Ex Parte Reznak

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 30, 2002

08705449 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 30, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FREDERICK J. REZNAK
____________
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before BARRETT, GROSS, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judges.
BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23, which are all the claims
remaining in the application.
We reverse.
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
-2-
BACKGROUND
The invention is directed to a multitasking data processing system and a method
of controlling allocation of shared resources within the system. Representative claim 1
is reproduced below.
1. A method of controlling allocation of shared resources within a
multitasking data processing system having a plurality of tasks, said method
comprising:
in response to a resource request for a portion of a shared resource by a
particular task among said plurality of tasks, determining whether or not granting
said resource request would cause a selected level of resource allocation to be
exceeded and determining whether or not granting said resource request would
cause a resource allocation limit to be exceeded;
in response to a determination that granting said resource request would
cause said resource allocation limit to be exceeded, denying said resource
allocation request;
in response to a determination that granting said resource request would
not cause said selected level of resource allocation to be exceeded, granting
said resource request; and
in response to a determination that granting said resource request would
cause said selected level of resource allocation but not said resource allocation
limit to be exceeded, suspending execution of said particular task for a selected
penalty time and then granting said request.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ferguson et al. (Ferguson) 5,210,872 May 11, 1993
Camillone et al. (Camillone) 5,421,011 May 30, 1995
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Camillone and Ferguson.
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
-3-
We refer to the Final Rejection (mailed Jul. 20, 1998) and the Examiner's Answer
(mailed Mar. 29, 1999) for a statement of the examiner's position and to the Brief (filed
Jan. 11, 1999) for appellant’s position with respect to the claims which stand rejected.
OPINION
In the statement of the section 103 rejection of claim 1 (Final Rejection at 3-4),
Camillone is relied upon as teaching two limits for controlling allocation of shared
resources: an allocation limit and a selected limit (i.e., a soft limit described at column 9,
lines 3 through 5 of the reference). Camillone is recognized as not teaching
suspending execution of a particular task for a selected penalty time. The rejection
turns to Ferguson for the teaching of suspending execution of a particular task for a
selected penalty time. The subject matter of claim 1 is deemed to be rendered obvious
by the references, using “two limits...so that the objects of Ferguson can provide a task
scheduling method for a real time computer system having automatic memory
management.” (Final Rejection at 4.)
Appellant argues (Brief at 4) the examiner has not cited any objective teaching
that would have led the artisan “to apply allocation quotas for user accounts as taught
by Camillone to per-task resource allocation quotas as taught by Ferguson.” The
examiner responds (Answer at 3-4), referring to columns 3 and 4 of Camillone, that the
reference discloses that resource account identifiers are indicated for each process,
and that processes are divided into critical and non-critical processes. Ferguson is
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
-4-
represented as being directed to handling resource requirements of critical and non-
critical tasks and deemed to complement the teachings of Camillone.
We find that Camillone describes, at column 8, line 49 through column 9, line 5,
operation of the conventional UNIX disk quota subsystem. Each user is given a
particular quota for disk space. If the user requests an allocation that is over quota, the
request is denied. The quota implementation also contains “soft limits” which are used
to provide warnings, but the details are not of interest in Camillone’s disclosure of the
invention. The reference also describes conventional UNIX systems at column 1, line
59 through column 2, line 10. Again there is mention of “disk quotas” set by system
administrators to allocate disk space to specified users. The Berkeley Software
Distribution (BSD) version of UNIX is presented as providing a way to limit resource
consumption by a process. The controls under BSD may limit “processing time,
maximum file size, core file size, memory usage, process stack size and process data
segment size” (col. 1, ll. 65-67), although the controls are not considered “quotas.”
Ferguson describes (“Detailed Description,” columns 2 through 6) management
of critical and non-critical tasks in real-time computer systems. Should a request for
memory allocation by a non-critical task exceed the memory allocation quota for that
particular task, execution of the task is suspended, to be restarted by a scheduler at an
appropriate time. Col. 5, l. 37 - col. 6, l. 3. Although described in terms of memory
allocation, the disclosed method “could be used for any resource that is consumed in
bits per unit of time.” Col. 6, ll. 9-11.
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
1 The Final Rejection at page 6 refers again to the “quota” and “soft limit” described at column 9,
lines 1 through 5 of Camillone as teaching the “allocation limit” and “selected level.” Both the “resource
allocation limit” and “selected level of resource allocation” are relevant to requirements of claims 8 and 16.
-5-
In view of the objective teachings of the references, we agree with appellant that
the rejection of instant claim 1 is not well founded. In our opinion the artisan would not
have considered Ferguson’s teachings with respect to managing resource allocation
requests for non-critical tasks to have relevance with respect to administration of a disk
quota subsystem as disclosed by Camillone. We find the Camillone reference to
disclose the UNIX disk quota subsystem as separate from management of resource
consumption by a process. Although the references address critical and non-critical
tasks and processes, Camillone’s description of two levels of resource allocation is in
reference to the conventional UNIX disk quota subsystem. We find no reason that the
artisan would have been led to modify the “soft limits” -- presumably providing warnings
in response to requests for disk space approaching a level that will be denied -- such
that execution of effecting the request is suspended and rescheduled at an appropriate
time. Nor has the examiner provided any convincing rationale for the combination
proposed.
Each of independent claims 8 and 16 requires a “shared resource allocation
controller” which performs the method as substantially set forth in instant claim 1. Yet,
the statement of the rejection (Final Rejection at 4-5) does not refer to all portions of the
references that were addressed in the rejection against claim 1.1 We do not find
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
-6-
disclosure or suggestion of the requirements of the claimed shared resource allocation
controller in the references applied.
We also agree with appellant (Brief at 5) that Ferguson fails to teach suspending
execution of a task for a selected penalty time and then granting the request, as
required by each of the independent claims. The examiner quotes from Ferguson and
states that “[t]his is what is recited in claim 1.” (Answer at 5.) In our interpretation of
the relevant section of Ferguson at column 5, line 37 through column 6, line 11 (as
illustrated by Figure 5), a blocked task may be scheduled to run at a later time.
However, that the task runs at a later time does not mean that the task’s resource
request will be granted at the later time. If a task attempts to consume more than its
quota, the task is caused to relinquish processor 21 during any activation of the task.
We thus conclude that a prima facie case for unpatentability has not been
established for any of the independent claims (1, 8, or 16) on appeal. We do not
sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Camillone and Ferguson.
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
-7-
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12, 13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-2416
Application No. 08/705,449
-8-
ANDREW J. DILLION
SUITE 350 LAKEWOOD ON THE PARK
7600B NORTH CAPITAL OF TEXAS HIGHWAY
AUSTIN , TX 78731