Ex Parte Talwar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12795191 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121795,191 06/07/2010 Vanish TALWAR
56436 7590 06/02/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82263176 1479
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, STEVEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VANISH TALW AR, SUSANTA ADHIKARY,
JEFFREY R. HILLAND, KANNAN VIDHY A, V. PRASHANTH, and
KS SANDEEP 1
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795, 191
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 4--16, and 18-20. Claims 2, 3, and 17 have been canceled. Final
Act. 2. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795, 191
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to managing a network system using
"a computation-communication graph and a computational architecture
combining monitoring and scalable analysis." Spec. i-f 11. In a disclosed
approach, metrics (e.g., bandwidth, throughput, and latency) are taken and
may be used to determine the computational architecture of a zone of nodes
to be implemented. Spec. i-f 16, Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A method for managing a network system, the method
compnsmg:
collecting, by a processor, metrics for a plurality of nodes in the
network system;
determining, by the processor, a plurality of zones including the
plurality of nodes based on the metrics for the network system; and
for each zone of the plurality of zones, determining a
computational architecture to be implemented for the zone based on
the metrics for each node of the plurality of nodes in the zone,
wherein the computational architecture to be implemented for
each zone comprises one of a single-hierarchy architecture, a multi-
hierarchy architecture, and a peer-to-peer architecture, and
wherein at least some of the zones of the plurality of zones
implement different computational architectures simultaneously.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1, 4--16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Abu-Ghazaleh et al. (US 2009/0083390 Al;
Mar. 26, 2009) ("Abu-Ghazaleh"); Economy et al. (US 2008/0096503 Al;
2
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795, 191
Apr. 24, 2008) ("Economy"); and Chatle et al. (US 2007/0073883 Al;
Mar. 29, 2007) ("Chafle"). Final Act. 2-10.
Issue on Appeal2
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of references teaches
or reasonably suggests "determining a computational architecture to be
implemented for the zone based on the metrics for each node of the plurality
of nodes in the zone ... wherein at least some of the zones of the plurality of
zones implement different computational architectures simultaneously," as
recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS3
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Economy teaches, inter alia,
"determining a computational architecture to be implemented for the zone
based on the metrics for each node of the plurality of nodes in the zone," as
recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Economy i-f 25). The Examiner
further finds Chafle teaches a computational architecture comprising one of
a single-hierarchy architecture, multi-hierarchy architecture, and a peer-to-
peer architecture and that "at least some of the zones of the plurality of
2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address
additional, non-dispositive issues raised by Appellants' arguments.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
October 8, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed March 24, 2014 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed on February 6, 2014 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed on May 8, 2013, from which this
Appeal is taken.
3
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795, 191
zones implement different computational architectures simultaneously."
Final Act. 4 (citing Chafle i-fi-f 14, 28, 32, 35, 46, and 54).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because, at least, Economy
does not teach determining a computational architecture to be implemented
based on the metrics of the nodes in the zone and Chafle only teaches one
type of topology (de-centralized) and does not teach a single- or multi-
hierarchy architecture. App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 4--8. In particular,
Appellants argue Economy teaches re-associating a remote site to other
zones (zone controllers), but that the architecture of the zone is unchanged.
App. Br. 9. As discussed infra, we find Appellants' arguments persuasive of
Examiner error.
Economy teaches "dynamically re-associating remote sites among
multiple zone controllers." Economy, Abstract. Figure 2 of Economy is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
4
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795,191
FIG,2
Figure 2 of Economy illustrates a communication system with a
plurality of zones. Economy i-f 10. Economy discloses "each of the remote
sites 240-250 is also capable of being dynamically re-associated, via the IP
network, with at least one zone controller other than the zone controller with
which it is currently associated." Economy i-f 25. As an example, remote
site 240, which is illustrated as being associated with Zone Controller 212,
could be re-associated to Zone Controller 222 or Zone Controller 232. See
Economy i-f 25.
5
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795, 191
Whether the zone of Economy is simply comprised of a Zone
Manager, Zone Controller and Core Router (as Appellants contend (see App.
Br. 9), or whether Economy reasonably suggests Appellants' claimed zone,
which includes a plurality of remote sites (i.e., nodes), we agree with
Appellants that "the architectures of the zones do not change." App. Br. 9.
Although the Examiner finds the "topology of the system [(in Economy)] to
be dynamically altered," the Examiner acknowledges "Economy utilizes a
single hierarchy architecture." Ans. 11-12. Thus, we agree with Appellants
that "the computational architecture for each zone [(in Economy)] is always
a single hierarchy architecture and no determination is made as to what
architecture is to be implemented for a zone especially based on the metrics
for that zone." Reply Br. 6.
Further, we agree with Appellants that Chafle, as relied upon and as
articulated by the Examiner, teaches a de-centralized topology with different
messaging patterns. App. Br. 10. As illustrated in Figures 2A-2D of
Chafle, a plurality of service partitions are arranged in a peer-to-peer
architecture. See Chafle Figs. 2A-2D. The Examiner does not identify
sufficient evidence of a single- or multi-hierarchy architecture in Chafle.
Thus, the combined teachings of Economy and Chafle do not teach the
disputed limitations, as applied by the Examiner.
For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. For similar
reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims
16 and 20, which recite similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4--15, 18, and 19.
6
Appeal2014-005833
Application 12/795, 191
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 4--16, and 18-
20.
REVERSED
7