Ex Parte Pisupati

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 12, 2011

10052612 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 12, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RAVIKUMAR PISUPATI
____________

Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, ST JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1-6, 8-29, 31, and 32. The
Appellant appeals therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
2
INVENTION
The Appellant describes the invention at issue on appeal as follows.
One embodiment . . . is a network comprising a plurality of
computing elements each of which comprises computing
resources for supporting one or more services and a redirector,
communicatively connected to each of the computing elements,
configured to serve as an email proxy for the plurality of
computing elements, wherein the services are controlled by
email messages routed by the redirector among the plurality of
computing elements.
(Spec. 2, ¶ [0008].)

ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer network for providing services
comprising:
a plurality of computing elements each of which
comprises general-purpose, programmable computing resources
that can be selectively programmed for supporting one or more
of a plurality of different electronic services, wherein said
services are controlled or operated by commands or data
transmitted via email;
a mail server for receiving and routing email; and
a redirector, separate from said mail server,
communicatively connected to said mail server and each of said
computing elements, wherein said redirector receives email
from said mail server, wherein each email contains a command
or data for a specific said service, with or without being
addressed to a specific computing element, and wherein said
redirector is configured to selectively match an available
computing element with a specific service request of an
incoming email, whether or not said email is addressed to a
specific computing element, and forward at least a portion of
the email to that available computing element so as to deliver
said command or data to that specific service, such that said
Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
3
redirector serves as an email proxy for said plurality of
computing elements;
wherein said electronic services are controlled by said
email routed by said redirector among said plurality of
computing elements.

REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2002/0087619 A1("Tripathi"), U.S. Patent Number
7,231,445 B1 ("Aweya") and Peterson et al., Computer Networks: A System
Approach, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 634-40 (2nd ed. 2000)
("Peterson").
2. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 17, 18, and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tripathi, Aweya, Peterson, and
U.S. Patent No. 5,819,110 ("Motoyama").
3. Claims 10, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tripathi, Aweya, Peterson, Motoyama, and U.S.
Patent No. 6,480,901 B1("Weber").
4. Claims 14, 22, 23, 26-29, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tripathi, Aweya, Perterson, and
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0156876 A1("Hartman").
5. Claim 25 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tripathi, Aweya, Peterson, Motoyama, and Hartman.

Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
4
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in combining
teachings from Tripathi and Aweya to reject independent claims 1, 11, and
26.

FINDINGS OF FACT
Tripathi describes its invention as "a method and system that enables
system administrators to take action remotely based on the health status of
server[(s)]." (Tripathi, ¶ [0007].) "In short, via e-mail, a network
administrator may have access to complete server status information,
manipulate the state of server[s] . . . , and take remedial actions." (Id., ¶
[0019].) "Such actions may include shutting down, rebooting, and powering
off a server." (Id., ¶ [0005].)
Aweya describes its invention as "a technique for adaptively
distributing a web server request in a system having a plurality of web
servers . . . ." (Aweya, col. 3, ll. 18-20.)

App
App

FIG.
In th
clien
cont
emai
"Trip
an av
servi
eal 2009-0
lication 10
Figure 3
3 is a bloc
is system,
t 310 via n
act servers
l) (Figures
athi does
ailable co
The Exa
ce process
07173
/052,612
of Tripath
k diagram
finds the E
etwork an
330, 340
3,4, ref. 3
not specifi
mputing e
miner find
ing system
AN
i, on whic
illustratin
xaminer,
d, based o
to effect co
00, B430;
cally state
lement . .
s, howeve
which di
5
ALYSIS
h the Exam
g system
"mail agen
n the com
ntrol of a
p. 2, ¶ 30
that the re
. ." (Id. at
r, that "Aw
scloses rec
iner relie
300 (Tripa
t 350 rece
mands in t
command
)[.]" (Ans
director m
5.)
eya disclo
eiving a r
s, follows
thi, ¶ [002
ives emai
he email,
found wit
. 4.) He a
atches the
ses anoth
equest for
.
9].)
l from
will
hin the
dmits that
request to
er web
a service,

Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
6
and, based on resource availability, will determine which server to route the
request . . . ." (Id. at 13.) He adds the following conclusion and findings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teaching of Aweya with Tripathi in order to utilize
the admission control process of Aweya with a plurality of mail
agents of Tripathi in order to redirect client requests to other
web server systems when the present mail agent resources are
running low, thereby reducing the likelihood of having to queue
requests or even dropping requests as supported by Aweya
(col. 10, lines 15-28).
(Id. at 5.)
"What the prior art teaches and whether it teaches toward or away
from the claimed invention . . . is a determination of fact." Para-Ordnance
Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
"A teaching away does not have to be express; it may be implied.
A reference teaches away impliedly when a modification or combination
would render inoperable the invention disclosed in the reference." Teaching
a Way is not Teaching Away, 79 J. Pat. & Trademark Off. Soc'y 867, 872
(1997)).
Here, we agree with the Appellant's following observation.
Tripathi states that an incoming email message to the mail
agent (130) will "specify whether the service requested relates
to a specific server, such as server 330, server 340, or another
computer within a network, or whether the service is applicable
to one or more specific servers within the network, or to all
such servers." (Tripathi, ¶ [0030]).
(App. Br. 14.)
For its part, Aweya's "web server system 10 . . . support[s] a
new client request admission control and distribution scheme . . . .
Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
7
The web server system 10 comprises . . . a plurality of web
servers 14." (Aweya, col. 4, ll. 23-27.) The latter reference explains
that a new "client request is passed to a load balancing or request
distribution process. The new client request distribution process
determines, based on the same periodic load measurements, which
web server 14 will be assigned to handle the new session." (Id. at
ll. 46-51.)
We find that if Aweya's teaching of a request distribution process
were combined with Tripathi's teaching of remotely managing network
servers, the combination would have left the invention disclosed in the latter
reference "inoperable for its intended purpose." In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902 (Fed. Cir. 1984). More specifically, the combination would inevitably
redirect a request intended for a specific server to another server in the
interest of load balancing. For example, an administrator's request to reboot
server 330, when it was busy, may be redirected to server 340, when it was
idle, thereby shutting down the wrong server.
Consequently, Tripathi "teaches away from this" (App. Br. 13)
combination proposed by the Examiner. Therefore, we conclude that the
Examiner erred in combining teachings from Tripathi and Aweya to reject
independent claims 1, 11, and 26.

DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 11, and 26 and those of
claims 2-6, 8-10, 12-25, 27-29, 31, and 32, which depend therefrom.

REVERSED
Appeal 2009-007173
Application 10/052,612
8

llw