Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2016

13628421 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/628,421 09/27/2012
46363 7590 09/23/2016
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fang Hao
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.
ALU/812082-US-NP 9308
EXAMINER
SCOTT, RANDY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2016 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@trbklaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FANG HAO, MURALI KODIALAM,
TIRUNELL V. LAKSHMAN, and SARIT MUKHERJEE
Appeal2015-005462
Application 13/628,421
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-10, 12-15, 19, and 20. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The invention relates to "allocation of resources in a distributed cloud
system" (Spec. 1:6-7). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1 Claims 16-18 are objected to as containing allowable subject matter, and,
are, thus, not subject to the appeal (see Final Act. 3).
Appeal2015-005462
Application 13/628,421
1. An apparatus for processing a request for resources of a
distributed cloud system including a plurality of data centers,
compnsmg:
a processor and a memory communicatively connected to
the processor, the processor configured to:
receive a request for resources of the distributed
cloud system, wherein the request for resources comprises
a request for cloud resources and an indication of an
amount of cloud resources requested; and
determine a resource mapping for the resource
request based on the request for resources and information
associated with the distributed cloud system, the resource
mapping comprising a mapping of the requested cloud
resources to cloud resources of multiple data centers of the
plurality of data centers and an identification of network
resources configured to support communications for the
mapped cloud resources of the multiple data centers,
wherein the identified network resources comprise
network resources configured to support communications
between at least two data centers of the multiple data
centers.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kudo
Warncke
Baker
Banerjee
US 2009/0144393 Al
US 2010/0318454 Al
US 7,953,000 B2
US 2012/0239792 Al
2
June 4, 2009
Dec. 16, 2010
May31,2011
Sept. 20, 2012
Appeal2015-005462
Application 13/628,421
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-10, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Warncke, Banerjee, and Kudo.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Warncke, Banerjee, Kudo, and Baker.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend "Kudo fails to teach or suggest an identification of
network resources configured to support communications for mapped cloud
resources of multiple data centers where the identified network resources
include network resources configured to support communications between at
least two data centers" (App. Br. 13). We disagree with Appellants.
We note the Examiner relies on Banerjee for disclosing "an
identification of network resources configured to support communications
for the mapped cloud resources of the multiple data centers," and relies on
Kudo only for disclosing "wherein the identified network resources
comprise network resources configured to support communications between
at least two data centers of the multiple data centers" (Final Act. 4--5). Kudo
discloses migrating an application running on one data center to another data
center (see Kudo, Abstract). As part of this migration, Kudo discloses:
At step 1314, migration requester program 123 [of a first
data center] sends migration request document 13 to the request
address 1002 of the destination second data center that was read
in step 1312.
At step 1320, migration acceptor program 121 of the
second data center receives the migration request document 13
that was sent from migration requester program 123 of the first
3
Appeal2015-005462
Application 13/628,421
data center in step 1314, and invokes resource manager
program 122 to determine if the migration request can be
accepted.
(Kudo, i-fi-167---68). Here, we find the sending of a migration request
document from one data center to another meets the claim 1 limitation
"network resources configured to support communications between at least
two data centers." Appellants argue that the content of Kudo' s migration
request document relates only to specifications of network requirements for
the application to be migrated, i.e., whether the VPN capacity available
between a data center and a customer is sufficient, and does not relate to
requirements for communications between the data centers (see Reply Br. 2-
4 ). Appellants' arguments, however, miss the point that the sending of a
migration request document from one data center to another itself shows
Kudo discloses "network resources configured to support communications
between at least two data centers," as recited in claim 1, regardless of the
content of the migration request document. Specifically, Kudo discloses
"multiple data centers 1 Oa, 1 Ob, 1 Oc are connected to each other for
communication through a network 12" (Kudo, i131). The broad language of
claim 1 does not recite any specific requirements for the network resources
that support inter-data center communications.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2-10, 12-15, 19, and 20 not specifically argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10, 12-15, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
4
Appeal2015-005462
Application 13/628,421
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10, 12-
15, 19, and 2 0 are affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
5