Ex Parte LAMB et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 6, 201713470762 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation