Ex Parte DeCusatis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 17, 2018

13360717 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/360,717 01/28/2012
126453 7590 04/19/2018
International Business Machines Corporation - IT
Rich Lau - IPLaw Department
2455 South Road, B/008-2
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Casimer M. DeCusatis
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.
POU920110015US 1 5014
EXAMINER
AHMED, MOHAMMED
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2018 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):
poiplaw2@us.ibm.com
ituchman@tuchmanlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CASIMER M. DECUSATIS,
RAJARAM B. KRISHNAMURTHY, ANURADHA RAO, and
NASEER SIDDIQUE
Appeal2017-011576
Application 13/360,717
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-011576
Application 13/360,717
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "relates to the field of
computer networking, and, more particularly, to database systems." Spec.
iT 1.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A system comprising:
a root-server including a first computer processor;
a segment-server including a second computer processor,
the segment-server storing data based upon the data's frequency
of use by a client and the geographical location of the client,
where the data is stored at the segment-server only if the client is
geographically closer to the segment-server than the root-server
and any other segment-server in the system, and the data stored
is at least write data; and
a consistency unit to update the root-server based upon
data stored by the segment-server and client.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bornstein (US 2008/0008089 Al;
Jan. 10, 2008); Landsman (US 8,805,950 Bl; Aug. 12, 2014); and
O'Loughlin (US 2008/0286743 Al; Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 2-6.
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, O'Loughlin, and Hoole (US
2010/0318645 Al; Dec. 16, 2010). Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner rejected claims 7-9, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, O'Loughlin, and
Mehrotra (US 2011/0246518 Al; Oct. 6, 2011). Final Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal2017-011576
Application 13/360,717
The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, 0 'Loughlin and Singh (US
2012/0016931 Al; Jan. 19, 2012). Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION BASED ON BORNSTEIN, LANDSMAN, AND 0 'LOUGHLIN
Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22.
Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in finding that Landsman
teaches "that cache data is stored based on the geographical distance
between the client and the web cache," as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7.
Appellants maintain that Landsman teaches selecting a client web cache
based on efficiency, not geographical distance. Id.; Reply Br. 3. Appellants,
in particular, point to Landsman's teaching that "in certain circumstances,
the client systems 106 may be located closer to the central server 102 than
the selected client web cache 104, but may still communicate with the
selected client web cache 104 more efficiently than with the central server
due to communication delays that are unrelated to distance." App. Br. 7
(quoting Landsman, col. 6, lines 10-15).
The Examiner responds that Landsman sufficiently teaches the
disputed claim limitation and explains that "Landsman teaches 'typical'
functionality that determines caching data based on distance of the central
(root) server from the client, and the distance of the client web cache
(segment) from the client. Examiner has construed 'typical' to be the normal
operating procedure and clearly anticipates the [disputed claim limitation]."
Ans. 4. The Examiner notes that although there may be an "anomaly
3
Appeal2017-011576
Application 13/360,717
situation" where the distance is closer to the central server, this is due to
network issues and does not negate Landsman teaching of typically
determining the web cache based on distance. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. Landsman expressly teaches using
geographic distance to select the client web cache. For example, Landsman
describes that "the central server 102 identifies a suitable client web cache
104 to which to direct the client for future requests for data related to web
application 118" "[u]sing the relevant geographic location information . ..
. " Landsman, col. 5, 11. 59-62 (emphasis added). Further, Landsman recites
that "[i]dentification of a suitable client web cache 104 may be based, for
example, on whether a client web cache exists in the same geographic region
as the client system 106 .... " Landsman, col. 5, 11. 62-65. In other words,
Landsman describes there may be different ways to identify a suitable client
web cache but distance is expressly taught as one way. Landsman further
identifies geographical distance between clients and servers as a cause of
high latency and Landsman is directed to addressing this problem. See, e.g.,
col. 1, 11. 47-51. A skilled artisan, therefore, would understand that
Landsman at least suggests selecting the closest client web cache.
Landsman's additional teaching that, in general, the selected client
web cache, in certain circumstances due to network issues, may be further
from the client than the central server, does not negate Landsman's express
teaching of using distance to select the client web cache. As such, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Landsman at least
teaches or suggests "the segment-server storing data based upon ... the
geographical location of the client, where the data is stored at the segment-
4
Appeal2017-011576
Application 13/360,717
server only if the client is geographically closer to the segment-server than
the root-server and any other segment-server in the system."
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as well as
claims 2-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22 not argued with particularity.
THE REJECTIONS BASED ON BORNSTEIN, LANDSMAN, O'LOUGHLIN AND
ADDITIONALLY CITED PRIOR ART
Claims 6--9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24. Appellants do not
present separate arguments for the rejections of these claims but rather rely
on the arguments presented for claim 1. As discussed above, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and, therefore, we are
also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-9, 12, 17,
18, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, O'Loughlin, and
the additionally cited prior art. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of claims 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±)(2016).
AFFIRMED
5