Ex Parte Shafiee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2017

12971093 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2017)

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.
12/971,093 12/17/2010 Mohammad Reza Shafiee 20100561 7298
7590 03/15/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
MILLS, PAUL V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMAD REZA SHAFIEE, WEI LIU, PUNEET KALIA,
ASHUTOSH K. SUREKA, MICHAEL J. NAGGAR, and
VINAY K. MISHRA
Appeal 2015-007486
Application No. 12/971,0931
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—3 and 6—22.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is an infrastructure for allowing customers to
submit orders for processing content, such as media content, and a method
for resource optimization. The infrastructure facilitates processing of the
1 The real party in interest is Verizon Communications Inc.
2 Claims 4 and 5 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
orders using workflows that represent tasks to be performed. The
infrastructure may also generate schedules associated with processing orders
and determine optimum schedules based on customer requirements and
business policies associated with the entity processing the order. Spec. 121.
The method includes storing information associated with a number of tasks
for processing a media file; identifying a first task associated with
processing the media file; identifying a first resource scheduled to fulfill the
first task; and determining whether the first resource is available to fulfill the
first task. The method further includes determining, when the first resource
is not available, whether an alternate resource is available to fulfill the first
task. If available, the alternate resource is scheduled to fulfill the first task.
See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
storing information identifying a plurality of tasks for
processing a media file, the information including resource
information identifying resources scheduled to fulfill the
plurality of tasks;
identifying a first one of the plurality of tasks for
processing the media file;
identifying a first resource scheduled to fulfill the first
task;
determining whether the first resource is available to
fulfill the first task;
determining, when the first resource is not available,
whether an alternate resource is available to fulfill the first task;
scheduling, when an alternate resource is available to
fulfill the first task, the alternate resource to fulfill the first task,
wherein the plurality of tasks correspond to a first work
order for processing the media file and the stored information
2
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
includes information identifying scheduled start and estimated
completion times for the plurality of tasks in the first work
order; and
assigning a first priority to the first work order, wherein
the first priority is based on a customer requested completion
date for processing the media file, and wherein the scheduling
further comprises:
identifying at least one task for an other work order that
can be rescheduled to allow the first task to be executed at its
scheduled start time, wherein the identifying at least one task
for the other work order that can be rescheduled comprises:
identifying a second task for the other work order that
has a lower priority than the first priority of the first work order,
and
wherein the plurality of tasks comprise at least two of:
transcoding the media file from a first format into at least
one other format, inserting an advertisement, logo or
watermark into the media file, concatenating a second
media file to the media file, inserting black space into at
least a portion of the media file, or performing audio
transcoding on the media file.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Zweben et al US 6,216,109 B1 Apr. 10,2001
US 7,062,556 B1 June 13, 2006
US 2007/0094661 Al Apr. 26, 2007
US 2008/0235065 Al Sept. 25, 2008
Chen et al.
Baird et al.
Dan et al.
Dang Minh Quan et al., Error Recovery for SLA-Based
Workflows within the Business Grid, Technology
Management, Economics and Policy Program, College of
Engineering, Seoul National University (2009).
3
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
Can Akkan, A Prioritized Re-Insertion Approach to
Production Rescheduling, Koc University, Springer-Verlag
Berlin Heldeberg (1998).
Paolo Dettori et al., Media extensions for SOA, IBM (2009).
Jia Yu et al., QoS-based Scheduling of Workflow
Application on Service Grids, Dept, of Computer Science
and Software Engineering (2007).
Claims 1—3, 6—9, 11—17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Quan, Akkan, and Dettori.
Claims 10 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quan, Akkan, Dettori, and Chen.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Quan, Akkan, Dettori, Chen, and Baird.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Apr. 6, 2015), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 13,
2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 19, 2015) for their
respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does Quan disclose storing information that identifies scheduled
start and estimated completion times for a plurality of tasks?
2. Does Quan disclose assigning a first priority to a first work order,
where the first priority is based on a customer requested completion date?
3. Does the combination of Quan and Akkan disclose or suggest
identifying at least one task that can be rescheduled to allow the first task to
be executed at its scheduled start time?
4
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
4. Does Dettori disclose at least two of the plurality of tasks (i.e.,
transcoding media, inserting advertisement or watermark, concatenating
files, inserting black space, or performing audio transcoding) recited in the
final limitation of claim 1?
5. Are Quan, Akkan, and Dettori properly combinable?
6. Does Dettori disclose a first alternate resource to transcode the
media file from a first format to a third format, and a second alternate
resource to transcode the media file from a third format into a second
format?
7. Does Chen disclose favoring first network elements having higher
capacity than second network elements when allocating network elements to
fulfill tasks?
8. Does Baird disclose favoring contiguous time intervals for
fulfilling tasks?
ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1-3,6-9,11-17,19, and 22 over Quan, Akkan, and
Dettori
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting representative claim 1.
We do not agree with Appellants that Quan does not disclose storing
information that identifies scheduled start and estimated completion times
for the plurality of tasks, as claim 1 requires. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Quan stores information on “RMS status, the RMS resources,
the RMS reservations, the sub-jobs state and so on” in a central database
(Quan 8) and that “every sub-job of the workflow is planned to run on
reserved resources within a specific time period” (Quan 9). Quan further
5
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
explains that “time is split into slots. Each slot equals a specific period of
real time, from 3 to 5 minutes. We use the time slot concept in order to limit
the number of possible start-times and end-times of sub-jobs.” Quan 4. We
find that, taken together, these teachings correspond to the claimed storing of
information on scheduled start and estimated completion times.
Appellants’ assertion that Quan does not teach assigning a first
priority to a first work order, where the first priority is based on a customer
requested completion date, is also unpersuasive. See App. Br. 13. Rather,
we agree with the Examiner that Quan teaches determining re-mapping
priority according to Earliest Deadline First. Final Act. 3; see Quan 10.
“Workflow having earlier deadline will be given higher priority as it
occupies resources shorter and the other workflows need shorter time to wait
for available resource.” Quan 10.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants that Akkan does not disclose
identifying at least one task that can be rescheduled to allow the first task to
be executed at its scheduled start time, as claimed. See App. Br. 13—14.
First, the Examiner relies on Quan, rather than Akkan, for a teaching of
rescheduling to allow a first task to be executed at its scheduled start time:
“we try to re-map sub-job 3 to the other healthy RMS in a way that not
affect (sic) the start time of sub-job 6.” Quan 9-10. Second, we agree with
the Examiner that, in response to disruption, Akkan un-schedules a plurality
of the operations and re-inserts them in priority order. Ans. 6, Akkan 266—
67. “When we re-insert an operation i, we would like to do it so that its
start-time is as close to its initial start-time ... as possible.” Ans. 6 (quoting
Akkan 266—67). Akkan thus discloses low priority tasks are displaced to
6
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
allow higher priority tasks to be executed at their pre-disruption start times
and meets the limitations as described. Ans. 7.
A necessary consequence of finding supra that the combination of
Quan and Akkan discloses the displacement of low priority tasks to allow
higher priority tasks to be executed at their pre-disruption start times is that
we also find that the combination of Quan and Akkan discloses identifying a
second task that has a lower priority. Quan discloses re-mapping priority
according to Earliest Deadline First; thus, a sub-job having a later deadline
would be identified and would receive a lower priority. See Quan 10.
Appellants’ contention that Dettori does not teach or suggest
wherein the plurality of tasks comprise at least two of:
transcoding the media file from a first format into at least one
other format; inserting an advertisement, logo, or watermark
into the media file; concatenating a second media file to the
media file; inserting black space into at least a portion of the
media file; or performing audio transcoding on the media file
is not persuasive to show Examiner error. See App. Br. 16—17.
First, in response to Appellants’ remarks, Quan, rather than Dettori, is
relied upon to teach that “the plurality of tasks correspond to a first work
order.” See Ans. 9. Second, Dettori discloses the transcoding and
watermarking tasks recited in the claims. See Dettori 6, 8.
We do not agree with Appellants that Quan and Akkan are not
properly combinable because they are directed to “totally different
methodologies and structures” or that Dettori is not related to either
reference. See App. Br. 18, 19. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that
the references are related. Quan is directed to a method of rescheduling
tasks in response to errors, wherein tasks are re-mapped in priority order
determined from customer requested deadlines. Akkan is directed to a
7
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
method of rescheduling tasks in response to disruptions wherein tasks are re­
inserted in priority order determined from customer requested due dates.
See Ans. 11. Similarly, Dettori is related to Quan, in that Dettori is directed
to a method for executing workflows on distributed resources, whereas Quan
is also directed to a system and methods for scheduling workflows for
execution on distributed resources. See Ans. 13.
Because Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—3, 6—9, 11—17, 19, and 22
over Quan, Akkan, and Dettori.
Rejection of claim 21 over Quan, Akkan, and Dettori
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Dettori identifies a first alternate resource to transcode the media
file from a first format to a third format, and a second alternate resource to
transcode the media file from a third format into a second format. See App.
Br. 22. Contrary to Appellants’ remarks, Dettori does not merely “identify[]
a number of paths and select[] an optimal path based on a cost.” App. Br.
22. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Dettori discloses the claimed
resource identification. See Dettori 7—10, Figure 3. Dettori discloses a
dynamic matching and composition algorithm to create an execution plan,
“which resolves the media mismatch by invoking any required
transformation and data movement before invoking the target service.”
Dettori 7. “This approach can be extended beyond simple content
transformation [i.e., transcoding] and transport to include any other type of
media processing.” Dettori 8.
8
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
Because Appellants have not established that the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 21 over Quan, Akkan, and
Dettori.
Rejection of claims 10 and 18 over Quan, Akkan, Dettori, and Chen
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Chen does not
teach favoring first network elements having higher capacity than second
network elements when allocating network elements to fulfill tasks. App.
Br. 24. Chen discloses a “join-the-least-loaded server” load balancing
algorithm. Chen col. 5,11. 27—29. We agree with the Examiner that an
algorithm such as Chen’s, which assigns tasks to the least loaded resource,
will inherently assign a relatively greater number of tasks to resources with
higher relative capacities. Ans. 16.
We also disagree that the Examiner’s stated motivation for the
combination consists of “merely a conclusory statement.” Chen states that
load balancing “improves the performance of a distributed system such as a
communication network, usually in terms of response time or resource
utilization, by allocating workload amongst a set of cooperating servers
connected to the internet.” Chen col. 2,11. 1—5; Ans. 17.
Because Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error
we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 18.
Rejection of Claim 20 over Quan, Akkan, Dettori, Chen, and Baird
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 20. Appellants’ first argument that Chen does not
disclose favoring network elements having higher capacity, was discussed
and found unpersuasive supra. Appellants’ second argument, that Baird
does not disclose favoring contiguous time intervals for fulfilling tasks, is
9
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
unpersuasive because we agree with the Examiner that Baird functions just
as Appellants’ Specification states. Appellants disclose that “another
business policy may indicate that contiguous calendar intervals are to be
used for various tasks in a work order, or that split calendar intervals may be
used, depending on the type of tasks and/or priorities associated with the
tasks.” Spec. 1116. In Baird, “[t]he contiguity field 244 holds data that
indicates whether the task should be performed in one or more contiguous
sessions ... or can be broken up into short duration tasks . . . that are
separated by other tasks.” Baird 148. “For a task that must be contiguous,
e.g., continued till completion, the time duration in the contiguity field 244
equals or exceeds the duration indicated in the estimated duration field 236.”
Id.
We are not convinced by Appellants’ further contention that the
Examiner offers mere conclusory statements in his rationale for combining
the references. See App. Br. 28. We disagree with Appellants that Baird is
“totally unrelated in both function and structure” to the other four applied
references. See Id. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that Quan, Akkan,
Chen, and Baird are commonly directed to scheduling tasks, and that
modifying the combination in view of Baird would yield the predictable
result of a subset of tasks being designated as requiring contiguous time
intervals, and being scheduled accordingly. Ans. 19.
We do not agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 20. We sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Quan discloses storing information that identifies scheduled start
and estimated completion times for a plurality of tasks.
10
Appeal 2015-007486
Application 12/971,093
2. Quan discloses assigning a first priority to a first work order,
where the first priority is based on a customer requested completion date.
3. The combination of Quan and Akkan discloses identifying at least
one task that can be rescheduled to allow the first task to be executed at its
scheduled start time.
4. Dettori discloses at least two of the plurality of tasks (i.e.,
transcoding media, inserting advertisement or watermark, concatenating
files, inserting black space, or performing audio transcoding) recited in the
final limitation of claim 1.
5. Quan, Akkan, and Dettori are properly combinable.
6. Dettori discloses a first alternate resource to transcode the media
file from a first format to a third format, and a second alternate resource to
transcode the media file from a third format into a second format.
7. Chen discloses favoring first network elements having higher
capacity than second network elements when allocating network elements to
fulfill tasks.
8. Baird discloses favoring contiguous time intervals for fulfilling
tasks.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3 and 6—22 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).
AFFIRMED
11