Ex Parte Kannan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

13755664 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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.
13/755,664 01/31/2013 Sudarsun Kannan 83105756 1820
56436 7590 03/16/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
PHAM, MICHAEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/16/2017 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
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDARSUN KANNAN, PAOLO FARABOSCHI,
MORAY McLAREN, and DEJAN S. MILOJICIC
Appeal 2016-007445
Application 13/755,6641
Technology Center 2100
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to “generating a checkpoint for an application
that is executing on a plurality of nodes of a distributed computing system.”
Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett Packard
Enterprise Development, LP, a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett Packard
Enterprise with a general or managing partner of Enterprise DC Holdings
LLC. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007445
Application 13/755,664
Illustrative Claims
Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative and reproduced below with the
limitations at issue emphasized:
1. A method comprising:
generating a checkpoint for an application, the application
being executed in a distributed fashion across a plurality of nodes
of a distributed computing system,
wherein forming the checkpoint comprises selectively
regulating communication of data from the plurality of nodes to
a storage subsystem based at least in part on a replication of the
data among the nodes.
7. A method comprising:
generating an incremental checkpoint for an application
executing on a least one computing node,
wherein the generating comprises identifying at least one
memory region of the at least one computing node which has
changed after generation of a prior checkpoint based at least in
part on a prediction on whether the at least one memory region
is expected to change after the generation of the prior
checkpoint.
Rejections
Claims 1, 7—15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Moser et al. (US 7,206,964 B2; Apr. 17, 2007). Final Act. 2.
Claims 2—6 and 16—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combination of Moser and Oltean et al. (US 2012/0158672
Al; June 21, 2012). Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Moser discloses “forming the
checkpoint comprises selectively regulating communication of data from the
plurality of nodes to a storage subsystem based at least in part on a
replication of the data among the nodes,” as recited in claim 1 ?
2
Appeal 2016-007445
Application 13/755,664
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Moser discloses “the generating
comprises identifying at least one memory region of the at least one
computing node which has changed after generation of a prior checkpoint
based at least in part on a prediction on whether the at least one memory
region is expected to change after the generation of the prior checkpoint,” as
recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
Claims 16 and 13—20
Claim 1 recites “forming the checkpoint comprises selectively
regulating communication of data from the plurality of nodes to a storage
subsystem based at least in part on a replication of the data among the
nodes.” Independent claim 13 recites a commensurate limitation.
The Examiner relies on Moser for disclosing this limitation. Ans. 3^4
(citing Moser 16:32—67, 11:25—29, 10:59—63, Fig. 1), 7—8 (further citing
Moser 14:35—67). However, we agree with Appellants that “[t]he
examiner’s answer does not indicate how this communication is selective, as
all data is replicated.” Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 9. In contrast, the Specification
provides an example of the system “identifying] redundant data elements”
and subsequently instructing the nodes to only “transmit a single copy of a
particular data element.” Spec. 125. “Thus, if multiple computing nodes
110 store an identical page of checkpoint data, only one of the nodes 110 is
instructed by the checkpoint engine 192 to transmit that data to the storage
subsystem 184 to form the committed checkpoint.” Id. The Examiner has
not identified any similar feature in Moser of “selectively regulating
communication” to form a checkpoint, as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner also has not shown Oltean cures this deficiency.
3
Appeal 2016-007445
Application 13/755,664
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 13, and their dependent claims 2—6 and 14—20.
Claims 7—12
Independent claim 7 recites “the generating comprises identifying at
least one memory region of the at least one computing node which has
changed after generation of a prior checkpoint based at least in part on a
prediction on whether the at least one memory region is expected to change
after the generation of the prior checkpoint.”
The Examiner finds “Moser provides an if statement as a prediction
(if MutexCheckpointNumber.. .is less than threadCheckpointNumber) that
predicts whether a memory region has changed (shared data is not current).”
Ans. 5—6 (citing Moser 15:51—63). However, we agree with Appellants that
“[s]uch a statement is not a prediction, but rather the evaluation of such a
statement definitively determines if the memory regions are different. There
is nothing predictive about this comparison.” Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 9. To
“predict” means “to state or make a declaration about in advance.” Collins
English Dictionary (Dig. Ed. 2012) (emphasis added); see also Spec. Tflf 42,
45 (“predict which pages may change”), claim 7 (“expected to change”).
Here, the Examiner has not explained how any prediction is in advance.
The Examiner also has not shown Oltean cures this deficiency.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7 and its dependent claims 8—12.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the decision rejecting claims 1—20.
REVERSED
4