Ex Parte Kilian et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 4, 201511321326 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/321,326 12/28/2005 Frank Kilian 6570P244 2460 45062 7590 05/04/2015 SAP/BSTZ BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/04/2015 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 FRANK KILIAN and OLIVER LUIK ____________________ Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN F. HORVATH, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 11–18, 21, and 23–27, and 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 2 SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The invention is directed to iterative load balancing among worker nodes in a shared memory system. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A processor-implemented method to handle a session between computing systems, comprising: entering a notification of a request into a first queue that supplies request notifications to a first worker node amongst a plurality of worker nodes, said first worker node targeted to process said request, said request included in a first portion of a shared memory, wherein said shared memory is separate from said plurality of worker nodes; determining via a dispatcher to withdraw said notification from said first queue based, at least in part, on an amount of time said request notification has been included in said first queue and an indication that said first portion of said shared memory storing said request is corrupt; and in response to said determination by said dispatcher withdrawing said notification from said first queue, and entering said notification of said request into a second queue that supplies request notifications to a second worker node amongst said plurality of worker nodes, said session is included in a second portion of said shared memory different from said first portion of said shared memory. REFERENCES Rosenbluth Basu Braun US 7,107,413 B2 US 7,343,513 B1 US 7,593,930 B2 Sep. 12, 2006 Mar. 11, 2008 Sep. 22, 2009 Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 11–14, 21, 23, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Braun and Basu. Ans. 3, 5. 1 Claims 4–7, 15–18, and 24–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Braun, Basu, and Rosenbluth. Ans. 5. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS I. Whether Braun teaches or suggests a shared memory that is separate from a first worker node. Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 13 and 21 is improper because “the independent claims describe a shared memory utilized by a plurality of nodes, wherein the shared memory and the plurality of nodes are separate and distinct elements.” App. Br. 9–10. The Examiner finds numerous passages in Braun teach or suggest a shared memory that is separate and distinct from a plurality of working nodes. Ans. 3 (citing Braun 8:35–43, 9:50–10:65, 15:31–32). We agree with the Examiner. The Specification describes shared memory as “memory whose stored content can be reached by multiple worker nodes.” Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification describes worker nodes as focal points for executing or issuing application software, or as operating system processes. Spec. ¶ 6. Braun discloses a shared memory 624, and a plurality of separate work processes 608–612 and worker nodes 614–618. Braun Fig. 6. Braun discloses “the 1 Though not explicitly listed in the rejection, claims 12 and 30 are rejected over Braun and Basu. Ans. 3, 5. Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 4 shared memory 624 . . . is used to create a buffer (e.g., for receiving and transmitting data) for the work processes 608–612 and the worker nodes 614–618.” Id. at 10:25–29. Braun further discloses utilizing “the centralized shared memory 624 for the work processes and worker nodes 608–618 . . . to share and access and thus, eliminating the need for having individualized local memory.” Id. at 8:35–40. We agree with the Examiner that these passages in Braun discloses a shared memory that is separate from a plurality of worker nodes as recited in claims 1, 13, and 21. II. Whether Braun teaches or suggests monitoring conditions of a shared memory that is separate from a first worker node. Appellants argue “Braun fails to disclose ‘an indication that the first portion of the shared memory storing the request is corrupt,’” and therefore “cannot be cited to disclose monitoring/detecting conditions of a shared memory that is separate from the first worker node, when determining to withdraw the notification of the request for the first worker node from the queue.” App. Br. 11. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. First, claims 1, 13, and 21 do not recite monitoring/detecting conditions of a shared memory. Rather, they recite “determining . . . to withdraw said notification from said first queue based, at least in part, on . . . an indication that said first portion of said shared memory storing said request is corrupt.” Id. Second, “non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 5 1986). The Examiner did not find Braun teaches withdrawing a notification based on an indication the shared memory is corrupt. Rather, the Examiner finds (1) Braun teaches withdrawing a notification based on the amount of time it has been pending in a queue, (2) Basu teaches indicating portions of a shared memory are corrupt, and (3) it would have been obvious to combine Basu’s corrupt memory indicator with Braun’s notification withdrawal system to ensure notifications are assigned to good and available shared memory. Ans. 3–4, 8–9 (citing Braun 15:31–43, Basu 3:58–67). Appellants do not contest these findings, with which we agree. Consequently, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13, and 21 for this reason. III. Whether Braun teaches away from monitoring conditions of a shared memory that is separate from a first worker node. Appellants argue Braun teaches away from monitoring the conditions of a shared memory. App. Br. 11; see also Reply 4. In particular, Appellants argue because Braun teaches “retracting requests from a crashed server in response to a node failure,” Braun is “only capable of [] monitoring node operations” to determine when to retract shared memory notifications. Id. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive. First, as noted supra, claims 1, 13, and 21 do not recite and therefore do not require monitoring the conditions of a shared memory. Rather, the claims recite using an indication that a portion of the shared memory is corrupt—however obtained—to withdraw a notification from that portion of the shared memory. Id. Second, the Examiner did not find Braun teaches Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 6 indicating a portion of shared memory is corrupt. Instead, the Examiner finds Basu teaches this limitation. Ans. 4, 8–9. Finally, Braun’s disclosure of withdrawing a notification based on a server crash does not teach away from withdrawing a notification based on an indication of corrupt memory because it does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage one from doing so. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away . . . because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). For each of these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13, and 21. IV. Whether the combination of Braun and Basu would change the functionality of Braun. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13, and 21 because “one would have to change the functionality of Braun to monitor non-node elements (i.e., components external to said node),” in order for the combination of Braun and Basu to disclose the features of the independent claims. App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 4–5. The Examiner finds the combination of Braun and Basu would not change the functionality of Braun because “Braun is capable of monitoring both node operations and [other] processes.” Ans. 11 (citing Braun 8:27–31). We agree with the Examiner, and are not persuaded by Appellants arguments. First, as noted supra, claims 1, 13, and 21 do not recite monitoring the conditions of a shared memory (non-node elements), but instead recite using an indication that a portion of the shared memory is corrupt to withdraw a Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 7 notification from that portion of the shared memory. Thus, Braun’s system as modified by Basu need not monitor the shared memory as Appellants contend, but need only use a received indication that a portion of the shared memory is corrupt. Second, it is axiomatic that whenever a primary reference is modified by combining it’s teachings with the teachings of a secondary reference, the functionality of the modified reference as a whole will change. But that fact, of itself, does not make the combination impermissible. Rather, to be impermissible, the combination needs to render the modified reference unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900 (Fed. Cir. 1984); In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810 (CCPA 1959). We agree with the Examiner that modifying Braun to identify corrupt portions of shared memory would not change Braun’s principle of operation or render it unfit for its intended purpose since Braun could simultaneously identify corrupt portions of shared memory and failed worker nodes. Appellants do not argue otherwise. Third, Appellants’ argument is based on the statement of one of the rationales for obviousness enumerated in the MPEP, namely, that a combination is obvious when “all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions.” App. Br. 12–13; see MPEP 2143(I)(A) (citing KSR Intern. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007)). This statement refers to a combination of known elements; and states the combination is obvious when the elements can be combined by known methods with no change in their respective Appeal 2013-001856 Application 11/321,326 8 functions (i.e., in the individual functions of the known elements when combined). MPEP 2143(I)(A). Here, the known elements are (1) Braun’s detecting a worker node has failed, (2) Braun’s withdrawing a notification from shared memory based upon a criteria (e.g., that a worker node has failed), and (3) Basu’s detecting or indicating a portion of shared memory is corrupt. Appellants do not contend, and we do not find, these individual elements would function differently in the combination proposed by the Examiner than they do separately in Braun and Basu. Consequently, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13, and 21. CONCLUSION For the reasons indicated supra, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 13, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Braun and Basu. We therefore sustain these rejections. Appellants do not separately argue for the patentability of claims 3–7, 11, 12, 14–18, 23–27, and 30. We therefore sustain these rejections for the same reasons. DECISION For the reasons indicated above, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–7, 11–18, 21, 23–27, and 30 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation