Ex Parte Miller et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

12585576 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/585,576 09/18/2009
30594 7590 08/10/2016
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Raymond B. Miller
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
29250-002448/US 7312
EXAMINER
NANO, SARGON N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2457
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2016 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):
dcmailroom@hdp.com
pshaddin@hdp.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYMOND B. MILLER and
EDWARD GRINSHPUN
Appeal2015-002078
Application 12/585,576
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002078
Application 12/585,576
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-14 and 16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to providing server redundancy in the case
where both a primary and secondary server fail at the same time (see Spec.
i-fi-12-6). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of operating a dynamic network, the method
compnsmg:
assigning a primary server role to a first server;
assigning a secondary server role to the second server;
synchronizing dynamic persistent data between the first
and second servers;
assigning a candidate secondary server role to at least a
third server;
synchronizing the dynamic persistent data between the
first and third servers, prior to removal of the first and/or second
servers from the network, the dynamic persistent data including
state information;
promoting the third server to the primary server role if the
first and second servers are removed from the network at the
same time.
2
Appeal2015-002078
Application 12/585,576
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Wong
Villait
Aust
Dror
US 6,353,834 Bl
US 2006/0023627 Al
US 2006/0155776 Al
US 2008/0016386 Al
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Mar. 5, 2002
Feb.2,2006
July 13, 2006
Jan. 17,2008
Claims 1-3, 7, 10, 13, 14, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dror and Aust.
Claims 4---6, 8, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dror, Aust, and Villait.
Claims 9 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dror, Aust, and Wong. 1
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Dror and Aust discloses all
the limitations of claim 1, including that Dror teaches "promoting the third
server to the primary server role if the first and second servers are removed
from the network at the same time" (Final Act. 2--4). Appellants contend
Dror fails to teach this feature (App. Br. 5). We agree with Appellants.
Dror discloses providing "failover and load sharing between virtual
systems" (Dror, i-f 24) in a virtual system group where "[a]ctive virtual
1 Claims 9 and 12 depend on claims 8 and 11, respectively. Claims 8 and 11
stand rejected over the combination of Dror, Aust, and Villait. The
Examiner improperly omits the Villait reference from the combination of
Dror, Aust, and Wong in the rejection of claims 9 and 12.
3
Appeal2015-002078
Application 12/585,576
system 203A and standby virtual system 203 S are synchronized both in state
parameters and policy, so that standby copy 203S becomes active if virtual
system 203A ... experiences a failure" (Dror, i-f 35). Further, in one
embodiment the "virtual system group VS includes an additional virtual
system in a 'backup' state 203B in addition to standby state 203S and active
state 203A of the virtual system" (Dror, i-f 39). If active virtual system 203A
fails, standby virtual system 203 S becomes active, and "backup virtual
system 203B is upgraded to become a standby virtual system 203S and
begins to synchronize with newly active virtual system 203A" (Dror, i-f 40).
However, the Examiner has not shown that Dror teaches promoting
original backup system 203B to a "primary server role if the first and second
servers are removed from the network at the same time," as recited in claim
1. Rather, we agree with Appellants that Dror teaches at most a response to
a succession of failures, where the standby system 203 S becomes the active
system and the backup system 203B becomes the standby system upon a
first failure, and the ongmal backup system 203B becomes the active system
upon a second failure (see App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4). Accordingly, we find
Dror does not teach the claimed simultaneously removal of two servers. In
fact, Dror discloses "[b ]ackup state virtual system 203B contains updated
configurational settings, e.g. firewall policy of virtual systems 203 but does
not receive state parameter or connection table synchronizations" (Dror, i-f
39) (emphasis added), which suggests the backup system would not be able
to take over as an active system if both the active and standby systems failed
at the same time because the backup system would not have the necessary
state information. Indeed, the backup system only receives state information
when it "synchronize[s] with the newly active virtual system 203A" after a
first failure (Dror, i-f 40).
4
Appeal2015-002078
Application 12/585,576
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2-14 and 16
for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1-14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the base combination of Dror and Aust.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-14 and
16 are reversed.
REVERSED
5