Ex Parte Hatanaka

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 15, 2008

09781616 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 15, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte IWAO HATANAKA
____________________

Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Decided: January 15, 2008
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEAN R. HOMERE, and JAY P.
LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals a Final Rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
According to Appellant, Appellant invented a system, method, and
computer program product that releases server resources held by a client
when the resources are no longer being used by that client. (Spec. 6:15-17,
12:7-18, and Fig. 2B.) Determination of whether resources are no longer
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

2
required involves determining whether unavailable resources (a) have been
held for too long a period of time and (b) have been idle for too long a time.
(Id.). In the words of Appellant:
The present invention involves setting up a resource manager for each
session and logging the use of resources associated with that session.
Then, when the session is no longer active -- for whatever reason,
including normal disconnection or a lost connection, the resource
manager consults the listing of resources associated with that session
and releases the resources for use, allowing use with other sessions.

(Emphasis added) (Spec. 7:1-5.)
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A system for managing the use of resources in a system where a
remote client uses resources at a server for a limited duration, the
system comprising:

a stored listing of at least one resource being used at the server
and the remote client using that resource;

a system which identifies whether the remote client is no longer
using resources at the server, including determining a combination of
whether the resources have been held by the remote client for a period
longer than a first preset threshold and whether the resources have
been held by the remote client without use of the resources for a
period longer than a second preset threshold; and

in response to the system identifying that the remote client is no
longer using resources at the server, a mechanism which removes the
resources which had been used by the remote client when the remote
client was connected to the server, whereby the resources being used
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

3
by the remote client are capable of being used by other clients after
the remote client has disconnected from the server.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Sayan et al. US 6,477,569 B1 Nov. 5, 2002
(filed Nov. 20, 1998)

Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sayan.
We affirm.

ISSUE
The Examiner finds that Sayan discloses a determining step which
comprises determining a combination of a first threshold determination,
which comprises “whether the resources have been held by the remote client
for a period longer than a first preset threshold,” and a second threshold
determination, which comprises “whether the resources have been held by
the remote client without use of the resources for a period longer than a
second preset threshold” (Ans. 4-5 and 6-7.)
Appellant alleges that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-11
because Sayan does not disclose the determining step. (App. Br. 5-6 and
Reply Br. 2.) Appellant does not dispute that a pool agent constitutes held
resources when the pool agent processes a transaction. (App. Br. 6 and
Reply Br. 2.) Rather, Appellant alleges that “[t]he period for processing the
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

4
first or the only transaction is different than a period of holding a resource.”
(Reply Br. 2.) Appellant alleges Sayan’s CPU limit restricts the amount of
time a pool agent processes a single transaction but does not limit a total
amount of time a client application holds a pool agent because the pool agent
can service multiple transactions for a total period longer than the CPU limit.
(App. Br. 6 and Reply Br. 2.)
Thus the issue is whether Sayan discloses the determining step. The
issue turns on whether Sayan’s disclosure of limiting a time period that a
pool agent processes a single transaction meets the claimed first threshold
determination.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Sayan
1. Sayan discloses that “[w]hen a client application initiates a
communication, the Server receives the communication request and
finds an agent with available resources” and that “the Server
forwards the request to the selected Agent which in turn accepts the
connection.” (Col. 12, ll. 42-48 (emphasis added).)
2. Sayan discloses that a “[c]lient application sends a request which is
received by the Pool Agent. The Pool Agent processes the request,
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

5
responds to the request.” (Col. 12, ll. 49-51.) Sayan discloses that a
pool agent performs transactions requests serially. (Tables 2-5.)
3. Sayan discloses that “[t]he CPU limit defines the maximum number
of CPU cycles in seconds allowed to process a transaction” and
“[t]he CPU limit is a parameter of both the pool master and pool
agent.” (Col. 8, ll. 1-9 (emphasis added).) Moreover, Sayan
discloses that the CPU limit ensures that the “CPU will not be used
more than the above value while servicing a transaction.” (Col. 8,
ll. 7-8 (emphasis added).)
4. Sayan discloses that a Pool Agent is initialized in response to
communication initiated by a client application and becomes idle
after accepting a request from the client application. (Table 1.)
Sayan discloses “[i]f the Pool Agent remains idle for more than the
predetermined period of time the Pool Agent times out and the
process terminates.” (Col. 12, ll. 62-64.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Appellant has the burden on appeal to the Board to demonstrate error
in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection
[under § 103] by showing insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness
or by rebutting the prima facie case with evidence of secondary indicia of
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

6
nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
1998)).
During examination of a patent application, a claim is given its
broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969). “[T]he words of a claim ‘are
generally given their ordinary and customary meaning.’” Phillips v. AWH
Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (internal citations
omitted). “[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the
meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in
question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the
patent application.” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d at 1313 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
First Threshold Determination
We begin our analysis by construing “resources have been held” of
the first threshold determination.
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

7
The customary and ordinary meaning of “held” is “[t]o maintain a
grasp or grip on something.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language (4th ed. 2000), found at www.bartelby.com. Appellant’s
Specification states:
at block 226 the amount of time a resource has been used will be
compared with an allowable time for such use (if any has been set) by
comparing the present time with the beginning time which was stored
in column 308 of Fig. 3A to determine the amount of time the
resource has been in use. If the time that the resource has been used
does not exceed the limit, then the amount of inactive time is
compared at block 228.

(Emphasis added) (Spec. 12:7-12.)
Accordingly, we broadly and reasonably construe “resources have
been held” as requiring that resources are in use.
We disagree with the Appellant’s allegation that “[t]he period for
processing the first or the only transaction is different than a period of
holding a resource” (Reply Br. 2). The claimed first threshold determination
does not require a determination that resources are held cumulatively for
longer than the preset threshold but instead requires a determination of
whether the resources are merely in use for longer than the first preset
threshold.
Appellant alleges that a pool agent will not be assigned to a
transaction if the transaction is known to take more than the CPU limit and
therefore such pool agent is never held and the time for holding such pool
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

8
agent will never be compared against the CPU limit. (Reply Br. 2.) We find
that Sayan’s CPU limit safe guards against a pool agent overtaking the CPU
while the pool agent processes the transaction because Sayan discloses that
the CPU limit ensures that the “CPU will not be used more than the above
value while servicing a transaction” (emphasis added) (FF 3). Accordingly,
Sayan’s CPU limit does not prevent a pool agent from being assigned to
process a transaction but prevents a pool agent from processing a transaction
for a period longer than the CPU limit (FF 3).
Appellant does not dispute that a pool agent meets the claimed held
resources when the pool agent processes a transaction. (App. Br. 6 and
Reply Br. 2.) Sayan discloses that the pool agent is available for use by a
client until the pool agent processes a transaction request from a client. (FF
1 and 2.) We find that the pool agent meets the claimed held resources when
the pool agent processes a transaction request from a client.
Sayan discloses that a CPU limit restricts the amount of time a pool
agent processes a transaction. (FF 3.) When a pool agent resource processes
a single transaction for a period of time set by the CPU limit, the CPU limit
restricts the amount of time that the pool agent processes the transaction and
therefore restricts the time that the pool agent is held. Accordingly, we find
that Sayan’s CPU limit discloses the claimed first threshold determination.
Therefore, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Sayan discloses the claimed first threshold determination.

Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

9
Second Threshold Determination
The claimed second threshold determination requires determining
whether resources have been held without use for a period longer than a
second preset threshold.
We found supra that the pool agent is the claimed held resources after
the pool agent accepts a transaction request from the client because the pool
agent is in use by the client. Sayan discloses that a pool agent becomes idle
after accepting a request from the client application (FF 4) and therefore the
pool agent becomes idle while being held. In addition, Sayan discloses that
if the held pool agent remains idle for more than a predetermined period of
time, the pool agent times out and the process terminates. (FF 4.)
Accordingly, we find that Sayan’s terminating a pool agent that is assigned
to a client transaction because the pool agent is idle for more than a
predetermined period of time meets the claimed second threshold
determination.
Therefore, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding
that Sayan discloses the claimed second threshold determination.
Accordingly, we find that the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Sayan.

Other Claims
Appellant also alleges Sayan does not disclose the determining step of
independent claims 5, 9, and 10 but does not present any other arguments
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

10

with regard to those claims.1 (App. Br. 5-6.) Claims 5, 9, and 10 are subject
to the same rejection as that which pertains to claim 1. Therefore, as to the
rejection of claims 5, 9, and 10, Appellant has not shown Examiner error for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.
As to dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 11, Appellant merely references
the arguments made with respect to claim 1. (App. Br. 6.) Therefore, as to
the rejection of these claims, the Appellant has not shown Examiner error for
the same reasons discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that:
(1) Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims
1-11 anticipated by Sayan under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e); and
(2) Claims 1-11 are not patentable.

1 We note that claim 9 does not recite the determining step using the same
language of claim 1 (as argued by Appellant). However, apart from the
allegations made with regard to the determining step, Appellant has not
alleged any Examiner error in finding that claim 9 is anticipated by Sayan.
(App. Br. 5-6 and Reply Br. 1-2.) We therefore group claim 9 with claim 1.
Appeal 2007-2515
Application 09/781,616

11
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

rwk

MICHAEL HOFFMAN
HOFFMAN WARNICK & D'ALESSANDRO LLP
2 E COMM SQUARE
ALBANY NY 12207