Ex Parte Wardwell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2014

10529701 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/529,701 03/29/2005 David R. Wardwell 1696.747BS 2061
86636 7590 01/23/2014
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2014 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 DAVID R. WARDWELL
_____________

Appeal 2011-006999
Application 10/529,701
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and JUSTIN BUSCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for collating data received from
a group of non-synchronous nodes. See page 3 of Appellant’s Specification.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-006999
Application 10/529,701

2

1. A method for collating data in a distributed computer
network having non-synchronous compute nodes, said method
comprising:
receiving a plurality of sets of data packets from a plurality of
physically separated non-synchronous compute nodes, wherein
individual ones of said sets of data packets are provided by individual
ones of said non-synchronous compute nodes and wherein individual
ones of the plurality of non-synchronous compute nodes comprise
individual sources of data packets;
inserting said data packets into a software container according
to predetermined rules for determining a logical order for said data
packets;
locating common groups of said data packets within said
software container according to said predetermined rules;
protecting said software container against incomplete groups of
said data packets according to a grouping criteria; and
outputting said data packets in respective logical groups that
represent an aggregate packet from at least two of the non-
synchronous compute nodes after said grouping criteria has been met.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Mann (U.S. 6,957,281 B2) and Turner ( U.S.
6,907,041 B1). Answer 3-71.
ISSUE
Appellant’s arguments on pages 14 through 16 of the Appeal Brief
directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 present us with
the issue: Is the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based upon Mann and

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 3,
2010, Reply Brief dated March 15, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
on January 19, 2011.
Appeal 2011-006999
Application 10/529,701

3

Turner improper because the combination would change the principle
operation of Mann?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner
erred in finding that claims 1 through 12 unpatentable as the combination of
Mann and Turner would change the principle operation of Mann. The
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each of Appellant’s
arguments on pages 8 and 9 of the Answer. We have reviewed the evidence
cited by the Examiner and the Examiner’s rationale to support the finding
that the claims are obvious. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions. Specifically, Appellant’s argument that Mann’s teaching is
limited to aggregating communications by the session (one node to one node
communication) is not persuasive. App. Br. 14-15. As identified by the
Examiner, Mann cites a session identifier as one classification criteria.
Mann also acknowledges that different sessions may share the same session
identifier, which, when combined with the fact that communications may be
aggregated based on session identifiers, demonstrates that more than one
session (more than one node’s communication) may be aggregated. Answer
9; Mann, col. 3, ll. 52-56. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1 through 12.

DECISION
Appeal 2011-006999
Application 10/529,701

4

The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 12 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

gvw