Ex Parte Archer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 28, 201613166183 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/166,183 06/22/2011 47478 7590 08/01/2016 IBM (ROC-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 8601 Ranch Road 2222 Ste. 1-225 AUSTIN, TX 78730 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Charles J. Archer 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. ROC920100138US1 5351 EXAMINER MAI,KEVINS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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): office@klspatents.com kate@klspatents.com hanna@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES J. ARCHER, JAMES E. CAREY, MATTHEW W. MARKLAND, and PHILIP J. SANDERS Appeal2015-003540 Application 13/166,183 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-003540 Application 13/166,183 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 7-10, 12-16, and 18. Claims 11, 17, 19, and 20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We note this application is related to appeal 2015---001962 (Serial Number 13/666,221, filed November 1, 2012). We affirm. The claims are directed to an apparatus for compressing result data for a compute node in a parallel computer. Claim 7, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 7. An apparatus for compressing result data for a compute node in a parallel computer, the parallel computer including a collection of compute nodes organized as a tree, the apparatus comprising a computer processor, a computer memory operatively coupled to the computer processor, the computer memory having disposed within it computer program instructions that, when executed by the computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: initiating a collective gather operation by a logical root of the collection of compute nodes, including adding result data of the logical root to a gather buffer, wherein the results data comprises error messages that identify a particular error on a particular compute node; for each compute node in the collection of compute nodes, determining whether result data of the compute node is already written in the gather buffer by another compute node in the collection of compute nodes based on a rule stipulating 1 Appellants indicated that International Business Machines Corporation is the real party in interest. (Br. 1.) 2 Appeal2015-003540 Application 13/166,183 characteristics of the result data required to be identical to result data already written in the gather buffer; if the result data of the compute node is already written in the gather buffer, incrementing a counter assigned to that result data already written in the gather buff er; and if the result data of the compute node is not already written in the gather buffer, writing the result data of the compute node as new result data in the gather buffer, incrementing a counter assigned to that new result data, and writing in the gather buffer a node identifier. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Larsson et al. Barsness et al. Ianni US 2004/0107387 Al US 2009/0043910 Al US 2010/0057738 Al REJECTIONS June 3, 2004 Feb. 12,2009 Mar. 4, 2010 The Examiner has not made a corresponding obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 7-10, 12-16, and 18 over claims 1---6 of Patent Application Serial Number 13/666,221, filed November 1, 2012.2 The Examiner has withdrawn the pending rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (Ans. 2.) The Examiner made the following rejections: 2 Application serial number 13/666,221, filed November 1, 2012, is a continuation of patent application 13/166,183, filed June 22, 2011. Consequently, the applications have the same effective filing date. 3 Appeal2015-003540 Application 13/166,183 Claims 7-10 and 13-16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barsness in view of Larsson. Claims 12 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barsness-Larsson further in view of Ianni. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 3-14) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 8-15) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's response (Ans. 2-5) to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt, to the extent consistent with our analysis below, (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-14), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 2-5). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of Appellants' arguments as follows. Obviousness With respect to claims 7-10 and 13-16, Appellants argue the claims together. (Br. 5---6.) As a result, we select independent claim 7 as the representative claim for the group and address Appellants' arguments thereto. Appellants contend Larsson is silent with regards to: any determination that the event, which the Office Action contends discloses the results data, is already written by another node. Said another way, in Larsson, the database merely tracks occurrences of events without regard to where the event occurred. Thus, Larsson does not disclose "for each compute 4 Appeal2015-003540 Application 13/166,183 Br. 7. node in the collection of compute nodes, determining whether result data of the compute node is already written in the gather buffer by another compute node," as claimed. With respect independent claim 7, the Examiner clarifies the claim interpretation in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-3), but Appellants did not file a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner's clarifications. The Examiner clarifies the claim interpretation and identifies that the Appellants' arguments are directed towards a different interpretation that is unsupported by the Specification. (Ans. 2-3.) We agree with the Examiner's claim interpretation and clarification of the prior art teachings as it applies to the claimed invention. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 7. Appellants argue that the cited sections of the Larsson reference do not teach "a rule stipulating characteristics .... "(Br. 7.) The Examiner further clarifies the application of the Larsson reference. (Ans. 3--4.) We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to respond to the Examiner's clarifications in the claim language and the application of the prior art references. As a result, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 7. With respect to dependent claims 12 and 18, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 7 and 13. The Examiner relies on the same rationale used in the arguments for claims 7 and 13 and finds Appellants arguments unpersuasive as discussed with respect to 5 Appeal2015-003540 Application 13/166,183 representative claim 7. (Ans. 5.) We agree with the Examiner. Because we found Appellants' argument to be unpersuasive with respect to independent claims 7 and 13, we similarly find the same arguments unpersuasive with respect to dependent claims 12 and 18. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in in rejecting claims 7-10, 12-16, and 18 based upon obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, and we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 7-10, 12-16, and 18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation