Ex Parte Zembutsu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2015

12746591 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121746,591 06/07/2010
71799 7590 12/22/2015
Mr, Ryoichi Harada
2100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
SUITE 560
Washington, DC 20037-3213
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hajime Zembutsu
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-10-0216 9938
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MOHAMMED R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/22/2015 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):
necipca@necam.com
Yuki.Kandathil@necam.com
Ayano.Reid@necam.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAJIME ZEMBUTSU
Appeal2014-000258
Application 12/746,591
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 28-33. Claims 1-27 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-000258
Application 12/746,591
STATEMENT OF THE fNVENTION
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a node system,
server switching method, server apparatus, and data takeover method
(Abstract). Claim 28, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
28. A server apparatus comprising:
a storage device that stores data synchronized to data of a
preceding active server apparatus in a node system that
comprises a plurality of active server apparatuses connected in
cascade such that data synchronized to data of a preceding
active server apparatus is stored in a subsequent active server
apparatus, and a standby server apparatus that stores data
synchronized to data of a last active server apparatus; and
a processor responsive to a failure occurring in said
preceding active server apparatus, or responsive to a request
made from said preceding active server apparatus that causes a
subsequent server apparatus to take over a service so far
provided by said server apparatus itself, and thereafter taking
over a service so far provided by said preceding active server
apparatus using data synchronized to data of said preceding
active server apparatus and stored in said storage device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Koning
Cox
US 2003/0005350 Al
US 2008/0162845 Al
2
Jan.2,2003
July 3, 2008
Appeal2014-000258
Application 12/746,591
REJECTION
Claims 28-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Koning and Cox (Final Act. 3-10).
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
ISSUE
35 US.C. § 103(a): Claims 28-33
Appellant asserts the invention is not obvious over Koning and Cox
(App. Br. 3-5). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Koning
and Cox teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 2 8 and
commensurately recited in claim 31?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant's conclusions and adopt as our own:
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief. With respect to the
claims argued by Appellant, we highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal2014-000258
Application 12/746,591
Appellant argues the Examiner has not shown or explained why "if
one standby server can be assigned to one server, [then] it can also be
assigned to plural servers as in the claimed invention" (App. Br. 4).
Appellant further argues Koning does not teach this feature as Koning
suggests a server group including two servers, one being the active server
and the other being the standby server (id.).
We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Koning and Cox
teaches a standby server apparatus, as recited (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3-5).
Appellant further argues Koning suggests the active server notifies the
standby server when the active server is no longer active and the standby
server then takes over, i.e., when the active server fails, the standby server
takes over (id. at 4--5). However, Appellant contends, Koning does not
teach or suggest rollover of handling servers - a service previously handled
by a server apparatus is handled by a subsequent server, and a second
service previously handled by a prior server is handled by the server
apparatus (id. at 5).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Initially, we note
Appellant's own Specification uses the terms "subsequent server" and
"standby server" interchangeably (Spec. i-f 83). Further, claim 28 recites:
A processor ... that causes a subsequent server apparatus to take over
a service so far provided by said server apparatus itself, and thereafter
taking over a service so far provided by said preceding active server
apparatus using data synchronized to data of said preceding active
server apparatus and stored in said storage device, (emphasis added).
We note the recitation is unclear as to which server apparatus "said server
apparatus itself' refers. Specifically, it is unclear as to whether this
4
Appeal2014-000258
Application 12/746,591
recitation refers to the subsequent server apparatus, the preceding active
server apparatus, the standby server apparatus, the last active server
apparatus, one of the plurality of active server apparatuses, or some other
server apparatus. The recitation of claim 31 has a similar recitation of "said
server apparatus itself." Thus, we determine the Examiner's findings are not
in error when taking a broad, but reasonable, interpretation of the claim
limitation. Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner's findings that
Koning discloses the recited processor are in error (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4--5).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Koning and Cox teaches or suggests the limitations as
recited in independent claims 28 and 31. Dependent claims 29, 30, 32, and
33 were not separately argued and thus, fall with their respective
independent claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 28-33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Koning and Cox.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 28-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Koning and Cox 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
gvw
5