Ex Parte Feng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2012

11192861 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAY FENG, MICHAEL HONG DANG, and JOHN FENWICK
____________

Appeal 2010-004852
Application 11/192,861
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LARRY J. HUME,
and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004852
Application 11/192,861

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-23, 25, and 26, which are all the claims pending in
this application as claims 6 and 24 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for allocating
processing in a network of computers such that additional processing nodes
may be allocated for processing a request (see Spec. 3:2-6).
Exemplary independent claim 1 reads as follows:
1. A computer implemented method of allocating
processing in a network, said method comprising:
receiving a processing request;
determining if a first processing node in said network is capable
of handling said processing request; and
allocating one or more additional processing nodes from said
network to assist in handling said processing request if said first
processing node is incapable of handling said processing request
alone, wherein said one or more additional processing nodes are
allocated based on results of weighted rules applied to metadata of
said one or more additional processing nodes, said metadata
comprising software application capabilities and throughput capacity
indicators of available processing nodes in said network.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-5, 7-10, 12-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bozak (US 2005/0027865 A1) and Scott
(US 2004/0019696 A1). (See Ans. 3-13).
Appeal 2010-004852
Application 11/192,861

3
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bozak, Scott, and Sim (US 6,857,012 B2). (See Ans. 13-
14).
Appellants’ Contentions
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claim as obvious over Bozak and Scott because the references
do not teach or suggest the recited step of allocating nodes “based on results
of weighted rules applied to metadata of said one or more additional
processing nodes” (App. Br. 12). Appellants assert that Scott, which was
relied on by the Examiner for teaching this feature, merely discloses using a
pair of routers which do not run applications and are different from the
claimed “processing nodes” for handling a processing request (App. Br. 13-
14). Appellants also challenge the propriety of combining the references
and assert that the Examiner has not shown why the references are
combinable (App. Br. 14-15).
Appellants rely on the same rational presented for claim 1 in support
of the patentability of the remaining claims and further add that Sim does not
cure the above-noted deficiency of the Bozak-Scott combination (App. Br.
15-16).
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims over Bozak and Scott
because: (1) there is no suggestion or teaching for making the proposed
combination, and (2) the references do not teach or suggest the step of
allocating nodes “based on results of weighted rules applied to metadata of
said one or more additional processing nodes,” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-004852
Application 11/192,861

4
ANALYSIS
In response to each of the arguments raised by Appellants, the
Examiner presents detailed findings and responses (Ans. 14-18). We agree
with these findings and conclusions and adopt them as our own. We
specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 14-15) that Bozak is relied on for
teaching one or more processing nodes which are allocated or deallocated as
needed (see Bozak, ¶ [0030]). We also agree with the Examiner that Scott’s
teachings related to applying weighted rules to metadata related to source
and target application association (see Scott, ¶¶ [0060] – [0062]) suggests
more efficient use of resources. Therefore, as stated by the Examiner (Ans.
16), the recited “weighted rule” described on page 12 of Appellants’
Specification as “conditions that are initially set by a user or programmer,”
reads on Scott’s rules for auto association.
We also agree with the Examiner’s stated rationale for combining
Bozak and Scott (Ans. 4), and note that combining the weighted rules
applied to different applications of Scott with Bozak’s computing
environment would have been obvious and available to the skilled artisan as
known ways for allocating resources. As stated by the Supreme Court, “the
[obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability.” Id. at 417. In this case, the teaching value of
Scott is in using weighted rules for allocating the necessary application
router resources. As such, even if application routers may be different from
Appeal 2010-004852
Application 11/192,861

5
processing nodes (see App. Br. 13, Reply Br. 4), Scott’s teaching related to
applying weighted rules for allocating application routers suggests applying
weighted rules to metadata of the processing nodes of Bozak for resource
allocation. Therefore, we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
combination of Bozak and Scott would have suggested all the limitations of
claim 1 to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Similarly, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
with respect to the remaining claims rejected over Bozak and Scott or in
further combination with Sim (Ans. 4-14), and conclude that the
combination of the references teaches or suggests the disputed features of
the remaining claims.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, because the references
teach or suggest all the claim limitations, the Examiner has not erred in
rejecting claim 1, as well as claims 2-5, 7-23, 25, and 26 falling therewith.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-23, 25, and 26 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

tj