Ex Parte Soejima

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 8, 2016

13148827 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/148,827 08/31/2011
71799 7590 08/10/2016
Mr, Ryoichi Harada
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
SUITE 560
Washington, DC 20037-3213
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kenji Soejima
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.
J-11-0426 4986
EXAMINER
MCLEOD, MARSHALL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
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):
necipca@necam.com
kanako.miyazawa@necam.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KENJI SOEJIMA
Appeal2015-002574
Application 13/148,827
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, THU A. DANG, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 15-17. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention is an application allocation system that executes
applications despite varying resources of an allocation destination. To this
end, an allocation originating server transmits to each allocation candidate
server a resource subscription request indicating an execution condition of
an allocation candidate component group. Each candidate server determines
the executability of each candidate component, and transmits an application
Appeal2015-002574
Application 13/148,827
attendance request indicating an executable allocation candidate component.
See generally Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. An application allocation system comprising:
an allocation originating server; and
an allocation candidate server group communicably
connected to the allocation originating server,
wherein the allocation originating server comprises:
an application interpretation section configured to obtain
an execution condition of each component included in a
component group as application information when an
application including the component group is registered;
a resource subscription request transmission section
configured to determine the component group having
possibility that the component group becomes allocated as an
allocation candidate component group for each allocation
candidate server included in the allocation candidate server
group, and generate a resource subscription request which
indicates an execution condition of the allocation candidate
component group and transmit the resource subscription request
to said each allocation candidate server; and
a resource monitoring section configured to determine an
allocation destination server of said each component from the
allocation candidate server group,
wherein said each allocation candidate server comprises
an attendance determination section configured to determine
whether each allocation candidate component included in the
allocation candidate component group is executable or not
when the resource subscription request is obtained, and transmit
an application attendance request which represents the
allocation candidate component determined as executable as an
attendance object component to the allocation originating
server, and
the resource monitoring section is configured to
determine the allocation destination server based on the
application attendance request,
wherein the application attendance request is transmitted
as part of an operation sequence triggered by the registration of
the application,
2
Appeal2015-002574
Application 13/148,827
wherein the components are distributed among the
allocation candidate servers based on abilities of the allocation
candidate servers, such that no allocation candidate server is
provided with one of the components that the allocation
candidate server is unable to process.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sonoda (US 2009/0172168 Al; July 2, 2009),
Fukushima (JP 2004-326452 A; Nov. 18, 2004), and Oertig (US
2007/0050484 Al; Mar. 1, 2007). Ans. 3-12. 1
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Sonoda and Fukushima collectively teach or
suggest every recited element of claim 1 except for ( 1) transmitting an
application attendance request as part of an operation sequence triggered by
application registration, and (2) distributing components among allocation
candidate servers based on their abilities, such that no such server is
provided with a component that it is unable to process. Ans. 4--6. The
Examiner, however, cites Oertig as teaching or suggesting these features in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 6-7.
In reaching this conclusion, the Examiner's rejection initially equates
Oertig' s job-related information in paragraph 46 to the recited registration,
and Oertig's received configuration information to the recited candidate
server abilities. Ans. 6. But in the Answer's Response to Arguments
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 15, 2014
("Br.") and the Examiner's Answer mailed October 23, 2014 ("Ans.").
3
Appeal2015-002574
Application 13/148,827
section, the Examiner cites different passages from Oertig in connection
with these elements. For the recited registration, the Examiner cites (1) data
stored in Oertig' s main server database 22 that is used to manage virtual
client environments and associated application instances in paragraph 26,
and (2) the application manager's list of applications in paragraph 31. Ans.
13-14. For the recited candidate server abilities, the Examiner cites Oertig's
main server dispatching applications to client-based candidate servers based
on their abilities, namely with respect to their attributes and CPU usage
statistics. Ans. 15 (citing Oertig i-f 31 ).
Appellant argues that the Examiner's reliance on Oertig'sjob-related
information as corresponding to application registration in the rejection is
flawed because the claim requires registering the application in the
allocation originating server-not the destination server 54 under the
Examiner's mapping. Br. 9. Appellant adds that Oertig's received
configuration information does not correspond to allocation candidate server
abilities as the Examiner contends because the information pertains to an
instantiated application-not the candidate servers' abilities. Br. 9-10.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Sonoda, Fukushima, and Oertig collectively would have taught or
suggested (1) transmitting an application attendance request as part of an
operation sequence triggered by application registration, and (2) distributing
components among allocation candidate servers based on their abilities, such
that no such server is provided with a component that it is unable to process?
4
Appeal2015-002574
Application 13/148,827
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that the Examiner's findings based on Sonoda and
Fukushima (Ans. 4--5) are undisputed, as is the cited references'
combinability. Rather, this dispute turns solely on whether the Examiner
erred in relying on Oertig for teaching the last two clauses of claim 1 noted
in our issue statement. Accordingly, we confine our discussion to Oertig.
We also note that the particular passages in Oertig cited in the
rejection differ from those cited in the Answer's Response to Arguments as
noted above. Compare Ans. 6 (citing Oertig i-f 46) with Ans. 13-15 (citing
Oertig i-fi-126 and 31 ). Nevertheless, Appellant did not petition this
procedural inconsistency, and did not file a Reply Brief addressing these
new findings.
As such, Appellant does not substantively address---or persuasively
rebut-the Examiner's reliance on ( 1) data stored in Oertig' s main server
database 22 that is used to manage virtual client environments and
associated application instances in paragraph 26, and (2) the application
manager's list of applications in Oertig's paragraph 31 for at least suggesting
the recited application registration. Ans. 13-14. Nor does Appellant
persuasively rebut the Examiner's reliance on Oertig's main server
dispatching applications to client-based candidate servers based on their
abilities, namely with respect to their attributes and CPU usage statistics, for
at least suggesting the recited candidate server abilities. Ans. 15 (citing
Oertig i-f 31 ). Although Appellant's arguments pertain to the alleged
shortcomings of the Examiner's findings regarding Oertig' s paragraph 46,
the arguments do not address-let alone persuasively rebut-the Examiner's
5
Appeal2015-002574
Application 13/148,827
findings regarding Oertig' s paragraphs 26 and 31 on pages 13 to 15 of the
Answer.
In short, these latter findings have at least a rational basis that has not
been persuasively rebutted. Accordingly, the weight of the evidence on this
record favors the Examiner's position.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2-9, 11, 13, and 15-17 not argued separately with
particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 15-17
under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-9, 11, 13, and 15-17 is
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6