Ex Parte Trammel et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 18, 201612101927 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/101,927 04/1112008 121363 7590 02/22/2016 Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. (Adobe Systems Incorporated) Intellectual Property Department 2555 Grand Blvd Kansas City, MO 64108 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Trammel 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. 2055.161US1 9189 EXAMINER MADAMBA, GLENFORD J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2451 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2016 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): IPDOCKET@SHB.COM IPRCDKT@SHB.COM kspringer@shb.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN TRAMMEL and MIKE DELAURENTIS Appeal2014-002801 Application 12/101,927 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and STACY B. MARGOLIES, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATE1\1ENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 24. We reverse. INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a system to provide Internet services that re-directs the user to a server cluster allocated to that user. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of providing online services from more than one computer cluster, said method comprising: accepting a registration for online services from a first customer, said registration comprising a first set of information about said first customer; Appeal2014-002801 Application 12/101,927 processing said first set of information about said first customer with an allocation rule set to determine a subset of computer clusters from said more than one computer clusters, the first set of information about said first customer including data representative of an account and the allocation rule set includes a rule to determine the subset of computer clusters based at least in part on the data representative of the account; selecting a first computer cluster from said subset of computer clusters using an allocation heuristic, the allocation heuristic selecting the first computer cluster based on the first computer cluster having a highest ratio of computing resources to user accounts amongst the subset of computer clusters; assigning said first customer to said first computer cluster, the first computer cluster to provide the online services to the first customer; storing a representation of the assignment of the first customer to the first computer cluster in a database, the representation instructing a front-end server to route, based on the stored representation, online service requests originating from the first customer to the first computer cluster; and routing future online service requests received from the first customer to the first computer cluster based on the stored representation in the database. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 7 through 11, 15 through 19, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heinson (US 2008/0320003 Al; Dec. 25, 2008), Chang (US 2008/0177839 Al; Jul. 24, 2008), Primak (US 2001/0039585 Al; Nov. 8, 2001), Thubert (US 7,328,237 Bl; Feb. 5, 2008), and Asano (US 2005/0262508 Al; Nov. 24, 2005). Answer 3-14. 1 1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 1, 2013) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief (filed Dec. 23, 2013) ("Reply Br."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 25, 2013) ("Answer"). 2 Appeal2014-002801 Application 12/101,927 The Examiner has rejected claims 4 through 6, 12 through 14, and 20 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable Heinson, Chang, Primak, Thubert, Asano, and Basoglu (US 2004/0073639 Al; Apr. 15, 2004). Answer 14-16. ANALYSIS Appellants have presented several arguments directed to the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. App Br. 8-18. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Heinson, Chang, Primak, Thubert, and Asano teaches at a time of registration for online services, assigning a customer to a computer cluster that will provide online services to the customer using a two-step assignment process and then routing future online service requests from the first customer to the first computer cluster according to the assignment as recited in each of independent claims 1, 9, and l 7. Appellants argue that Heinson, which the Examiner relies upon to teach the two-step assignment feature, relates to the routing of customer requests to clusters and not to the assignment of customers to clusters in a two-step process as claimed. App. Br. 12-15. In response, the Examiner finds the step of assignment using a rule set is met by Heinson' s teaching of an embodiment in which a user requests a Web page and the domain name service uses a lookup engine to determine the cluster based upon location. Answer 19-21 (citing Heinson Figs. 1, 2a, 2c, 3, 8-10, and paras. 27-31 and 52). The Examiner finds that the second step of the claimed assignment-using an allocation heuristic-is met by Heinson's further discrete teaching of a load balancing system. Answer 21-22 (citing Heinson para. 50). Finally, the Examiner finds that 3 Appeal2014-002801 Application 12/101,927 the limitation directed to storing the assignment for later routing is taught by Heinson. Answer 22-23 (citing Henson Fig 2c, 4, 5a, 5b, and para's 49-50). We have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments and the evidence cited by the Examiner, and we disagree with the Examiner's findings that Heinson teaches the disputed "processing ... with an allocation rule set to determine a subset of computer clusters" and "selecting a first computer cluster ... using an allocation heuristic" claim limitations. Specifically, while we concur with the Examiner that Heinson teaches that an assignment of customers to clusters is saved in a table and used for routing (see, e.g., lookup tables of Figs. 2A and 2B), the Examiner has not cited sufficient evidence to show that the assignment is created using both the allocation rule set and allocation heuristics as claimed. Thus, Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1 through 24 under DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 24 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation