Ex Parte Jain et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

13300555 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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.
13/300,555 11/19/2011 Anket Jain IN920110166US1 1068
03/19/201884986 7590
GRAS SO PLLC
1818 LIBRARY STREET, SUITE 500
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
WU, BENJAMIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2195
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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):
admin@grassoip.com
vromme @ grassoip. com
fgrasso@grassoip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANKET JAIN, RAMKUMAR RAMALINGAM, LOHITH RAVI,
and S. VENKATAKRISHNAM
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,5551
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and KEVIN C. TROCK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—20, all of which
are pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 4.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 28, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed November 28, 2016 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed September 29, 2016 (“Ans.”); Final Office
Action mailed December 24, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification
filed November 19, 2011 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a method for work distribution and
management in a high availability cluster environment of resource adapters,
shown in Figure 2. Spec. 1 5; Abstract.
Figure 2 is reproduced below:
204
i ALLOW PARALLEL ACCESS
! TO A DfrERfM PM OF
INPUT RLE
-210
sicraziNT/ updating;
tasks mmw
As shown in Figure 2, the method includes: (1) receiving an input
file/data at a resource adapter cluster at step 202; (2) creating one or more
tasks associated with parts, or partial content, of input file via a resource
adapter within the cluster at step 204; (3) locking partial content of the input
file for distribution in the high availability cluster environment across
different resource adapter instances at step 208; and (4) allowing parallel
access to a different part (i.e., nonlocked partial content) of the input file, via
one or more resource adapters or another resource adapter instance within
the cluster at step 210. Spec. ]Hf 35—38.
2
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
Claims 1, 14, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics'.
1. A method for work distribution and management in a high
availability cluster environment of resource adapters, the method
comprising:
after receiving an input file at a high availability cluster
environment of resource adapters, creating one or more tasks
using a first resource adapter or an instance of the first resource
adapter,
wherein the one or more created tasks are for use by
other resource adapters or other instances of these other
resource adapters,
wherein the first resource adapter and the other
resource adapters or other instances of the other resource
adapters are part of the high availability cluster
environment of resource adapters;
locking partial content of the input file, wherein locked
partial content of the input file is adapted for distribution in the
high availability cluster environment between the other resource
adapters or the other resource adapter instances',
identifying a plurality of nonlocked partial content of the
input file as associated with the one or more created tasks, the
created tasks stored and for use by one or more other resource
adapters or other adapter instances', and
in a parallel manner and using a created task, accessing
nonlocked partial content of the input file by one or more other
resource adapter or other resource adapter instance within the
cluster environment of resource adapters.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x.).
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—12, 14—15, 17, and 19—20 stand rejected
under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gulko et al. (US
3
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
7,174,381 B2; (issued Feb. 6, 2007)) (hereinafter “Gulko”) and Maddhirala
et al. (US 2010/0186020 Al; (published Jul. 22, 2010)) (hereinafter
“Maddhirala”). Final Act. 2—12.
(2) Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gulko, Maddhirala, and Micheal et al. (US 2005/0066064
Al; (published Mar. 24, 2005)) (hereinafter “Micheal”). Final Act. 12—13.
(3) Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gulko, Maddhirala, and Eshwar et al. (US 2009/0106260
Al; (published Apr. 23, 2009)) (hereinafter “Eshwar”). Final Act. 13—14.
(4) Claims 13 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Gulko, Maddhirala, and State et al. (US
2012/0320051 Al; (published Dec. 20, 2012)) (hereinafter “State”). Final
Act. 14—16.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Gulko and Maddhirala teaches or suggests
several limitations of independent claims 1, 14, and 17, including:
(1) “locking partial content of the input file, wherein locked
partial content of the input file is adapted for distribution in the
high availability cluster environment between the other resource
adapters or the other resource adapter instances”; and
(2) “identifying a plurality of nonlocked partial content of the
input file as associated with the one or more created tasks, the
created tasks stored and for use by one or more other resource
adapters or other adapter instances.”
See App. Br. 8—12; Reply Br. 4—8.
4
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 14, and 17
In support of the rejection of independent claim 1, and similarly,
claims 14 and 17, the Examiner finds Gulko teaches most aspects of
Appellants’ claimed “method for work distribution and management in a
high availability cluster environment of resource adapters,” except for the
following features:
“locking partial content of the input file, wherein locked partial
content of the input file is adapted for distribution in the high
availability cluster environment between the other resource
adapters or the other resource adapter instances;
identifying a plurality of nonlocked partial content of the input
file as associated with the one or more created tasks, the created
tasks stored and for use by one or more other resource adapters
or other adapter instances; and
in a parallel manner and using a created task, accessing
nonlocked partial content of the input file by one or more other
resource adapter or other resource adapter instance within the
cluster environment of resource adapters.”
Final Act. 2-4 (citing Gulko 6:43-50, 61-67, 7:1-3, 15-31, 8:50-9:10,
10:62—64, Abstract).
The Examiner then relies on Maddhirala for teaching those features to
support the conclusion of obviousness, i.e., “it would have been obvious . . .
to have locking partial content of an input file for distribution between
different process/threads . . .” Id. at 4 (citing Maddhirala Tflf 30, 43, Fig. 7B).
Appellants dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Maddhirala. In particular, Appellants contend neither Gulko nor Maddhirala
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations:
5
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
(1) “locking partial content of the input file, wherein locked
partial content of the input file is adapted for distribution in the
high availability cluster environment between the other resource
adapters or the other resource adapter instances”; and
(2) “identifying a plurality of nonlocked partial content of the
input file as associated with the one or more created tasks, the
created tasks stored and for use by one or more other resource
adapters or other adapter instances”
as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 9 and 17. See App. Br.
8—12; Reply Br. 4—8.
Appellants acknowledge Maddhirala teaches “multithreaded
processing on multiple servers [120, shown in Figure 1] where jobs may be
received in a jobs table [140] for execution and each of the servers [120]
may access the jobs table [140] and pick up the job if the job type is
associated with the thread.” App. Br. 8 (citing Maddhirala Abstract).
6
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
Maddhirala’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
Jobs
125,
Server Node 1
* Application A :
T't 4*—j* Application 5 |
T2 AfiplicaliftO. Cj
’—^lAppfcci^tknt M ;
Z
Job Table
Sequence number-'!''*'''
Job type—142
Status 43
141
Cluster
Server Node 2
TO Application A :
T't <■ ■ -fr; App li oa tior B •
T2 AftfJ.ijcay.0.0. .Q j
►:Appfccatk>n tv •
Z
Server Node 3
T 0-4(--Applicortfort
T1 4$—►[Aj^EicAiEOrt
AfTfJtipaifOtT
■Afipliorriiiioji N :
Z
140
Server Node N
T0 -4-^: Appli prrition A :
Tl: 4^—►jAppijeption 3 ;
'12 ARP.ijKaiS.rjri. C .1
AppItO'jfck'jO f-j ;
V..
113
120
110 ill 112
FIG, 1
Maddhirala’s Figure 1 shows a multithreaded processing system including
cluster 120 of servers 110—113 to process jobs in job table 140 in parallel.
Paragraph 30 of Maddhirala describes each job in the job table 140,
shown in Figure 1, including its sequence number 141, job type 142, and
status 143. Maddhirala 130. Paragraph 43 of Maddhirala describes Figure
7B that shows an example of processing a parallel task for a specific job.
Maddhirala 143. According to Maddhirala,
‘Teach] job may be an application that performs a specific
function that is scheduled to be executed. For example, a job
may be as simple as scheduling a document to be executed using
a print driver software component. Alternatively, another
example job may be to schedule execution of a complex software
application that accesses specified data and processes the data
according numerous preconfigured operations or tasks.”
7
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
Maddhirala 129, (emphasis added).
Appellants argue that neither paragraph 30, nor paragraph 43, nor
Figure 7B of Maddhirala teaches or suggests (1) “an input file for
distribution between different resource adapter [resources] where partial
content of this input file is locked,” i.e., “locking partial content of an input
file” and (2) “identifying . . . nonlocked partial content of the input file as
associated with the one or more created tasks, [where] the created tasks [are]
stored and for use by one or more other resource adapters” as recited in
claims 1, 14, and 17. App. Br. 8—12; Reply Br. 4—8.
In response, the Examiner takes the position that:
Maddhirala teaches having a separate data table or input file (par.
0042, lines 14—16; figure 7a, element 725) with data records that
are associated with a job being processed in parallel with
plurality of threads running on plurality of servers (figure 7B
element 770, par. 0043, lines 4—6). The job is distributed to
plurality of servers for processing the different data records by
the threads (resource adapter) of the servers in parallel (figure
7B, server 740, 750, 760 are distinct servers). The servers
running the job with different data records of the table (each
individual record D 1 to Dn are partial content of the table or file
725) in parallel by locking individual data record (locking partial
content D1 or D2 .... Dn) and the available unlocked data record
(unlocked portion, lock table 780 in figure 7B) is open for access
to all the servers available to access data record to perform task
(par. 0043; figure 7B) in parallel to process the data.
Ans. 5—6 (emphasis added). In other words, the Examiner takes the position
that each data record, Dl—Dn, shown in Figure 7B, corresponds to
Appellants’ claimed “partial content of an input file” recited in claims 1, 14,
and 17.
8
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
We do not agree with the Examiner’s position. Obviousness is a
question of law based on underlying factual findings, In re Baxter, 678 F.3d
1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2012), including what a reference teaches, In re
Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and the existence of a reason
to combine references, In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1365—66 (Fed. Cir.
2012). At the outset, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s factual
findings regarding Maddhirala are not supported by evidence. As
recognized by Appellants, neither paragraph 30, nor paragraph 43, nor
Figure 7B of Maddhirala teaches or suggests an input file with nonlocked
partial content for distribution between different resource adapters. App. Br.
9—10 (citing Maddhirala 30, 43, Fig. 7B).
9
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
Maddhirala’s Figure 7B is reproduced below.
7-40
..c.....
Server
71...
:
1
'741
700
...c....
Server
T 7
Job
1
770
'751
702
A J k Jfc
1 742
Task
D1
743
D2
D3
0*4
05
744
06
:
DM
7 03
760
...<.....
T 5
Job
4
702
703
'761
Lock Table
J82
Task ID Record ID Record Status
Data processing Dl Locked
Data processing D2 Hot locked
Data, processing 03 Hoi Started
780
Maddhirala’s Figure 7B shows processing a parallel task for a specific job
As shown in Maddhirala’s Figure 7B, lock table 780 is used to
maintain the status of each data record (Dl-Dn), including whether each data
record is “locked” or “not locked” for processing. Maddhirala 143.
However, these data records Dl—Dn are discrete, individual data records
and, as such, are not part of Appellants’ claimed “input file” in which partial
content is locked and remaining partial contents are nonlocked so as to allow
10
Appeal 2017-002255
Application 13/300,555
“in a parallel manner” “accessing nonlocked partial contends] of the input
file by one or more other resource adapters . . . within the cluster
environment” as recited in claim 1 and, similarly recited in claims 14 and 17.
Nor do these data records “themselves have locked partial content” as
recognized by Appellants. App. Br. 10 (citing Maddhirala Fig. 7B).
For these reasons, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
Maddhirala fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations. Accordingly,
we decline to sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, and similarly, independent claims 14 and 17, which include
commensurate limitations, and their respective dependent claims 2—3, 5—13,
15, 16, and 18—20, which Appellants do not argue separately.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3 and 5—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—3
and 5—20.
REVERSED
11