Ex Parte Ho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 2, 2016

13073028 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/073,028 03/28/2011 Patty Peichen Ho
56436 7590 03/04/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82576698 7225
EXAMINER
JAROENCHONW ANIT, BUNJOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/04/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATTY PEICHEN HO, BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, and
ANNA STEP ANENKO
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LARRY J. HUME, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to aggregating message
information associated with jobs distributed to machines in a distributed
system (Spec. i-f 10).
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAiivI
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
determining a schedule for a distributed job for a plurality
of devices;
transmitting the schedule to the devices;
receiving a plurality of messages associated with a job
identifier corresponding to the distributed job processed at the
devices, wherein the messages are respectively associated with
the devices and the job identifier includes a trigger time and a job
name; and
aggregating information included in the messages based
on the job name and the trigger time.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Valentin
Das
McKay
US 2009/0222818 Al
US 2008/0034055 Al
US 2006/0212866 Al
Sep.3,2009
Feb. 7,2008
Sep.21,2006
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Valentin and Das. 1
Claims 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Valentin, Das, and McKay.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Valentin and Das, would have taught or suggested:
"receiving a plurality of messages associated with a job identifier" wherein
1 The rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, 1st paragraph has been
withdrawn (Ans. 2).
2
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
"the message are respectively associated with the devices" and "the job
identifier includes a trigger time and a job name;" and "aggregating
information included in the messages based on the job name and the trigger
time" (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Valentin
1. Valentin discloses a business reporting job process that includes
transmitting a central system job context associated with the initiated job
from the central system to the satellite system, and upon completion of the
job by the satellite system, reporting the completion of the job to the central
system, and transmitting at least one result of the job to the central system
(i-f4). A central data storage stores data associated with a job, wherein access
to the data is facilitated by the central job context associated with the job,
and a schedule manager in the central system manages the distributed job
process including a plurality of jobs by transmitting the central job context
from the central system to the satellite system to initiate one of the plurality
of jobs to be performed by the satellite system (i-f5).
2. A central job context includes an identifier or handle that allows
data and information about a particular job to be accessed and/or stored,
wherein the central job context allows the satellite system to access data that
pertains to the assigned job and is stored in the central data storage on the
central computing system (i-f23).
3. The schedule manager or the central system transmits the
central job context associated with the initiatedjob to a satellite system (i-f
3
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
46), and determines the workflow for the plurality of jobs indicating the
order that the jobs will be performed (i-f47), wherein initiating one of the
plurality of jobs on a satellite system includes assigning each of the plurality
of jobs to either one of a plurality of satellite systems or the central system
(i-f48).
Das
4. Das discloses a report manager service comprising a user
interface that allows the user to choose parameters values and run a report
job; and a workflow controller service for receiving messages from the client
terminal, and based on the received messages, sending messages to service
components for executing the report job in a sequence of determined discrete
steps (Abst.).
5. A client application allows a user to create and save report jobs,
wherein a report job is a collection of reports and their respective parameter
values that might be used on a repeated basis, and a job allows a user of the
client application to come back in another session and run a previously setup
job without having to remember the prior parameter values. A job can be
saved under a user selected name, and can be scheduled to run at a later time
and/or on a repeated periodic schedule (i-f5).
6. Data for a particular report job may be stored with an associated
unique job run code such that other report services can locate and use the
appropriate data for a particular report job by using the data associated with
the job run code for the specific job in a future workflow step, therefore, the
unique run code/identifier links together the various workflow steps together
for a report run (i-f l 7).
4
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
IV. ANALYSIS
As for claim 1, Appellants contend "none of the cited portions of
Das ... can properly disclose a job identifier corresponding to the
distributed job processed at the devices" (App. Br. 8, emphasis omitted).
Although Appellants admit Das discloses a screen to set up a job schedule,
Appellants contend Das "say[s] nothing whatsoever about such job schedule
being included in a job identifier" and thus "Das is entirely silent with regard
to a job identifier which includes a trigger time and a job name" (App. Br. 9,
emphasis omitted).
Appellants also contend "the 'messages' described in Das refer to user
instructions for executing a report" (id.) but "Das says nothing whatsoever
about the 'Report Job' aggregating information included in the user
instructions for executing a report" (App. Br. 9-10, emphasis omitted).
According to Appellants, "a person of ordinary skill in the art will appreciate
that the 'Report Job' described in Das is executed as specified by the user
instructions, but will not aggregate the information included in the user
instructions themselves" (App. Br. 10, emphasis omitted). Further,
Appellants contend "Das says nothing whatsoever about aggregating
information included in the messages based on the job name and the trigger
time" (id.).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejection of the claims.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). We note claim 1
5
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
merely recites receiving messages "associated with" a "job identifier"
wherein the job identifier includes a "trigger time" and a "job name"; and
aggregating "information" included in the messages based on the job name
and trigger time. However, claim 1 does not define as to what "associated
with" a "job identifier" is to mean, represent or include. In fact, claim 1
does not even require receiving or storing any particular "job identifier" but
rather merely requires receiving "messages" wherein the received messages
have some sort of association/relationship with "a" (i.e., any) job identifier
which includes a trigger time and a job name. We agree with the Examiner
"[t ]he term 'associated' in this claim interpretation context does not
necessarily mean including therein" (Ans. 3). Thus, giving the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation, we conclude claim 1 merely requires
receiving data (messages) that is associated to any data Gob identifier) that
include trigger time and a job name corresponding to a distributed job; and
then aggregating information/data included in the received data based on the
trigger time and job name.2
2 To the extent Appellants contend Das' user instructions (i.e. received
information/data) differ from the claimed messages (i.e. received
information/ data) of Appellants' invention because the user instructions are
not "associated with" a "job identifier" that includes a "trigger time" and a
"job name" (App. Br. 9-10), we note such a contention urging patentability
is predicated on the type or content of data that is to be associated with a
message (data) being received. Thus, a question arises as to whether such
type or content of the data should be given patentable weight. See In re
Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d
1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff'd, No. 2006-1003 (Fed. Cir. June 12,
2006) (Rule 36); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005)
(informative), aff'd, 191 Fed. App 'x 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the data is
6
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
In view of our broad but reasonable interpretation, we find no error
with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Valentin and Das
discloses or at least suggests the contested limitations.
Valentin discloses centrally storing data associated with a job using a
central job context, and managing distributed job process for a plurality of
jobs by transmitting the central job context from the central system to the
satellite system to initiate a job to be performed by the satellite system (FF
1 ), wherein the central job context includes an identifier to allow the satellite
system to access the centrally stored data that pertains to the assigned job
(FF 2). The central system determines the workflow for the plurality of jobs
indicating the order that the jobs will be performed, wherein initiating a job
on a satellite system includes assigning each of the plurality of jobs to either
one of a plurality of satellite systems or the central system (FF 3). The
completion of the job is reported to the central system along with the results
of the job (FF 1 ). That is, Valentin discloses or at least suggests
sending/receiving data associated with the assigned job to the satellite
system which includes an identifier Gob name) and the scheduled process
time (trigger time) for the job, wherein job completion is reported to the
central system which centrally stores the aggregated job results along with
received, but the informational content is not positively recited as actually
being used to: ( 1) change or affect any machine or computer function, or (2)
alter how the data will be received, or how the data therein will be
aggregated. In particular, the "messages" (data) are received and then
information included therein are then merely aggregated, but nothing in the
content of the data changes or affects any machine or computer function, or
affect how the data will be received and then aggregated. See also Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 2111.05, 9th ed., Rev. 7, Nov. 2015.
7
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
the central job context/identifier corresponding to the distributedjob
(FF 1-3).
Furthermore, Das discloses sending messages to service components
for executing the report job in a sequence of determined discrete steps
(FF 4), wherein a user can create and save report jobs under a user selected
name and scheduled run time, so that the user can come back in another
session and run a previously setup job (FF 5). In Das, data for a report job is
stored with an associated job run code so that the data for the specific job
can be used in a future workflow step, therefore, the unique run
code/identifier links the various workflow steps together for a report run
(FF 6). Thus, in Das, service components receive a plurality of messages
associated with the report jobs and the sequence of steps that the report jobs
are to be executed (triggered), wherein data for the report jobs are stored
under a unique identifier along with the user selected name and scheduled
(trigger) time, whereby the identifier can link the various workflow steps
together for a report run (FF 4---6).
As the Examiner finds, for which we find no error, Das discloses a
"run code/identifier (analogous to job identifier)" wherein "data for
particular job is stored with an associated unique job run code Gob
identifier)" and "other report jobs can be located and use relevant data of a
particular job by using the associated job run code" (Ans. 4). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner's finding, by teaching "a report generation system
supporting gathering jobs based on a[ sic] specific entity (user selected name
for job) and an executed date (analogous to trigger time) ... Das teaches
wherein the user may select start time (trigger time) for running the report
along with associated job name" (id.).
8
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
We note Appellants' contentions tum on "Das says nothing
whatsoever about" various contested limitations (App. Br. 8-10). However,
the Examiner rejects the claims as obvious over the combined teachings of
Valentin and Das under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and what the combination
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, even assuming, arguendo,
Appellants were correct that "Das says nothing whatsoever about" a "job
schedule being included in a job identifier" or "the 'Report Job' aggregating
information included in the user instructions" or "aggregating information
included in the messages based on the job name and the trigger time" (App.
Br. 8-10), we agree with the Examiner that Valentin in combination with
Das would at least have suggested the contested limitations.
As discussed above, Valentin discloses and suggests receiving at the
satellite system data associated with the assigned job to the satellite system
which includes an identifier Gob name) and the scheduled process time
(trigger time) for the job, wherein the central system receives a job
completion report and centrally stores/aggregates the job results along with a
job identifier corresponding to the distributed job (FF 1-3). Further, Das
discloses service components that receive a plurality of messages associated
with the report jobs and the sequence of steps that the report jobs are to be
executed (triggered), wherein the report jobs are stored under a unique
identifier along with the user selected name and scheduled (trigger) time,
and the identifier links the various workflow steps together for a report run
(FF 4---6). We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Valentin and
Das for disclosing and suggesting "receiving a plurality of messages
associated with a job identifier" wherein "the message are respectively
9
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
associated with the devices" and "the job identifier includes a trigger time
and a job name;" and "aggregating information included in the messages
based on the job name and the trigger time" (claim 1 ).
Although Appellants contend "the rationale provided in the Office
Action is merely conclusory statement of asserted benefit" without some
"rational underpinning" (App Br. 10, emphasis omitted), the Supreme Court
has determined the conclusion of obviousness can be based on the
interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace, and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled artisan is "a
person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 420-21.
Appellants have presented no evidence that combining the two
teachings in the same field of endeavor of scheduling a job workflow would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We find no error with the
Examiner's rationale to combine Valentin and Das "to allow for quantifiable
measures of distributed jobs usable for billing purpose or load balancing
across distributed system, in addition to providing flexibility and or
randomization of job scheduling improving resource management" (Fin.
Rej. 7).
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 and independent claims 10 and 13 falling therewith
(App. Br. 8) and dependent claims 2-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 depending
respectively therefrom (App. Br. 11) over Valentin and Das.
10
Appeal2014-004284
Application 13/073,028
As for claim 16-20, Appellants merely contend "ivicKay does not
cure that which Valentin and Das lack." (Id.). However, as discussed
above, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Valentin and Das
for the teachings and suggestions of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we
also affirm the rejection of claims 16-20 over Valentin and Das, in further
view of McKay.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
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
11