Ex Parte StolyarDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201512801893 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/801,893 06/30/2010 30594 7590 12/16/2015 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, PLC P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Aleksandr Stolyar 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. 29250-002493/US 7939 EXAMINER CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/16/2015 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): dcmailroom@hdp.com gyacura@hdp.com pshaddin@hdp.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEKSANDR STOL Y AR 1 Appeal2013-011023 Application 12/801, 893 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1-5, 13-15, and 18-20.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner has erred. As discussed herein, we concur with 1 Appellant identifies Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Claims 6-12, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but are indicated to be "allowable if rewritten in independent form ... "(Final Act. 2), and are not before us on appeal. Appeal2013-011023 Application 12/801,893 Appellant's contentions the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 13-15, and 18-20, and we reverse. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, are exemplary of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of routing requests within a system having a plurality of server pools, the method comprising: receiving a request at the system; first determining a first value associated with a first request type of the received request, the first value modeling a number of requests of the first request type in a virtual queue; second determining probabilities of routing based on the first value and probabilities of rerouting for further processing, the second determining being peiformed without determining an input rate of received requests of the first request type; and routing the received request to at least one of the plurality of server pools based on the probabilities of routing. 15. A method of controlling a routing system, the method compnsmg: receiving a request having a first request type, the first request type being associated with a first value, the first value modeling a number of requests of the first request type in a virtual queue; updating the first value periodically based on a mean service time to process the request and at least a second value associated with a second request type, the updating being performed without determining an input rate of received requests of the first request type and, the second value modeling a number of requests of the second request type in a virtual queue; and routing the request based on the updating. 2 Appeal2013-011023 Application 12/801,893 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Ahuja Blythe US 6,175,869 Bl US 7 ,207 ,043 B2 REJECTION Jan. 16,2001 Apr. 17, 2007 Claims 1-5, 13-15, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Blythe and Ahuja. (Final Act. 3-12.) ANALYSIS A. Claim 1 The Examiner relies on the combination of Blythe and Ahuja as teaching or suggesting the disputed limitation in claim 1. The Examiner concedes Blythe "does not explicitly cite the claimed determination of probabilities of routing and routing based on the probabilities," but finds "[ w ]ithin Ahuja 's disclosure, it is taught how requests are routed based on a probabilistic routing strategy (probability of routing)." (Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 6-7.) The Examiner further finds "[t]he probabilistic routing strategy can also depend upon chance of server responsiveness and redirecting (rerouting) based on that chance (probability of rerouting)." (Ans. 7 citing Ahuja col. 2, 11. 37-38, col. 3, 1. 11.) Appellant argues, however, that although Ahuja does disclose "a probabilistic routing strategy" (App. Br. 18), and also discloses rerouting requests that were directed to non-responsive servers (App. Br. 18-19), Ahuja does not teach or suggest "determining probabilities of routing based on . .. probabilities of rerouting for further processing," as recited in claim 1 3 Appeal2013-011023 Application 12/801,893 (emphasis added). (App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 4--5.) We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. In particular, we note that rerouting requests (due to, for example, non-responsive servers) according to a probabilistic routing strategy, as disclosed by Ahuja (e.g., col. 3, 11. 10-12), is not the same as determining probabilities of routing "based on ... probabilities of rerouting," as recited in claim 1. Rather, as Appellant correctly notes, Ahuja discloses a probabilistic routing strategy based on average response times, and does not disclose taking into consideration a "probability of rerouting" as part of that routing strategy. (App. Br. 17-18.) To the extent the Examiner's rejection finds the contrary (see Ans. 7), we do not find support for such finding in the disclosure cited by the Examiner. (Ans. 7-8 citing Ahuja col. 2, 11. 22-25, 37-38, col. 3, 1. 11, col. 5, 11. 15, 50-56.) We, therefore, concur the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Blythe and Ahuja teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 or the rejection of claims 2-5, 13, and 14, which depend from claim 1. B. Claim 15 According to its plain language, the disputed limitation in claim 15 requires "updating the first value periodically" based on two considerations-"[ 1] a mean service time to process the request and [2] at least a second value associated with a second request type" (emphasis added). Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to find the cited art discloses "updating the first value periodically" based on both portions of the disputed limitation, focusing in particular on the Examiner's failure to 4 Appeal2013-011023 Application 12/801,893 find the prior art teaches or suggests updating "based on ... at least a second value associated with a second request type." (App. Br. 15-16.) The Examiner relies, however, on a different reading of claim 15, contending "the claim does not clearly indicate what the relationship of the second value and its second request type is to the claimed first value, first request type or pool( s ). It merely indicates that there is some [association]." (Ans. 5 (emphasis added).) We conclude the Examiner's construction of claim 15-which separates the phrase "at least a second value associated with a second request type" out of the "updating" portion of the limitation- is not within the broadest reasonable construction of the claim. We agree with Appellant that claim 15, properly construed, requires "updating the first value periodically based on ... at least a second value associated with a second request type." (App. Br. 16.) The Examiner's findings regarding the teachings of the prior art fall with the Examiner's erroneous claim construction. That is, in light of the unreasonably broad construction of claim 15 adopted by the Examiner as requiring only "some association" between a second request type and a first request type (Ans. 5), the Examiner has not made findings that the cited references teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 15, as properly construed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 15 or the rejection of claims 18-20, which depend from claim 15. 5 Appeal2013-011023 Application 12/801,893 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 13-15, and 18-20 is reversed. REVERSED kis 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation