Jonathan MooreDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 5, 20212020002920 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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. 12/470,567 05/22/2009 Jonathan T. Moore 007412.00251 4134 71867 7590 10/05/2021 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER MAI, KEVIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/05/2021 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): PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JONATHAN T. MOORE ____________________ Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 35 through 50, and 52 through 54. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2019). According to Appellant, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed invention relates to providing a web service on a network of addressable nodes, said web service comprising a plurality of discrete, individually-addressable microservices. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method comprising: distributing an application to a plurality of addressable nodes by at least deploying, for execution by the plurality of addressable nodes, a plurality of instances of an addressable discrete service, wherein the addressable discrete service is addressable using a network address different from addresses of the plurality of addressable nodes, and wherein execution of each of the plurality of instances provides a function of the application; receiving, by a load balancer and from a physical node, a request that comprises the network address of the addressable discrete service; forwarding, by the load balancer and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to a node from the plurality of addressable nodes; forwarding, by the node and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to an instance of the plurality of instances; executing, by the node, the instance to perform the function of the application and to generate a reply to the request; and sending, to the physical node, the reply. Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 3 EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejects claims 1, 35 through 50, and 52 through 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to meet the written description requirement. Final Act. 5. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 36, 39, 44, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lemon (US 2005/0166180 A1, pub. July 28, 2005) and Pisharody (US 2008/0263209 A1, pub. Oct. 23, 2008). Final Act. 6–12. The Examiner rejects claims 35, 37, 38, 49, 50, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lemon, Pisharody, and Tian (US 2008/0313649 A1, pub. Dec. 18, 2008). Final Act. 12–22. The Examiner rejects claims 40 through 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lemon, Pisharody, and Prasad (US 7,908,358 B1, iss. Mar. 15, 2011). Final Act. 12–22. The Examiner rejects claims 52 and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lemon, Pisharody, Tian, and Prasad. Final Act. 26–30. The Examiner rejects claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lemon, Pisharody, and Zenz (US 2007/0157172 A1, pub. July 5, 2007). Final Act. 30–31. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed September 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 9, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); Final Office Action mailed April 25, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 10, 2020 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 4 The Examiner rejects claims 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined teachings of Lemon, Pisharody, and Brown (US 2005/0198335 A1, pub. Sept. 8, 2005). Final Act. 31–32. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, Reply Brief, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph and under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph The Examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as “[t]he independent claims recite ‘forwarding, by the node and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to an instance of the plurality of instances’” and the Specification does not demonstrate Appellant had possession of this limitation. Final Act. 5. Appellant argues that the Specification describes particular microservices may be addressed to a virtual address associated with the microservice and that the request is forwarded to a physical node. Appeal Br. 8–9 (citing Spec. Fig. 2, ¶¶ 34, 42, 46–50). Further, Appellant points out that the load balancer, in the specific node with the microservice, uses the virtual address associated with the microservice forwarded to a physical node. Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Spec. Fig. 2, ¶¶ 40, 42, 46–50). The Examiner responds to Appellant’s arguments stating: Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 5 paragraph [0046] of appellant’s specification recites “it forwards a request for a microservice to any port on which a copy of that microservice is active (e.g., using host :port addressing to identify the host and port on the host).” Thus, the request for a microservice is forwarded to the microservice using host:port addressing. As understood by the examiner, the host is the node on which the microservice resides (Paragraph [0039] of appellant’s specification recites “A node may be, for example, a data circuit-terminating equipment, such as a modem, hub, bridge or switch, or a data terminal equipment, such as a digital telephone handset, a printer or a host computer). As such, the request for the microservice is forwarded using the address of the node rather than the network address of the addressable discrete service. The claim further recites “wherein the addressable discrete service is addressable using a network address different from addresses of the plurality of addressable nodes” and accordingly the network address of the addressable discrete service is different from the host address/node address. Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Initially, we note that the Examiner’s written description rejection identifies a limitation from claim 1 which is not identically recited in independent claims 49 and 53. Nonetheless, all three independent claims recite a limitation directed to a node (one of the plurality of addressable nodes which implements an instance of an addressable discrete service), forwarding to the instance, a request to execute the instance, using the “network address of the addressable discrete service” (which is different from the “address of the node”). We concur with the Examiner that Appellant’s Specification identifies that the nodes (Fig. 1, item 106) are the claimed nodes which implement the individual instances (Fig. 1, item 105) and that Appellant’s Specification identifies that the node (via the second Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 6 load balancer, Fig. 2, item 202) uses host:port addressing to forward the request to the claimed “individual instances” (active microservice Fig. 2, item 203). However, paragraph 46 of Appellant’s Specification also identifies that the load balancer uses the virtual IP address (claimed “network address of the addressable discrete service”) to determine the port of the microservice. The independent claims do not identify that the “network address of the addressable discrete service” is the only address used to forward the request and thus, the Specification’s description of using the virtual IP address to determine the host:port address of the active microservice (claimed “individual instances”) demonstrates that Appellant’s possessed the disputed limitation of the claimed invention. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 35 through 50, and 52 through 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to meet the written description requirement. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Independent claim 1 Appellant argues the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1 is in error as the Examiner has not shown that the combination of Lemon and Pisharody teach: forwarding, by the load balancer and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to a node from the plurality of addressable nodes; [and] forwarding, by the node and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to an instance of the plurality of instances. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant argues that Pisharody, the reference the Examiner relies upon to teach the disputed limitation, teaches using a virtual IP address Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 7 (Fig. 1, address 10.1.1.251) to forward a request to a dispatcher and a different address (Fig. 1, address, 10.1.1.211– 10.1.1.241) to forward to the request to the nodes which implement the virtual service (Fig. 1, SP-1 through SP-N). Appeal Br. 16–18 (citing Fig. 1, Pisharody ¶¶ 23, 25). The Examiner finds that Pisharody teaches a load balancer that uses a virtual IP address to forward the request to the nodes. Final Act. 9 (citing Pisharody ¶ 25). Further, the Examiner finds that Pisharody, in paragraph 23, teaches the node using the VIP address to forward the request to the instance. Final Act. 9. The Examiner, in response to Appellant’s arguments identifies that Pisharody’s teaching of using a unique virtual IP address with respect to microservice, is consistent with Appellant’s Specification which teaches each request is forwarded to the address of the node rather than the addressable discrete service. Ans. 4–6 (citing Spec. ¶ 46). Further, the Examiner states: Pisharody discloses for each group of the identical virtual services (hosted on individual cluster units), a dispatcher virtual LP address (VIP) tied to a cluster group (so that this cluster group represents a set of equivalent virtual sites serving the same purpose but hosted on multiple nodes) is configured on each node 30 which represents the entire group of internal virtual services. Notably this address is configured on each node, and accordingly routing by these nodes for this virtual address, use this virtual address. Ans. 6 (citing Pisharody ¶ 23) (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Claim 1 recites that forwarding, by the load balancer and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to a node from the plurality of addressable nodes and forwarding by the node, using Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 8 the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to an instance of the plurality of instances of the function. Thus, the claim recites that the same address, the address of the addressable discrete service, is used to forward the request to the node and by the node to the instance of the function. The Examiner’s discussion of Pisharody discussed above appears to equate the unique virtual IP address (VIP) in Pisharody with the “network address of the addressable discrete service” of claim 1. We agree with the Examiner that this address is used to route the request to a node (item 30 in Pisharody’s Fig. 1), however the Examiner has not shown that this same address is used by both the load balancer to forward the request to the node and by the node to forward the request to the instance. The cited portions of Pisharody which the Examiner relies upon to teach the node using the VIP to forward the request to the instance (discussed in ¶ 23 and depicted in Fig. 1), is a different embodiment than that used to teach the load balancer using the VIP to forward the request to the node (described in ¶ 25, and depicted in Fig. 2); and the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the embodiments is taught or suggested. Further, in as much as the unique addresses of the instances (see, e.g., Fig. 1 address, 10.1.1.211– 10.1.1.241 in both Figs. 1 & 2) are similar to the host:port address, discussed in paragraph 42 of Appellant’s Specification, the claim is not met as the claim recites both the load balancer and the node using the address of the discrete service (equated to the VIP), where the cited teachings of Pisharody, only teach one or the other using the VIP. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims 36, 39, 44, and 48 based upon Lemon and Pisharody. Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 9 Independent claim 49 Appellant’s argue the Examiner’s rejection of claim 49 is in error as the combination of Lemon, Pisharody, and Tian does not teach “forwarding, to a node of the plurality of addressable nodes and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, a first Hypertext Transfer Request (HTTP) request that comprises the network address of the addressable discrete service; [and] forwarding, to an instance of the plurality of instances and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the first HTTP request to cause execution of the instance at the node” as recited in claim 49. Appeal Br. 20–21. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection is in error for the same reasons as asserted with respect to claim 1 and because the additional teachings of Tian do not make up for the deficiency asserted in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 49, relies upon Pisharody to teach the disputed limitations of using the address of the addressable discrete service to forward a request to both the node and then to the instance at the node, relying on the same teaching in Pisharody discussed above with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 17. The Examiner separately addressed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, as they apply to claim 49. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 49. Claim 49 differs from claim 1 in that claim 49 does not identify a load balancer, nonetheless, claim 49 recites a limitation of forwarding a request to a node using the address of the addressable discrete service, and also the node forwarding the request to the instance on the node using the address of the addressable discrete service. Similar to our Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 10 discussion above of claim 1, the cited portions of Pisharody which the Examiner relies upon to teach the node forwarding the request to the instance, using the VIP (discussed in ¶ 23 and depicted in Fig. 1), is a different embodiment than that used to teach forwarding the request to the node using the VIP (described in ¶ 25, and depicted in Fig. 2), and the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the embodiments is taught or suggested. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 49, and dependent claims 35, 37, 38, and 50, based upon Lemon and Pisharody and Tian. Independent claim 53 Appellant’s argue the Examiner’s rejection of claim 53 is in error as the combination of Lemon, Pisharody, and Tian do not teach “forwarding, to a node of the plurality of addressable nodes and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request; [and] forwarding, by the node, to an instance of the addressable discrete service and using the network address of the addressable discrete service, the request to cause execution of the instance by the node” as recited in claim 53. Appeal Br. 21–22. Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection is in error for the same reasons as asserted with respect to claim 1 and because the additional teachings of Tian do not make up for the deficiency asserted in the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 21. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 53, relies upon Pisharody to teach the disputed limitations of using the address of the addressable discrete service to forward a request to both the node and then to the instance at the node, relying the same teaching in Pisharody discussed above with respect to Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 11 claim 1. Final Act. 21. The Examiner separately addressed Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, as they apply to claim 53. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 53. Claim 53 is similar to claims 1 and 49 discussed above in that it recites forwarding a request to a node using the address of the addressable discrete service, and also the node forwarding the request to the instance on the node using the address of the addressable discrete service. Similar to our discussion above of claims 1 and 49, the cited portions of Pisharody which the Examiner relies upon to teach these limitations rely upon two different embodiments, and the Examiner has not shown that the combination of the embodiments is taught or suggested. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 53 based upon Lemon and Pisharody and Tian. Dependent claims 40 through 43, 45 through 47, 52, and 54. The Examiner has not shown that the additional references relied upon in the obviousness rejections of these claims remedy the deficiencies in the rejection of independent claims 1, 49, and 53. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of these claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 49, and 53. Appeal 2020-002920 Application 12/470,567 12 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 35–50, 52–54 112, first paragraph Written Description 1, 35–50, 52–54 1, 36, 39, 44, 48 103(a) Lemon, Pisharody 1, 36, 39, 44, 48 35, 37, 38, 49, 50, 53 103(a) Lemon, Pisharody, Tian 35, 37, 38, 49, 50, 53 40–43 103(a) Lemon, Pisharody, Prasad 40–43 52, 54 103(a) Lemon, Pisharody, Tian, Prasad 52, 54 45 103(a) Lemon, Pisharody, Zenz 45 46, 47 103(a) Lemon, Pisharody, Brown 46, 47 Overall Outcome 1, 35–50, 52–54 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation