Ex Parte Doyle et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 22, 2016

12828281 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/828,281 06/30/2010
46320 7590 09/26/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald P. Doyle
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.
RSW920100002US 1 6531
EXAMINER
HOANG, PHUONG N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD P. DOYLE and DAVID L. KAMINSKY
Appeal2014-009494
Application 12/828,281
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants assert we have overlooked or misapprehended the core
arguments of the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief (Req. for Reh' g 5).
According to Appellants:
(1) a subtask by its very name is subservient to a parent task, but in
Appellants' claim language, the opposite must be true-the tasks are
subservient to the jobs (equated by Examiner to be the subtasks); and
(2) whether or not the subtasks are compared to values and whether or
not the tasks are selected after the comparison of subtasks has no
bearing on the question of whether or not the tasks of Zhou are
associated with a job
(Req. for Reh'g 5). According to Appellants, tasks belong to jobs in contrast
to the Examiner's findings and reasoning (id.). Thus, Appellants request
reconsideration of our Decision on Appeal.
Appeal2014-009494
Application 12/828,281
Zhou teaches a method that divides an XSL transformation process
into separately schedulable subtasks (Zhou i-f 15). The Examiner finds
Zhou's subtasks teaches the recited "jobs" (Ans. 11). Zhou further teaches
selecting a subtask to execute when the time-related cost-effectiveness
metric of that sub-task is the highest (Zhou i-f 53). That subtask is then
removed from the list of subtasks (id.). Thus, Zhou teaches comparing an
estimated time to complete the first and second jobs and to schedule based
on whether the first subtask exceeds the estimated time to complete the
second subtask (id.). The Examiner relies on Kiran as teaching a task is
associated with a different job (Final Act. 9).
Appellants contend their argument on pages 12 through 14 of their
Appeal Brief and pages 6 and 7 of their Reply Brief was overlooked (Req.
for Reh' g 4---6). This argument from their Appeal Brief is:
Plainly, within Figure 7 a teaching is provided of processing a list of
tasks (block 702). So long as the list of tasks is not empty, 'subtasks'
can be selected from an XSL T Subtask List. Hov,rever, nothing in
Figure 7 indicates that the 'subtasks' in the XSL T Subtask List are
tasks of a job-compared by Examiner to the tasks in the task list.
Rather, the subtasks of the XSL T Subtask List are independent of the
tasks in the task list.
App. Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Zhou
teaches putting the creating "parsing task" or "PT subtask" into a task list
("XSLT subtask list") (Zhou i-f 43). Throughout the description, Zhou uses
"tasks" and "subtasks" interchangeably as well as separately. For example,
Zhou's Figure 7 describes the scheduler "takes into consideration an
execution time to select a task for execution on the processor" and further
describes "[t]he subtask having the highest time-related cost-effectiveness
metric is selected" (Zhou i-f 53). In describing a baseline scheduler upon
2
Appeal2014-009494
Application 12/828,281
which Figure 7 is based, Zhou describes removing a task from the XSL T
subtask list to execute. (id.; See also Zhou, claims 1 and 6).
Appellants further argue:
It appears that examiner has latched upon the term task and
subtask in Figure 7 without accounting for Appellants' claim
language of first and second tasks associated with respectively
different first and second jobs scheduled for processing within a
node of the distributed computing system by the task scheduler.
App. Br. 12-13. Initially, we note Appellants' claims do not recite the
specific relationship between tasks and jobs, but instead recite "select first
and second tasks associated with respectively different first and second jobs
scheduled for processing" (claim 5). Further, claim 5 recites "first and
second tasks associated with respectively different first and second jobs
scheduled for processing" (emphasis added). Thus, we further note nothing
in the claim language or Specification precludes a "job" from comprising
one "task" or precludes a "task" from being subservient to a "job" and
indeed, the claim recites a first task associated with a first job and a second
task associated with a second job (claim 5; Dec. 6-7).
Appellants' claim 5 recites a task scheduler comprising program code
that when executed is enabled to:
(i) "compare an estimated time to complete the first and [the]
second jobs" and
(ii) to schedule
a. "the first task for processing in the node when the estimated
time to complete the second job exceeds the estimated time
to complete the first job," or
3
Appeal2014-009494
Application 12/828,281
b. "the second task for processing in the node when the
estimated time to complete the first job exceeds the
estimated time to complete the second job."
We agree with the Examiner that Zhou discloses comparing the
subtasks Gobs) to be executed (Ans. 11; Zhou i-f 43, Fig. 7). Thus, Zhou's
selection of a task or subtask Gob) to be executed teaches comparing "an
estimated time to complete the first and [the] second job." Zhou further
teaches scheduling the task or subtask Gob) to be executed is based on that
comparison (Zhou i-f 43; Ans. 11). Thus, we determine Zhou teaches
scheduling based on "the estimated time to complete the second job exceeds
the estimated time to complete the first job" or "the estimated time to
complete the first job exceeds the estimated time to complete the second
job." A job may comprise one task; therefore, we find Zhou teaches
scheduling a first or second task, as recited.
As further support, the Examiner relies on Kiran as teaching a task is
associated with a job (Non-Final Act. 9; Dec. 6-7). Kiran is directed to a
job execution time prediction module (Kiran, Abstract). In Kiran, a job
comprises segments (tasks) (Kiran, § Summary; Dec. 7; Non-Final 9). Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that Kiran teaches tasks are associated with jobs
scheduled for processing. Therefore, Kiran teaches "first and second tasks
associated with respectively different first and second jobs scheduled for
processing." Moreover, we note that even if we were to determine tasks are
subsets of jobs as urged by Appellants, Kiran teaches a job comprises tasks.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination of Kiran and
Zhou fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation.
4
Appeal2014-009494
Application 12/828,281
We additionally note Appellants are arguing the references
individually. The Examiner has relied on the combination of Zhou and
Kiran as teaching or suggesting the relationship of tasks to jobs- "first and
second tasks associated with respectively different first and second jobs
scheduled for processing" (Non-Final Act. 7-9). Appellants' arguments are
directed only to Zhou.
Accordingly, we find Appellants' arguments that we misapprehended
or overlooked arguments for claim 5 unpersuasive.
DECISION
Accordingly, we have granted Appellants' Request to the extent that
we have reconsidered the original Decision but have denied it with respect
to making any modifications to the Decision.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
5