkpoint characteristics of jobs executing on a node. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portion of Barsness teaches or suggests claim 5 because checking memory usage of a node does not constitute loading a new job into a node that has jobs executing with similar checkpoint characteristics as the new job. Claims 12 and 19 recite similar limitations to that of claim 5. Accordingly, we are persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 12 and 19 for the same reasons stated above for claim 5. Claim 13 recites a similar limitation, but exchanges "similar checkpoint characteristics" for "different checkpoint characteristics." The Examiner cited the same portion of Barsness for claim 13 as for claims 5, 12, and 19. We are persuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claim 13 for the same reasons as claim 5. Claims 7 and 20 Claim 7 recites "[t]he multi-node computer system of claim 1 wherein the job scheduler loads the new job based on the checkpoint characteristics for the job and starts the new job at a time depending on when the next checkpoint cycle for other jobs on the group of nodes is expected." The Examiner rejected claim 7 as unpatentable over Saha, Bansal, and Jia. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Jia i-f 18). Appellants argue Jia teaches coordinating checkpoint operations using shared memory rather than scheduling jobs depending on when the next checkpoint cycle for other jobs is expected. Br. 12 (citing Jia i-f 18). The Examiner "interpreted claim 7 to describe coordinating the performing of a new checkpoint with the performing of the 6 Appeal2014-004373 Application 12/270,164 next check point to ensure consistency of checkpoints." Ans. 15. Applying this interpretation, the Examiner finds Jia teaches or suggests claim 7 because Jia prevents corruption of checkpoints by preventing new tasks from using shared memory when the current checkpointing process is occurring. Id. Claim 7 requires the job scheduler to load new jobs based on checkpoint characteristics and when the next cycle for other jobs is expected. The cited portion of Jia is silent as to checkpoint characteristics of jobs being scheduled and the timing of the next checkpoint to be executed by the node. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7, as well as claim 20, which recites similar limitations. The Remaining Claims Appellants argue the patentability of the remaining claims based on their dependency from their base claim. See Br. 8-10. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 14, and 16-18. We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 5, 7, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20. AFFIRMED-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation