Ex Parte Iyengar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 27, 2014

10804516 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/804,516 03/19/2004 Arun Kwangil Iyengar YOR920040025US1 7509
7590 01/28/2014
Ryan, Mason & Lewis, LLP
90 Forest Avenue
Locust Valley, NY 11560
EXAMINER
PHUNG, LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte ARUN K. LYENGAR, ERICH M. NAHUM,
and BIANCA SCHROEDER
_____________

Appeal 2011-007035
Application 10/804,516
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 25.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of dynamically scheduling
requests in a data processing system in accordance with differentiated
service levels. See pages 3 and 4 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-007035
Application 10/804,516
2

1. A method of processing a request to at least one server, comprising
the steps of:

a processor receiving the request; and

the processor determining when to submit the request to the at
least one server based on: (i) a quality-of-service (QoS) class assigned
to a client from which the request originated; (ii) a response target
associated with the QoS class; and (iii) an estimated response time
associated with the at least one server.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5 through 9, and 14 through 17
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mangipudi (US
2004/0162901 A1; published Aug. 19, 2004, filed Feb. 19, 2004) and
Subramanian (US 2005/0198200 A1; published Sept. 8, 2005, filed Mar. 5,
2004). Answer 4-91.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 4, 18 through 20, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mangipudi, Subramanian,
Bender (US 6,112,221; issued Aug. 29, 2000) and Chen (US 2003/0120705
A1; published Jun. 26, 2003, filed Dec. 21, 2001). Answer 9-13.
The Examiner has rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mangipudi, Subramanian, and Veres (US 6,807,156;
issued Oct. 19, 2004, filed Nov. 7, 2000). Answer 13-14.
The Examiner has rejected claims 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mangipudi, Subramanian, and Menditto (US
6,981,029; issued Dec. 27, 2005, filed Jul. 17, 2001). Answer 14-16.

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated October 21,
2010, Reply Brief dated February 22, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed on December 21, 2010.
Appeal 2011-007035
Application 10/804,516
3

The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mangipudi, Subramanian, Menditto, and Lu (US
6,772,211; issued Aug. 3, 2004, filed Apr. 30, 2002). Answer 16-18.
The Examiner has rejected claims 21 through 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mangipudi, Subramanian, Bender, Chen, and
Menditto. Answer 17-18.
The Examiner has rejected claim 24 under U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mangipudi, Subramanina, Bender, Chen, Menditto, and
Lu. Answer 18.

ISSUES
Claims 1 through 17
Appellants’ arguments on pages7 through 8 of the Appeal Brief
directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 17
present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Mangipudi and Subramanian teaches determining when to submit a request
to a server based on quality of service assigned to the client which originated
the request, a response target associated with the quality of service, and an
estimated response time associated with the at least one server?

Claims 18 through 25
Appellants argue on pages 11, 12, and 15 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 18 and 25 present us with the
issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Mangipudi,
Subramanian, and Bender teaches withholding submission of a request when
the request originated from a client assigned to a first of two quality of
Appeal 2011-007035
Application 10/804,516
4

service classes to allow requests associated with a second one to the two
classes to meet its response target?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We agree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1 through 25.
Claims 1 through 17
Each of independent claims 1, 14, and 17 recites a limitation directed
to determining when to submit a request to a server based on quality of
service assigned to the client which originated the request, a response target
associated with the quality of service, and an estimated response time
associated with the at least one server. The Examiner finds that Mangipudi
teaches a well-known technique of scheduling HTTP request by placing
them in queues. Answer 5, 6, 18-20. We concur with the Examiner that
scheduling of requests is known as there is ample evidence in the record to
support this assertion. Further, the Examiner finds that Mangipudi teaches
submitting a request to a server based on quality of service assigned to the
client which originated the request, a response target associated with the
quality of service, and an estimated response time associated with the at least
one server. Answer 5. Appellants argue this teaching of Mangipudi is
directed to determining which server to submit a request to and not when to
submit the request. Brief 7. We concur with Appellants, and thus, agree
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner has not shown scheduling a
request (determining when to submit a request) based upon the three factors.
Appeal 2011-007035
Application 10/804,516
5

Answer 7-8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, 17 or dependent claims 2 through 13, 15, and 16.

Claims 18 through 25
Independent claims 18 and 25 each recite a limitation directed to
withholding submission of a request when the request originated from a
client assigned to a first of two quality of service (QoS) classes to allow
requests associated with a second one to the two classes to meet its response
target. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, finds:
Mangipudi teaches scheduling based upon a target associated with a quality
of service; Bender teaches scheduling a request based upon a target of when
it is to be completed; and Chen teaches a request in a priority two queue is
processed after a request in a priority one queue. Answer 24 and 25. Based
upon these findings, the Examiner concludes that the combined teachings
discloses the limitations of withholding submission of a request to the server
and determining when to submit jobs as claimed. Answer 25. We disagree
as the Examiner has not cited evidence showing that the references teach
withholding submission of a request as claimed. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 18, 25 or dependent
claims 19 through 24.

Appeal 2011-007035
Application 10/804,516
6

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 25 is
reversed.

REVERSED
rwk