Ex Parte Ludwig et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 201311205895 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2013) 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. 11/205,895 08/16/2005 Thomas Earl Ludwig 119127-161024 4772 25943 7590 09/25/2013 Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900 1211 SW FIFTH AVENUE PORTLAND, OR 97204 EXAMINER CHAU, DUNG K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/25/2013 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 THOMAS EARL LUDWIG and MARK ADAMS ____________________ Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 40-42, 44-53, 55-60, 62-67, 69-71, and 73-81. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to disaggregated resources and access methods thereto using resource nodes. Abstract. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claims Claims 40 and 62, reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 40. A resource node comprising: memory having node information indicative of a role of the resource node within a group of a plurality of resource nodes that each have a unique Internet protocol address and, collectively, present a logical representation of a plurality of physical resources to a resource consumer, the node information including a name of the resource node that is indicative of a group type of the group, the group type being a parallel structure that will provide the resource consumer with access to a first data block of a data set stored on the plurality of physical resources through at least two resource nodes, or a serial structure that will provide the resource consumer with access to the first data block through a first resource node and access to a second data block, which is consecutive with the first data block, of the data set through a second resource node; and a processing unit coupled to the memory and configured to receive a discovery request from the resource consumer and Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 3 to provide the resource consumer with the node information based at least in part on the discovery request. 62. A method comprising: transmitting, by a resource consumer device, a discovery request to each of a plurality of resource nodes that each have a unique Internet protocol address and, collectively, present a logical representation of a plurality of physical resources; receiving, by the resource consumer device from one or more resource nodes of the plurality of resource nodes, node information that includes a name for each of the one or more resource nodes; and determining, by the resource consumer device, from the names of each of the one or more resource nodes, an organizational structure of the plurality of resource nodes, the organizational structure being a parallel structure that will provide the resource consumer device with access to a first data block of a data set stored on the plurality of physical resources through at least two resource nodes, or a serial structure that will provide the resource consumer device with access to the first data block through a first resource node and access to a second data block, which is consecutive with the first data block, of the data set through a second resource node. References Hahn U.S. 5,991,891 Nov. 23, 1999 Schnelle Smith Frank U.S. 2003/0070144 A1 U.S. 2004/0181476 A1 U.S. 2004/0215688 A1 Apr. 10, 2003 Sep. 16, 2004 Oct. 28, 2004 Rejections Claims 40-42, 44-53, 55-60, 70, 71, and 73-81 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank, Schnelle, and Smith. Ans. 4-11. Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 4 Claims 62, 63, and 69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank and Smith. Ans. 11-13. Claims 64-67 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Frank, Smith, and Hahn. Ans. 13-16. ANALYSIS Independent Claims 40, 50, and 70 Appellants argue independent claims 40, 50, and 70 are improperly rejected. App. Br. 7-9, 12-14. Appellants assert the combination of Frank, Schnelle, and Smith does not teach resource nodes and group types, as recited in claims 40, 50, and 70. App. Br. 7-8, 12, 14. Appellants specifically argue “Schnelle’s teachings regarding a record in SQL table that represents a unit of data would not be considered relevant to the resource nodes of claim 40” and “Schnelle’s level information simply provides information on where a particular unit of data fits into a data set,” whereas the recited group type “is ‘a parallel structure … or a serial structure.’” App. Br. 8. Finally, with respect to independent claims 40, 50, and 70, Appellants assert that Schnelle’s data nodes and Frank’s resource nodes are so different that “no articulable reason [exists] to use Schnelle’s naming convention with respect to Frank’s resource nodes.” App. Br. 8. Appellants do not challenge the remaining findings. We find the details regarding the recited “node information” to be non-functional descriptive material. Specifically, independent claims 40, 50, and 70 each recite a memory with detailed node information (or in claim 70, instructions that, when executed, transmit the node information). The node information Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 5 does not have any functional relationship to the elements or steps recited in claims 40, 50, and 70. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Frank, Smith, and Schnelle teaches a resource node comprising a memory having information and a processing unit configured to receive a discovery request and provide the stored information, as recited in independent claim 40. Ans. 4-6. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 40. We also sustain the rejection of claims 50 and 70, which recite similar limitations. Dependent Claims 41, 42, 48, 51-53, 55, 57, 60, 71, 74-76, and 78-81 Appellants do not provide separate, substantive arguments with respect to these claims but merely rely on their dependency from one of claims 40, 50, and 70. App. Br. 9, 13. Therefore, for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to independent claims 40, 50, and 70, we sustain the rejection of claims 41, 42, 48, 51-53, 55, 57, 60, 71, 74-76, and 78-81. Dependent Claims 44, 56, and 73 Appellants further argue Schnelle does not teach “the resource node is a member of a first plurality of groups of a respective first plurality of group types, and the name is indicative of a second plurality of group types, which is less than the first plurality of group types,” as recited in dependent claim 44. App. Br. 9-10. However, the Examiner finds Frank teaches the resource node is a member of the first plurality of groups and only relies on Schnelle for teaching the name indicating a second plurality of group types. Ans. 19. Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 6 As similarly discussed above with respect to claim 40, the recitation of a name that is indicative of a second plurality of group types is not functionally tied to the limitations recited in claim 44. Therefore, because the alleged missing limitation is non-functional descriptive material, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44. Appellants provide similar arguments with respect to claims 56 and 73; therefore, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claim 44, we sustain the rejection of claims 56 and 73. App. Br. 13, 14. Dependent Claim 45 Appellants argue Schnelle does not teach “the resource node is a member of a plurality of groups of a respective plurality of group types and the name is based at least in part on a hierarchy of the plurality of group types,” as recited in dependent claim 45. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds Frank teaches the resource node is a member of a plurality of groups and only relies on Schnelle for teaching the name indicating a second plurality of group types. Ans. 19. The recitation of a name that is based on a hierarchy of group types is not functionally tied to the limitations recited in claim 45. Therefore, because the alleged missing limitation is non-functional descriptive material, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 45. Dependent Claims 46 and 58 Appellants further argue Schnelle does not teach “the plurality of resource nodes of the group are in a sequence and the node information includes an attribute that is indicative of an additional resource node of the Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 7 plurality of resource nodes that is later in the sequence than the resource node,” as recited in dependent claim 46 and similarly recited in claim 58. App. Br. 10-11, 13. However, the Examiner finds Frank teaches the alleged missing limitation. Ans. 20-21. Moreover, as similarly discussed above, the recitation that the node information includes attributes is not functionally tied to the limitations recited in claims 46 or 58. Therefore, because the alleged missing limitation is non-functional descriptive material, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 46 and 58. Dependent Claims 47, 49, 59, and 77 Appellants argue Smith does not teach “the node information comprises a plurality of attributes, including the attribute, that correspond to a respective plurality of group types,” as recited in dependent claim 47 and similarly recited in claim 59 or “the node information further includes a resource member attribute to indicate a number of groups of a particular group type,” as recited in dependent claim 49, and similarly recited in claim 77. App. Br. 11-12, 13, 14. As similarly discussed above, the recitation of node information including certain attributes is not functionally tied to the limitations recited in claims 44, 49, 59, or 77. Therefore, because the alleged missing limitation is non-functional descriptive material, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 47, 49, 59, and 77. Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 8 Independent Claim 62 Appellants argue independent claim 62 is improperly rejected. App. Br. 15-16. Appellants assert the combination of Frank and Smith does not teach “determining, by the resource consumer device, from the names of each of the one or more resource nodes, an organizational structure of the plurality of resource nodes, the organizational structure being a parallel structure ... or a serial structure,” as recited in claim 62. App. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellants argue Frank merely describes associating a name with partitions, providing that name to obtain an IP address, and mirroring data by providing mirrored partitions with the same IP address. App. Br. 15 (quoting Frank ¶¶ 30, 32, and 42). Appellants conclude that nothing in Frank “suggest[s] that a resource consumer device determines the organization structure from any names,” and that the structure of Frank’s storage system may not even be known to the requesting device. App. Br. 15-16. The Examiner again refers to paragraph 41 of Frank, which provides a description of Figure 10, and finds Frank discloses using both parallel (mirrored information) and serial (no redundancy) structures. Ans. 22-23. While we agree with the Examiner that Frank shows a system using both parallel and serial structures to provide access to data, we agree with Appellants that “having names and an organization structure does not teach determining the organization structure from the names.” Reply 5. Specifically, we do not see support for the Examiner’s finding that Frank teaches “determining, by the resource consumer device, from the names of each of the one or more resource nodes, an organizational structure of the plurality of resource nodes,” as recited in claim 62. Therefore, on the record before us, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 62. Appeal 2011-001826 Application 11/205,895 9 Dependent claims 63-67 and 69 ultimately depend from independent claim 62 and thus incorporate the same determining step that is present in claim 62. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 63-67 and 69 and need not reach Appellants’ remaining arguments with respect to these dependent claims. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40-42, 44- 53, 55-60, 70, 71, and 73-81 is affirmed and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 62-67 and 69 is reversed. 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-IN-PART msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation