Ex Parte Lamb et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 6, 2017

13470762 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 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.
13/470,762 05/14/2012 Andrew Allinson LAMB 82850138 8637
146568 7590 11/08/2017
F.ntit Software T T C EXAMINER
1140 Enterprise Way, Bldg F
MS: 3104
DAVANLOU, SOHEILA
Sunnyvale, CA 94089 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2017 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):
software.ip.mail@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW ALLINS ON LAMB and CHARLES EDWARD BEAR1
Appeal 2017-005851
Application 13/430,762
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—9, and 11—18, which constitute
all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 4 and 10 are canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, a limited
partnership and wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard Company, whose
general or managing partner is HPQ Holdings, LLC, as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-005851
Application 13/470,762
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is generally described as
follows:
A system and method for switching algorithms during a
run time computation, the method including configuring
hardware of a networked cluster of processing elements, each
processing element with a memory hierarchy, to perform a first-
tier algorithm on input data, the input data having cardinality and
stored on one or a plurality of nodes in the networked cluster.
Performing at least a portion of a second-tier algorithm and
determining whether to complete the second-tier algorithm and
perform a third or subsequent tier algorithm, the determination
dependent on cardinality. Automatically passing data to an
output if the cardinality of the second-tier algorithm is greater
than a threshold cardinality, and passing the data back to the
second-tier algorithm or to one or a plurality of subsequent
algorithms, in response to the cardinality being less than the
threshold, and automatically passing the data to an output at the
completion of the data processing.
Abstract.2
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitations emphasized)'.
1. A method of switching algorithms during a run time
computation, the method comprising:
configuring hardware of a networked cluster of
processing elements, each processing element coupled to one or
a plurality of levels of memory hierarchy, to perform a first tier
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action mailed June 11, 2015
(“Final Act.”), Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed Oct. 13, 2015 (“Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 24, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the original
Specification filed May 14, 2012 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2017-005851
Application 13/470,762
algorithm on input data, the input data having cardinality and
stored on one or a plurality of nodes in the networked cluster;
performing at least a portion of a second tier algorithm;
determining whether to complete the second tier
algorithm and perform a subsequent tier algorithm, the
determination dependent on a threshold of cardinality, wherein
the subsequent tier algorithm is a hashing algorithm;
automatically passing data to an output when the
cardinality of the second tier algorithm is greater than a
threshold cardinality;
passing the data back to the second tier algorithm or to
the subsequent tier algorithm when the cardinality is less than
the threshold; and
automatically passing the data to the output at a
completion of processing by the second tier algorithm or to the
subsequent tier algorithm.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5—7, 9-13, and 15—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barsness et al. (US 2009/0112799 Al;
published Apr. 30, 2009) (“Barsness”), and Snodgrass et al. (US
2004/0117359 Al; published June 17, 2004) (“Snodgrass”).
Claims 2, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Barsness, Snodgrass, and Cangini et al. (US
2007/0300301 Al; published Dec. 27, 2007) (“Cangini”).
ANALYSIS
The dispositive issue raised by Appellants is whether the combination
of Barsness and Snodgrass teaches or suggests the limitations “performing at
least a portion of a second tier algorithm” and “determining whether to
3
Appeal 2017-005851
Application 13/470,762
complete the second tier algorithm and perform a subsequent tier algorithm,”
as recited in each of the independent claims—claims 1,7, and 13.
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds Barsness does not
specifically teach these limitations, but Snodgrass does so. Final Act. 8—9
(citing Snodgrass Figs. 2, 5; 32, 39, 79). In particular, the Examiner finds
Snodgrass teaches the execution-ready query plan that is passed to the
Execution Engine consists of four algorithms —TRANSFER^1; TAGGRM;
TRANSFER0, and TRANSFERM — and that Snodgrass teaches determining
whether to complete the second tier algorithm, TAGGRM. Id. at 9 (citing
Snodgrass Fig. 5,179).
Appellants argue the Examiner appears to equate the second tier
algorithm of the independent claims to TAGGRM and that Snodgrass “does
not address and therefore does not teach ‘determining whether to complete
the second tier algorithm (TAGGRM).”’ Br. 10. Specifically, Appellants
argue Snodgrass teaches only that a subsequent algorithm SORT0 is utilized
prior to initiating the second tier algorithm TAGGRM and “there is no
determination of whether or not to complete the second tier algorithm
(TAGGRm) prior to performing the subsequent algorithm (SORT0). Id.
(emphasis omitted). Thus, according to Appellants, Snodgrass does not
teach the disputed limitations of the independent claims. Id.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. See Br. 8—10. We have also reviewed
the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments and the evidence of
record. Ans. 3—5. The Examiner has provided a detailed and comprehensive
response, supported by citations to Snodgrass, to Appellants’ contentions and
arguments. We adopt as our own, and incorporate herein, the findings and
4
Appeal 2017-005851
Application 13/470,762
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 7—24) and in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 3—5). In particular, we note the Examiner finds
Snodgrass teaches “[t]he determining whether to complete the second tier
algorithm TAGGR is based on number of records [that] have to be
aggregated.” Ans. 4 (citing Snodgrass Fig. 8, ^fl[ 127—130; see also id. at 5).
Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to address these findings. Thus, we
find the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings that
Snodgrass teaches or suggests “determining whether to complete the second
tier algorithm and perform a subsequent tier algorithm,” as recited in the
independent claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 7, and 13, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and
14—18, which are not substantively separately argued. See Br. 11.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—3, 5—9, and 11—
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5