Ex Parte Ringseth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

12131128 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2017)

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.
12/131,128 06/02/2008 Paul Ringseth 323059.01 5258
69316 7590 02/16/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
KIM, DONG U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/16/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL RINGSETH, GENEVIEVE FERNANDES,
RICK MOLLOY, and RAHUL PATIL
Appeal 2015-007880
Application 12/131,128
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3—20. Claim 2 is canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal 2015-007880
Application 12/131,128
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Appellants’ invention relates to a runtime environment that includes a
scheduler function that generates a scheduler. See, e.g., Spec. 119. “When
invoked, the scheduler function creates scheduler 22 in process 12 where
scheduler 22 operates to schedule tasks of process 12 for execution by one or
more hardware threads 16( 1 )-l 6(A7).” Spec. 119. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
tracking a first set of execution contexts inducted into a
scheduler in a process executing on a computer system;
tracking a second set of execution contexts created within
the scheduler; and
finalizing the scheduler prior to the process completing in
response to all of the execution contexts in the first set of
execution contexts exiting the scheduler and all of the execution
contexts in the second set of execution contexts being retired by
the scheduler, the finalizing including allowing the first set of
execution contexts to continue to execute tasks in other
schedulers subsequent to exiting the scheduler.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the Li et al. (US
2006/0250981 Al; Nov. 9, 2006), Hinshaw (US 2004/0205110 Al; Oct. 14,
2004), and Buco et al. (US 2008/0005744 Al; Jan. 3, 2008).
Claims 5, 6, 14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the Li, Hinshaw, Buco, and Lam et al. (US
2003/0088425 Al; May 8, 2003).
2
Appeal 2015-007880
Application 12/131,128
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the Li, Hinshaw, Buco, and Amin (US 2008/0189709 Al;
Aug. 7, 2008).
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the Li, Hinshaw, Buco, and Ly et al. (US 2006/0017969
Al; Jan. 26, 2006).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner describes Li as teaching a “distributed workload
scheduling system” that can automate, plan, and control the processing of
work. Ans. 5 (citing Li || 38-42). Among other findings, the Examiner
finds Li teaches the “tracking a first set of execution contexts” step of claim
1, stating that Li discloses “inducting an execution context through
scheduling of activities (i.e. execution contexts) within [a] scheduler,
tracking the activities and providing results of the activities, such as
successful completion of the execution contexts that are retired.” Ans. 5
(citing Li || 38—42; 49); accord final Act. 5; Ans. 8.
Appellants argue the cited references do not disclose tracking a first
set of execution contexts inducted into a scheduler, tracking a second set of
execution contexts created within the scheduler, and finalizing the scheduler,
as claimed, citing references to “execution contexts” in Specification
paragraphs 21 and 31. Reply Br. 3^4; accord App. Br. 9-10. Specifically,
among other arguments, Appellants argue Li describes data-center
management and provisioning operations, not tracking execution contexts
inducted into a scheduler in a process executing on a computer system.
App. Br. 9.
3
Appeal 2015-007880
Application 12/131,128
Having considered the Examiner’s rejections in view of Appellants’
arguments and the evidence of record, we agree with Appellants.
Appellants’ Specification describes, as context for the claimed invention, a
runtime environment that operates in conjunction with an operating system
and/or resource management layer to allow a process to obtain processor and
other resources of a computer system. Spec. 118; see also Abstract (“A
runtime environment allows a scheduler in a process of a computer system
to be finalized prior to the process completing.”); Spec. H 1—2. As cited by
Appellants (see Reply Br. 4), the Specification describes “execution
contexts” with its description of processes that generate work in tasks, where
each task is associated with an execution context in a scheduler, and “[ejach
execution context forms a thread (or analogous OS [operating system]
concept such as child process) that executes associated tasks on allocated
processing resources” (Spec. 121). Accord Spec. H 1 (“A scheduler may
create execution contexts (e.g., threads, fibers, or child processes) in order to
execute tasks.”), 20 (“Process 12 includes an allocation of processing and
other resources that host one or more execution contexts (viz., threads,
fibers, or child processes)”).
Unlike the scheduler function of a runtime environment that creates a
scheduler in a process to schedule tasks for execution by one or more
hardware threads (Spec. 119), Li describes on a higher-level “[techniques
to initiate and manage a large number of provisioning operations against a
large variety of distributed targets managed by a data center” (Li 138),
including a “workload scheduler” for scheduling activities such as
dispatching and applying a security patch onto a large number of computers
in a peer-to-peer environment at a specified date and time (Li 149). See
4
Appeal 2015-007880
Application 12/131,128
also Li 127 (“the present invention leverages the technologies used by
commercial workload scheduling products to handle the large number of
tasks and targets that must be managed in the process of automating a data
center”) (emphasis added). The Examiner has not explained why,
interpreting claim 1 in light of Appellants’ Specification, a person of
ordinary skill would have understood “tracking a first set execution contexts
inducted into a scheduler in a process executing on a computer system” to
include the cited portions of Li.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 and 3—20, each of which relies on Li for
the disputed limitations.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 3—20.
REVERSED
5