Ex Parte Larson

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 28, 2012

11066011 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte ROBERT A. LARSON
____________

Appeal 2010-002171
Application 11/066,011
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claim 1-21, which are the remaining claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2010-002171
Application 11/066,011

2
Invention
Appellant provides that “[t]he present invention generally relates to
workload balancing. Specifically, the present invention relates to a method,
system and program product for managing a workload on a plurality of
heterogeneous computing systems.” (Spec. ¶ [0001].)1
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for managing a workload on a plurality of
heterogeneous computing systems, comprising:

receiving a work request from a server on one of the plurality
of heterogeneous client computing systems;

putting the work request in a particular application queue that
corresponds to a process needed to fulfill the work request; and

attempting to allocate an index enque queue to the work request
within a predetermined period of time, wherein another one of the
plurality of heterogeneous computing systems is selected to fulfill the
work request if the index enque queue cannot be allocated within the
predetermined period of time.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Freund (U.S. Patent Pub. 2001/0039575 A1 Nov. 8, 2001)
and Leymann (U.S. Patent No. 6,681,251 B1 Jan. 20, 2004).

1 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) and Appeal (“Br.”) filed
May 6, 2009. We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed Aug.
10, 2009.
Appeal 2010-002171
Application 11/066,011

3
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, we have
determined that the following issue is dispositive in this appeal:
Under § 103, did the Examiner err in concluding that the combination
of Freund and Leymann would have taught or suggested receiving a work
request from a server on one of the plurality of heterogeneous client
computing systems, within the meaning of independent claim 1 and
commensurate limitations of claims 9, 15, and 21?

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest
receiving a work request from a server to one of a plurality of heterogeneous
client computing systems, as claimed. (Br. 6.) We agree for the reasons
discussed infra.
The Examiner relied on Freund to teach or suggest the limitation at
issue. (Ans. 4.) However, we agree with Appellant (Br. 6) that the cited
portions of Freund disclose dispatching client requests for execution by a
server object in a heterogeneous object-oriented client/server computing
environment. (See Freund ¶ [0027].) Thus, Freund does not teach or
suggest receiving work requests from a server as claimed.
The Examiner interpreted the scheduling and dispatching requests
disclosed in Freund as client requests, which function as work requests from
a server process to one of a plurality of heterogeneous clients. (Ans. 8.)
However, we do not find the Examiner’s interpretation of Freund to be
reasonable because the Examiner has not established that the scheduling and
Appeal 2010-002171
Application 11/066,011

4
dispatching requests are work requests from a server to a plurality of
heterogeneous clients, as claimed.
Based on this record, we conclude that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 1, 9, 15, and 21 for essentially the same reasons argued
by Appellant discussed supra. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-21.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED

tkl