Ex Parte Johnson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13470856 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/470,856
140440 7590
IBM CORP, (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
05/14/2012
10/03/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Johnson
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.
GB920100006US1 3857
EXAMINER
RIAD,AMINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL JOHNSON and COLIN R. PENFOLD
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EV ANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-15. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 19, 2014
("App. Br."); Appellants' Reply Brief filed December 16, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed November 20, 2014 ("Ans."); the Final
Office Action mailed May 9, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original Specification
filed May 14, 2012 ("Spec.").
2 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below (with disputed limitations in italics):
1. A method for handling a unit of work in a transaction
processing system, the system comprising one or more production
regions operating minimal or no diagnostic functions and one or more
diagnostic regions operating maximal or full diagnostic functions, the
method comprising:
Islam et al.
receiving a unit of work;
routing the work to a production region;
receiving a notification that the work has failed; and
routing, by a processor, the work to a diagnostic region.
Reference
US 2006/0153063 Al
Examiner's Rejection
July 13, 2006
Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Islam. Ans. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred. See App. Br. 2-17; Reply Br. 2-11. We are
not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific
arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
2
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
Independent Claims 1, 6, and 11
Appellants first argue Islam does not describe "one or more
production regions operating minimal or no diagnostic functions" and
"routing the work to a production region," as recited in independent claims
1, 6, and 11. App. Br. 3-5; Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellants note
Islam describes a mobile device attempting to register with a Mobile Internet
Protocol (MIP) network, where, if registration is successful, the method
ends, but, if registration is unsuccessful, the error causing unsuccessful
registration is categorized. App. Br. 4 (citing Islam i-f 38); Reply Br. 2.
Appellants contend Islam does not describe routing work to a production
region which operates with minimal or no diagnostic functions, as recited in
the claims. App. Br. 5 (citing Islam i-fi-138--40, Fig. 2). Appellants note
routing is described in Appellants' Specification as sending work to
application programs located in the production regions and the diagnostic
region. See Reply Br. 2 (quoting Spec. 6). Appellants further assert the
request for registering the MIP network in Islam is not disclosed as being
routed to a production region. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Islam i-f 38).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's characterization of the minimal or no
diagnostics with which the production region operates as error
categorization. Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants argue Islam does not disclose
diagnostic functions, such as tracing described in Appellants' Specification.
Reply Br. 4--5 (quoting Spec. 2).
The Examiner finds Islam teaches the execution of a request for
registration as work routed to a production region. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Appellants' Specification describes routing work to a
production region as the work being executed. See Ans. 4 (quoting Spec. 8
3
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
("[T]he routing program 20 sends the work 22 to a production region 10 for
the work 22 to be executed.")). Appellants' Specification further states
"Figure 1 shows an example of a transaction processing system from a
logical perspective." Spec. 6. Thus, routing is not limited to sending or
transmitting work to a different location where the production region is
located. We agree with the Examiner routing includes which operation will
be executed on the work. Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Islam describes
executing a request for registration with the MIP network as work routed to
a production region. Ans. 4--5 (citing Islam Fig. 2). We agree with the
Examiner that Islam discloses processing the request for registration to
either a successful or an unsuccessful result in a production region. Ans. 4--
5; Islam i-f 38. We further agree with the Examiner that Islam describes a
production region operating with no diagnostics when a successful
completion of the registration results. Ans. 5 (citing Islam Fig. 2).
Additionally, the Examiner states "Islam has the categorization starting from
1 to N. IfN=2 the categorization is 1 and 2 and the minimum is 1." Ans. 5.
We agree with the Examiner that this condition in Islam corresponds to an
unsuccessful outcome of the attempt at registration indicating an existence
of an error causing a remedy process to begin in which the error is
categorized. Ans. 5 (citing Islam Fig. 2). In this case, Islam describes a
production region operating with minimal diagnostic function to determine
that an error exists, but not to characterize the error. Id.
Second, Appellants argue Islam does not describe "one or more
diagnostic regions operating maximal or full diagnostic functions" and
"routing, by a processor, the work to a diagnostic region," as recited in
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 6 and 11.
4
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
App. Br. 5-8. Appellants note Islam discloses that, if registration is
unsuccessful, the error is categorized and actions are performed in
accordance with the error category. App. Br. 5-7 (citing Islam i-f 38).
Appellants contend Islam does not describe the routing of the request for
registration to a diagnostic region operating with maximal or full
diagnostics. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 7-8. The Examiner finds Appellants'
Specification describes the diagnostic region as where a diagnostic is
executed. See Ans. 5---6 (quoting Spec. 8 ("The retrying of the unit of work
22 in the diagnostic region 12 will result in either the work 22 succeeding or
the work 22 failing for a second time.")). Appellants' Specification further
states that, "[i]f the work 22 has failed for a second time, then diagnostic
information is now available." Spec. 8. The Examiner finds Islam describes
providing diagnostic information for an unsuccessful request for registration
by categorizing the error. Ans. 6 (citing Islam Fig. 2). We agree with the
Examiner that the unsuccessful request for registration in Islam is described
as being processed at this point in a diagnostic region with maximal
diagnostic functions represented by the number of error categories. Ans. 5
("ifN=lOO then the diagnostic has 100 categories, and therefore is at a
[maximum] of 100."). For example, Islam discloses that "a plurality of error
categories is possible. FIG. 2 illustrates N categories represented by steps
204, 205, and 206. In each of steps 204, 205, and 206, actions are performed
that are specific to the error category." Islam i-f 39.
As such, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 6, and 11, and we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 6, and 11.
5
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
Claims 2, 7, and 12
Appellants contend Islam does not disclose "after receiving the
notification that the work has failed, checking that the diagnostic region is
available, prior to routing the work to the diagnostic region," as recited in
claims 2, 7, and 12. App. Br. 9-12. We are not persuaded.
The Examiner finds Islam describes freeing up resources after
unsuccessful registration to make another attempt at registration. Final Act.
3 (citing Islam i-f 23). For example, with respect to executing a category
specific step for out-of-sync errors, Islam discloses "freeing up resources
used in the attempt to register the wireless device with the network, and then
re-attempting to register the wireless device." Islam i-f 23. Appellants argue
"[t]here is no language in the cited passage that discloses checking that the
diagnostic region is available." App. Br. 10. However, determining whether
a reference discloses particular subject matter is not an ipsissimis verbis test,
i.e., identity of terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832
(Fed. Cir. 1990). We agree with the Examiner that freeing up resources in
the diagnostic region, as disclosed in Islam, discloses checking availability
of the diagnostic region as part of making the diagnostic region available.
See Final Act. 3.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 2, 7, and 12.
Claims 3, 8, and 13
Appellants dispute the Examiner's finding that Islam describes "after
receiving the notification that the work has failed, checking that the work is
6
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
to be retried, prior to routing the work to the diagnostic region," as recited in
claims 3, 8, and 13. App. Br. 12-14. We disagree.
As explained above with respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 11,
we agree with the Examiner's findings that Islam discloses routing the work
to a diagnostic region. This routing occurs after an unsuccessful registration
attempt, at which point, a determination is made to retry the work in the
diagnostic region in order to categorize the error. Therefore, Islam discloses
"checking that the work is to be retried."
Furthermore, referring to Figure 3, Islam discloses an "overall retry
method is illustrated in the form of a plurality of flow charts providing
example error category specific actions in accordance with an embodiment
of the application." Islam i-f 41. Islam explains that "[ fJurther details of
these example error category specific actions are provided later with the aid
of FIG. 4 and FIG. 5." Islam i-f 41; see Ans. 6-7 (citing Islam Figs. 4 and 5).
Referring to Figure 4, Islam states:
If the RRPM is not received, then the mobile device 105 will
determine whether or not it should re-send the RRQM by determining
whether or not a maximum RRQM timeout has been reached. If the
maximum RRQM timeout has not been reached, then the mobile
device 105 will re-send the RRQM after a time delay.
Islam i-f 4 7. Thus, Islam provides an example of determining of whether the
request for registration should be retried (i.e., re-sent) based on the
maximum RRQM timeout being reached. See id.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3,
8, and 13.
7
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
Claims 4, 9, and 14
Appellants assert Islam does not disclose "after routing the work to
the diagnostic region, receiving a further notification that the work has failed
again and capturing diagnostic data," as recited in claims 4, 9, and 14. App.
Br. 14--15 (citing Islam Figs. 4, 5); Reply Br. 10. Appellants contend Islam
describes the mobile device automatically triggering initial registration and
re-registering its home IP address. App. Br. 14 (citing Islam i-f 53, Fig. 5).
The Examiner finds Figures 4 and 5 in Islam are more detailed versions of
Figure 2, all of which rely on a loop to attempt a registration in one iteration,
succeed in registration or fail in registration causing notification of failure,
routing to diagnostic region, then re-attempting registration. Ans. 7 (citing
Islam Figs. 2, 4, 5). We agree with the Examiner because Figures 2, 4, and 5
result in looping back to steps A or B in which diagnostics are performed
after unsuccessful registration attempts. Id.; Islam Fig. 2, 203 categorize
error, Fig. 4, 411 out-of-sync issue, Fig. 5, 513 provisioning error.
Accordingly, we find no Examiner error in the rejection of claims 4, 9, and
14.
Claims 5, 10, and 15
Appellants assert Islam does not disclose "after routing the work to
the diagnostic region, receiving a further notification that the work has
succeeded and notifying a source of the work accordingly," as recited in
claims 5, 10, and 15. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 11. Appellants repeat their
contention that Islam describes the mobile device automatically triggering
initial registration and re-registering its home IP address. App. Br. 16 (citing
Islam i-f 53, Fig. 5). The Examiner finds the loop of Figures 2, 4, and 5 in
8
Appeal2015-002903
Application 13/470,856
Islam continues until no error is found indicating successful completion of
registration. Final Act. 6 (citing Islam Fig. 2 i-f 40); see Islam i-f 41 ("If the
mobile device 105 receives a RRPM indicating that registration is
successful, then the mobile device 105 is registered for duration of the
registration lifetime."). Here, Islam describes that the source of the work,
the mobile device initiating the request for registration with the MIP
network, is notified that the work has succeeded. In view of the foregoing,
we find no Examiner error in the rejection of claims 5, 10, and 15.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15.
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
9