Ex Parte SHAH et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 201612910057 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2016) 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. 12/910,057 10/22/2010 Hemal SHAH 2875.3950001 7249 49579 7590 08/23/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 EXAMINER DAILEY, THOMAS J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2016 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 HEMAL SHAH, SIMON ASSOUAD and VINOD LAKHANI ____________ Appeal 2015-000882 Application 12/910,057 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2015-000882 Application 12/910,057 2 Representative Claims 1. A system for providing a processing service to a client by a computer system that includes a host processor, comprising: a secondary processor configured to perform the processing service; a policy manager configured to control interaction between the secondary processor and the host processor; a service provider configured to provide the processing service to the client when the host processor is unavailable to perform the processing service; and a host-state monitor to monitor state of the host processor, wherein the secondary processor operation is based on the state of the host processor. Prior Art Eisenhauer US 2007/0033366 A1 Feb. 8, 2007 Zimmer US 2009/0006859 A1 Jan. 1, 2009 Hsieh US 5,883,640 Mar. 16, 1999 Gibbs US 2003/0114152 A1 June 19, 2003 Kiley US 2008/0189360 A1 Aug. 7, 2008 Yoon US 2005/0071668 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Eisenhauer. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisenhauer and Zimmer. Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisenhauer and Hsieh. Appeal 2015-000882 Application 12/910,057 3 Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisenhauer and Gibbs. Claim 15–17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisenhauer and Kiley. Claim 5–9 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eisenhauer and Yoon. ANALYSIS We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final Rejection and Examiner’s Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis. Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 18–20 Appellants contend Eisenhauer’s SAN device selection does not describe that the secondary processor operation is based on the state of the host processor, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 4–5. Paragraph 34 of Eisenhauer describes selecting “SAN devices to use to support the execution of the application based on the current state of the SAN and current utilization of the devices,” such as selecting the most currently underutilized device to execute the application. Selecting the most underutilized device is “based on the state of the” other host processors having a greater state of utilization within the meaning of claim 1. Appellants further contend Eisenhauer does not describe providing the processing service to the client when the host processor is unavailable to perform the processing service, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 15–16; Appeal 2015-000882 Application 12/910,057 4 Reply Br. 7. The Examiner finds Eisenhauer discloses selecting an available processor to execute an application when another processor is otherwise unavailable. Ans. 5–6. We agree with the Examiner. When one processor is utilized, and another is underutilized, paragraphs 31–34 of Eisenhauer disclose selecting the underutilized processor to execute the application, or “provide the processing service to the client,” which overcomes the problem caused when the utilized processor is busy or otherwise unavailable as disclosed in paragraph 8. Appellants further contend Eisenhauer does not describe controlling interaction between the secondary processor and the host processor, as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 9–10. Paragraphs 31 and 32 of Eisenhauer describe executing an application on either a first host processor or a second host processor, where the application always has access to the same storage devices regardless of which host processor executes the application. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish “controlling interaction between the secondary processor and the host processor,” as recited in claim 1, from controlling the interaction of two processors to access the same storage devices so that the application always accesses its data regardless of which host processor executes the application as disclosed by Eisenhauer. Appellants further contend Eisenhauer does not describe the secondary processor using a first connection to the client that is different from a second connection to the client that is used by the host processor, as recited in claim 2. See App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 12. Eisenhauer describes a first host processor using a first HBA and a second, different host processor using a second, different HBA in Paragraphs 31 and 32. Appellants have not Appeal 2015-000882 Application 12/910,057 5 provided persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed secondary processor using a first connection to the client that is different from a second connection to the client that is used by the host processor is distinguished from or does not include Eisenhauer’s two different host processors utilizing two different HBAs. We sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19, as well as dependent claims 2, 4, 10, 11, 18, and 20, under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Section 103 rejections of claims 3, 5–9, and 12–17 Appellants have not presented arguments for patentability for claims 3, 5–9, and 12–17. See App. Br. 19. We sustain the rejections of claims 3, 5–9, and 12–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation