Ex Parte Chouanard et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201411209291 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte JEAN CHOUANARD, SWEE B. LIM, and MICHAEL J. WOOKEY1 ________________ Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1-39. App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION under the provisions of 35 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 1 Sun Microsystems, Inc., owned by Oracle America, Inc., is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 2 Invention Appellants invented a method “for establishing affinity between a client and a server.” Spec. ¶ 11. “Affinity” is the notion that a client should direct subsequent requests to the same server. Id. ¶ 6. A server receives and accepts a request from a client to establish affinity, then checks for an existing affinity relationship between the requesting client and a previously elected server. Id. ¶ 11. When there is a previously existing affinity between a requesting client and an elected server, the receiving server redirects the client to the elected server. Id. When there is no previously existing affinity between the requesting client and an elected server, the receiving server establishes a new affinity with the client. Id. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method, comprising: a receiving server receiving a request from a client to establish affinity between the client and a server; in response to said receiving the request from the client, the receiving server determining that there exists a reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with said client; in response to said determining that there exists a reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client, redirecting said client to said reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client; the receiving server receiving a request from an other client to establish affinity between the other client and a server; in response to said receiving the request from the other client, the receiving server determining that there does not exist Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 3 any reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the other client; in response to said determining that there does not exist any reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the other client, establishing affinity between said receiving server and said other client. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-10, 14, 16-19, 21-23, 26, 27, and 29- 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albert (U.S. 7,051,066 B1; May 23, 2006) and McCanne (U.S. 6,611,872 B1; Aug. 26, 2003).2 Ans. 3-13. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 15, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albert, McCanne, and Jorgenson (U.S. 6,813,635 B1; Nov. 2, 2004). Ans. 13-15. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 24, 25, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albert, McCanne, and Modi (U.S. 6,587,866 B1; July 1, 2003). Ans. 15-17. The Examiner rejects claims 13, 20, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Albert, McCanne, and Bernardin (U.S. 2005/ 0021594 A1; Jan. 27, 2005). Ans. 17-19. ISSUE Appellants’ arguments present us with the dispositive issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Albert and McCanne teaches 2 The Examiner erroneously listed claims 2, 15, and 28 as being rejected based on the combination of just Albert and McCanne. Ans. 2. However, the Examiner also further relies on Jorgenson in rejecting these claims. Id. at 13-15. Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 4 or suggests “redirecting said client to said reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Albert teaches “redirecting said client to said reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Albert, col. 27, ll. 57-64). The Examiner finds that Albert teaches a service manager and forwarding agent working in concert to establish and facilitate affinity relationships between clients and servers. Ans. 20. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Albert’s service manager assigns affinity relationships between clients and hosts when a client has no current affinity relationship with a server. Id. (citing Albert, col. 10, ll. 49-64; col. 11, ll. 16-28). Appellants contend the cited portions of Albert do not teach or suggest redirecting a client to a “reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16. Specifically, Appellants contend that Albert merely teaches forwarding packets from a client to a server having affinity with the client, rather than redirecting the client itself as claimed. Id. Appellants correctly note the “Examiner’s Answer does not address this argument.” Reply Br. 5. We agree with Appellants that Albert’s teaching of forwarding packets according to a fixed affinity (see, e.g., Albert, col. 27, ll. 57-64) does not teach or suggest redirecting a client to a “reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client,” as recited Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 5 in claim 1. App. Br. 16. That is, Albert redirects data from the client without redirecting the client itself. Id. We agree with Appellants that, consistent with the Specification, redirecting the client entails, in some manner “inform[ing] the client of where it should send subsequent results.” App. Br. 16-17; see also Spec. Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 0011, 0018, 0019, 0022, 0026, 0030, and 0034. We note that dependent claim 2 recites “wherein said redirecting comprises sending said client a redirect message instructing said client to contact said reachable elected server . . . .” Thus, by virtue of claim differentiation, the claim 1 step “redirecting said client” is presumed to be broader in scope. However, this increased breadth in scope merely relates to how the client is informed (i.e., how the client is redirected). Other methods of redirecting (i.e., informing) the client—methods other than a “redirect message instructing said client to contact said reachable elected server”— would fall within the scope of this recitation. However, such methods would still need to inform the client in some manner. As Appellants correctly point out, Albert fails to teach or suggest any manner of informing the client where subsequent results should be sent. App. Br. 16-17. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner’s findings do not show Albert teaches or suggests “redirecting said client to said reachable elected server that has a previously-established affinity relationship with the client” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner’s findings also do not show that McCanne, Jorgenson, Modi, or Bernardin cure the noted deficiency of Albert. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2-39, which contain similar recitations. Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 6 NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION We enter the following new ground of rejection pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). We reject claims 27-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Independent claim 27 recites “[a] machine-readable medium having stored thereon information representing a set of machine-executable instructions that, when executed by a machine, cause the machine to implement . . . .” The Specification does not clearly define “machine- readable medium.” Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the “machine-readable medium” of claim 27, when read in light of the Specification, includes transitory propagating signals. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013) (precedential-in-part). “A transitory, propagating signal . . . is not a ‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.’ [These] four categories define the explicit scope and reach of subject matter patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101; thus, such a signal cannot be patentable subject matter.” In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, we newly reject claims 27, and claims 28-39 which depend therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We newly reject claims 27-39 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2011-006170 Application 11/209,291 7 REVERSED 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) bab Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation