Ex Parte Batra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2012

10335812 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte VIRINDER M. BATRA, STEVEN M. MILLER,
and KEITH J. PURCELL
____________________

Appeal 2010-005070
Application 10/335,812
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, LARRY J. HUME, and
RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005070
Application 10/335,812

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. A method for providing access to a computational grid by a
non-member device, comprising the steps of:
1) providing a first request from said non-member device;
2) sending said first request to a server operating within at least
one computational grid;
3) invoking a web service by said server that implements an
XML workflow definition grammar;
4) sending a second request from said web service to a grid
member of said at least one computational grid, wherein said grid
member is a computer contained within said at least one
computational grid;
5) processing a solution by said grid member; and
6) returning said solution to said non-member device.
Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Bernardin (US 2005/0021594 Al) and
Ferstl (US 7,185,046 B2). 1
Appellants’ Contention
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because “Bernardin requires client devices to have previously-installed

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-21. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-005070
Application 10/335,812

3
drivers to communicate with the grid manager (paragraphs 0028 - 0030),
that is, they are ‘member devices’.” (App. Br. 7).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because
Bernardin fails to teach or suggest non-member devices?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner.
As to Appellants’ above contention, we do not agree that the ability to
communicate is determinative of grid membership. Appellants’
Specification indicates that a “member device can then communicate
directly with the non-member device” (Spec. 3:18-19) without the non-
member becoming a member of the grid. Rather, according to Appellants’
Specification, membership is determined based on cooperatively sharing
computational resources within the grid. (Spec. 2:1-6). According to
Appellants’ Specification, “[a]ny computer device that is not a part of the
computational grid is referred to as a nonmember device.” (Spec. 2:11-13).
We agree with the Examiner that Bernardin permits non-member devices to
access the grid. That a special communication driver is used is of no
moment.
Appeal 2010-005070
Application 10/335,812

4
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-21 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-21 are 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 2

msc

2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further
prosecution of these claims, the Examiner’s attention is directed to recently
issued guidance from the Director as follows below in the citations to the
Federal Register and Official Gazette.
Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 1-10, the
Examiner’s attention is directed to Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co, 598
F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc), and 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7170-71
(Feb. 9, 2011) at Part 2.I.; Suppl. Examination Guidelines for Determining
Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in
Patent Applications.
Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 11-21, the
Examiner’s attention is directed to Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v.
Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and 76 Fed. Reg. 7162,
7167-68 at Part 1.III. C.1-3.