WANG, JU et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 10, 2020

13366039 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2020)

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.
13/366,039 02/03/2012 JU WANG 334635.01/MFCP.164796 5496
45809 7590 02/10/2020
SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
(MICROSOFT TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC)
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
2555 GRAND BOULEVARD
KANSAS CITY, MO 64108-2613
EXAMINER
LEE, PHILIP C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/10/2020 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
docket.shb@clarivate.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JU WANG, BRADLEY GENE CALDER, and
ARILD E. SKJOLSVOLD
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–10, 12–19, 21, and 22. Appeal Br. 3.
Claims 11 and 20 are canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed February 3, 2012 (“Spec.”); Final
Office Action, mailed September 1, 2017 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
April 2, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 26,
2018 (“Ans.”); and Reply Brief, filed November 15, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as MICROSOFT
TECHNOLOGY LICENSING, LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to managing partitions in a scalable
environment. Spec., Title. Claims 1 and 9, reproduced below with
bracketed reference labels added and disputed limitations emphasized in
italics, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for performing computations in a distributed
computing environment, comprising:
[(i)] receiving one or more application-defined
partitioning system interfaces;
[(ii)] creating a plurality of master role instances
including the one or more application-defined partitioning
system interfaces, the master role instances corresponding
to a master storage object;
[(iii)] assigning a lease for the master storage object, each
master role instance competing for the lease, the master
role instance that is assigned the lease being the dictator
master role instance;
[(iv)] assigning, by the dictator master role instance, a
group of partitions to a plurality of partition servers;
[(v)] performing one or more computations
corresponding to an application using the plurality of
partition servers;
[(vi)] receiving, by the dictator master role instance, a
message from a first partition server comprising partitions
the first partition server reports to be currently serving; and
[(vii)] breaking, by the dictator master role instance, a
lease of the first partition server on a corresponding first
storage object, the breaking of the lease of the first
partition server being at the first partition server
responsive to detecting, by the dictator master role
instance, that the first partition server is currently serving
at least one partition the partition server should not
currently be serving as indicated by a conflict between one
or more partitions assigned to the first partition server in
a partition table and the partitions in the received
message.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
3
9. A method for performing computations m a distributed
computing environment, comprising:
[(i)] executing a computation comprising at least two
namespaces and at least two master role instances, each
master role instance corresponding to a different
namespace, each master role instance being the dictator
for a corresponding namespace and holding a dictator
lease on a master storage object for the corresponding
namespace, the master role instances instantiating a
common master module and common fixed-interfaces,
while each being of a different master role and having
a different application-defined interface;
[(ii)] assigning a machine that provides failover service
for the master role instances and comprises a backup
used for each master role instance of the master role
instances in response to a failure event being detected
for the master role instance, the backup including the
common master module and the common fixed-
interfaces;
[(iii)] in response to detecting a failover event for a master
role instance of the master role instances:
[(iv)] incorporating the different application-defined
interface of the master role instance, needed by the
backup on the assigned machine to take over for the
master role instance, into the backup; and
[(v)] assigning the backup comprising the common fixed
interfaces and the incorporated different application-
defined interface as the dictator for the namespace
corresponding to the failover event.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Powers US 20040203378 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Nakahara US 2005/0193227 A1 Sept. 1, 2005
Berg US 2006/0245433 A1 Nov. 2, 2006
Wookey US 2007/0171921 A1 July 26, 2007
Van Biljon (“Biljon”) WO 2011/159842 A2 Dec. 22, 2011
Deshmukh US 2012/0042030 A1 Feb. 16, 2012
McAlister US 8,392,482 B1 Mar. 5, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 14–19 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McAlister, Biljon, and Berg. Final Act.
10–19.
Claim 2 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McAlister, Biljon, Berg, and Deshmukh. Final Act. 22–
23.
Claims 5–8 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McAlister, Biljon, Berg, Deshmukh, and Powers. Final
Act. 24–29.
Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 21 stand rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Biljon and Nakahara. Final Act. 4–9.
Claim 22 stands rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McAlister, Biljon, Berg, and Wookey. Final Act. 29.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
5
OPINION
Claims 1–8, 14–19, and 22
The Examiner finds the combination of McAlister, Biljon, and Berg
teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claim 1. Final Act. 10–14.
In connection with the disputed lease breaking limitation (vii), the Examiner
finds the limitation is taught or suggested by Berg’s disclosure of a first
server receiving from a second server a routing table update message
indicating that an assigned partition has been moved to another server. Final
Act. 13–14. According to the Examiner, the update message from the
second server instructing the first server to update its dynamic routing table
“discloses a dictator master instance to instruct a server to break a lease on
an incorrect partition.” Id.
Appellant contends Berg fails to teach the disputed lease breaking
limitation because, inter alia,
the Office does not clearly articulate, nor does Appellant believe
Berg teaches “ . . . the first partition server is currently serving at
least one partition the partition server should not currently be
serving as indicated by a conflict between one or more
partitions assigned to the first partition server in a partition
table and the partitions in the received message.”
Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner responds, finding Berg’s receipt by server 1 (equated to
a dictator master role instance) of messages from other servers (i.e., partition
servers) reporting their currently served partitions teaches or suggests the
update message of limitation (vi). Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds Berg
discloses a partition server 2 that, due to an outdated routing table entry, will
(i) identify and forward a misrouted message to the correct partition server 4
and (ii) send a routing table update message to server 1, i.e., Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
6
dictator master role instance. Id. The Examiner finds, when routing server 1
updates the routing table, it breaks the lease of partition server 2. Id.
According to the Examiner, partition server 2 is considered to be still serving
moved partition 2 because it takes action in response to the misrouted
message concerning partition 2 including, inter alia, sending a routing table
update to server 1. Id. The Examiner finds “the update of the dynamic
routing table cause[d] the actual breaking of the lease of [partition] server 2
to partition 2 [which] took place at server 2.” Id. at 5. The Examiner
concludes Berg discloses the disputed lease breaking limitation (vii). Id.
Appellant replies, contending,
the rejection does not address claimed features related to a
partition that a server “should not currently be serving, as
indicated by a conflict between one or more partitions assigned
to the first partition server in a partition table and the partitions
in the received message.” For example, the present application
describes that what partition a partition server should be serving
may be dictated by a partition table/leases managed by a dictator
master role instance. See, e.g., paragraph [0058] of the present
application as published. In contrast, in Berg, a conflict with the
dynamic routing table merely means the partition has moved, not
that any server “should not currently be serving” the partition,
as recited in the claim.
Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant further contends,
the portions of Berg that are relied upon [for teaching the
message from a first partition server comprising partitions the
first partition server reports to be currently serving] only state
“the various different servers are queried to populate the dynamic
routing table with dynamic routing information (step 620).”
Berg does not expressly or impliedly disclose any message
associated with a query, nor does it expressly or impliedly
disclose what a message may comprise.
Reply Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
7
We agree with Appellant that the rejection of claim 1 is improper.
Lease breaking limitation (vii) requires detecting that the first partition
server is currently serving at least one partition the partition server should
not currently be serving as indicated by a conflict between one or more
partitions assigned to the first partition server in a partition table and the
partitions indicated in a message received from the first partition server. The
Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to persuade us
that Berg’s server 1, identified as the claimed dictator master role instance of
claim 1, detects conflicts as indicated by a conflict between (i) partitions
assigned to server 2 and (ii) messages received from server 2 reporting its
current serving partitions. Rather than server 1 identifying a conflict
between assigned (i.e., table information) and partition server supplied
partition information, Berg discloses partition server 2 identifies routing
errors and supplies instructions to server 1 for updating the routing table.
Accordingly, Berg fails to teach or suggest detecting that a partition server
should not currently be serving a partition as indicated by a conflict between
one or more partitions assigned to the first partition server in a partition table
and the partitions in the received message as required by the disputed lease
breaking limitation (vii). Because we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant’s other arguments in connection with claim 1.
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 under U.S.C. § 103(a) over McAlister, Biljon, and
Berg. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent
claim 14 which includes similar limitations or the rejections of dependent
claims 2–8, 15–19, and 22 which stand with their respective base claims.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
8

Claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 21
The Examiner finds the combination of Biljon and Nakahara teaches
or suggests the limitations of claim 9, with Nakahara applied for disclosing
the disputed portion of limitation (i) reciting “the master role instances
instantiating a common master module and common fixed-interfaces, while
each being of a different master role and having a different application-
defined interface” (hereinafter “the disputed limitation”). Final Act. 4–8. In
particular, the Examiner finds the operating systems of Nakahara’s servers
teach the disputed master module and Nakahara’s network interfaces teach
the claimed fixed-interfaces. Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds
Nakahara’s backup servers that take over applications from failed servers
teach the recited common master module and common fixed-interfaces.
Finally, the Examiner finds Nakahara’s servers run multiple different
application programs thereby teaching each master role instance being of a
different master role and having a different application-defined interface as
recited by claim 1. Id. at 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed
limitation is improper in light of the Specification. Appeal. Br. 12.
Appellant argues the broadest reasonable interpretation of application-
defined interface and common fixed-interfaces is constrained by descriptions
provided in the Specification:
An “application-defined interface” refers to a computation,
operation, or other function defined by a client for performance
by a role instance. . . . An application-defined interface is in
contrast to a “fixed interface” for a partitioning system. A fixed
interface refers to an application interface that is provided as part
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
9
of the partitioning system. A client cannot modify the action of a
fixed interface.
Spec. ¶ 21.
Appellant further contends “the combination of the references does
not teach or suggest ‘the master role instances ... each being of a different
master role . . . ’” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues the portion of Nakahara
cited by the Examiner only describes a server structure, not the disputed
limitation. Id. (citing Final Act. 6 and Nakahara ¶ 33).
The Examiner responds:
[U]nder the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “application-
defined interface” is interpreted as an application program
because one of ordinary skill in the art would [have] readily
recognized that an application program is a computation,
operation, or other function defined by a developer (i.e. client)
and the application program is to be executed (i.e. performed) by
a processor (i.e. a role instance). And, the “fixed interface”,
under the broadest reasonable interpretation, would be a physical
interface, such as a fixed network interface in a system.
Ans. 6.
Addressing Appellant’s contention “the references do not teach ‘the
master role instances . . . each being of a different master role,’” (id. at 7),
the Examiner finds:
Nakahara discloses each of the servers to store different
applications (which would cause the servers to perform different
tasks/roles) [para. 33 and 35]. Nakahara further discloses one
server 203g is assumed to be a failure management server, while
another server 203a is assumed to be failure management target
server that are subject to failure management [para. 36]. i.e. the
servers are assumed different roles in the failover system.
Id. (brackets in original).
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
10
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In connection with the
Examiner’s interpretation of the terms application-defined interface and
common fixed-interfaces, Appellant provides insufficient evidence or
argument explaining why the Examiner’s interpretation is overly broad. For
example, Appellant provides no evidence that the Examiner’s interpretation
of the terms is inconsistent with the ordinary and customary meaning given
those terms as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the
context of the entire disclosure. Nor does Appellant explain why the
Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification. In the
absence of persuasive evidence or argument to the contrary, we conclude the
Examiner’s interpretation of the disputed terms is reasonable.
We are also unpersuaded the Examiner erred in finding Nakahara
teaches or suggests each master role instance being of a different master
role. Appellant fails to persuade us of error or deficiency in the Examiner’s
reasoning for finding Nakahara’s servers, by storing different applications,
perform different tasks or roles thereby teaching or suggesting the disputed
limitation.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of
reversible Examiner error. Accordingly we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Biljon and Nakahara
together with the rejection of dependent claims 10, 12, 13, and 21 which are
not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–8, 14–19, and 22 are reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 10, 12, 13, and 21 is affirmed.
Appeal 2019-000962
Application 13/366,039
11
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 4, 14–
19
103(a) McAlister, Biljon, Berg 1, 3, 4, 14–
19
2 103(a) McAlister, Biljon,
Berg, Deshmukh
2
5–8 103(a) McAlister, Biljon,
Berg, Deshmukh,
Powers
5–8
9, 10, 12,
13, 21
103(a) Biljon, Nakahara 9, 10, 12,
13, 21

22 103(a) McAlister, Biljon,
Berg, Wookey
22
Overall
Outcome:
9, 10, 12,
13, 21
1–8, 14–
19, 22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART