Ex Parte Gupta et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 22, 201612999260 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/999,260 01114/2011 Ajay Gupta 56436 7590 03/24/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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. 82576594 3789 EXAMINER HAGOS,EYOB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2863 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/24/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AJAY GUPTA, PHILLIP A. LEECH, and VANISH TALWAR Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 Technology Center 2800 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-8. Claims 9-15 have been withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to "a computing architecture for providing remote computing services" (Spec. i-f 22). B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A system providing remote computing services compnsmg: client computer systems located in a plurality of geographically distributed regions, each region including a subset of the client computer systems, wherein the client computer systems are used to receive remote computing services; server computer systems, each server computing system servicing a particular one of the regions by providing the remote computing services for the subset of the client computer systems in the region; first network connections providing connectivity between each client computer system and the corresponding server computer system; and second network connections connecting the server computer systems amongst each other, wherein each of the server computer systems are configured to identify a user of a client computer system regardless of the region the client computer system is located in, identify predetermined remote computing services associated with the user, and provide the predetermined remote 2 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 computing services to the client computer system being used by the user, wherein the same predetermined remote computing services are available to the user on any of the client computer systems in any of the regions. C. REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Jindal Taylor Banerjee Islam Wen Woo Gaos Amir Husain Lerro US 6,324,580 Bl US 2002/0007417 Al US 2003/0093465 Al US 2004/0103194 Al US 6,782,352 B2 US 2007/0136487 Al US 2007 /0294337 Al US 2008/0201414 Al US 7,853,580 B2 Nov. 27, 2001 Jan. 17,2002 May 15, 2003 May 27, 2004 Aug. 24, 2004 June 14, 2007 Dec. 20, 2007 Aug. 21, 2008 Dec. 14, 2010 Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Banerjee and Jindal. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Banerjee, Jindal, and Amir Husain. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Banerjee, Jindal, and Wen. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Banerjee, Jindal, and Woo. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Gaos, Jindal, and Lerro. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Gaos, Jindal, Lerro, Islam, and Taylor. 3 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of Gaos, Jindal, Lerro, Islam, Taylor, and Wen. II. ISSUE The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Jindal teaches or would have suggested "the same predetermined remote computing services are available to the user on any of the client computer systems in any of the regions" (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Jindal Jindal discloses replicated computing services available on multiple, geographically distributed server computer systems to handle requests by numerous clients (col. 4, 11. 49--56; col. 8, 11. 53---62). "Individual users may ... be routed to, and their requests satisfied by, any of the several servers" (col. 4, 11. 56-57). IV. ANALYSIS Claims 1-5 As for representative claim 1, although Appellants concede that Jindal discloses a "user's request for a replicated service," Appellants contend that "Jindal appears completely silent as to ' [the] same predetermined remote computing services are available to the user on any of the client computer systems in any of the regions"' (App. Br. 10). Appellants further contend 4 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 that Banerjee modified to include this feature "would necessarily be unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of providing diversity based upon location" (App. Br. 12). We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings, and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane) (citations omitted). We note that claim 1 does not define "predetermined remote computing services" other than that they are "associated with the user" and the "client computer systems" are to receive the services while the "server computer systems" are to provide the services. Further, the Specification does not provide a specific definition for the term "computing services" in general. Thus, we interpret "computing services" broadly to mean any data processing to be provided by a server computer system to a client computer system. We also note that claim 1 merely requires "availability" of the same predetermined remote computing services to the user on any client computer system in any region. In fact, claim 1 does not define how the services 5 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 become "available" and does not require that the same services be provided to the user while the user is on a particular client computer system. Thus, giving the claim its broadest, reasonable interpretation, we conclude claim 1 merely requires that the user on any of the client computer systems in any of the regions may be able to access the same predetermined remote computing services, whether the user is on the particular client computer system or some other client computer system. In view of our broadest reasonable interpretation, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Banerjee in combination with Jindal teaches and suggests the same predetermined remote computing services being available to the user on any of the client computer systems in any of the regions (Ans. 5). The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Banerjee for disclosing and suggesting client computer systems in geographically distributed regions and server computer systems, each of which provides remote computing services for client computer systems in a particular region (Final Act. 2-3). We also find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Jindal for disclosing and suggesting replicated, i.e., same, computing services provided by multiple server computer systems which are geographically distributed (FF; Final Act. 4). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to incorporate Jindal' s teaching and suggestion of replicated services into the geographically distributed system of Banerjee, thus providing the same 6 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 services among multiple servers in Banerjee (Final Act. 4), thereby "enhanc[ing] the distributed computer enterprise system, such as, by load balancing clients' request and allocation of resources" (Ans. 7). In view of our broadest reasonable claim interpretation, we agree with the Examiner that Banerjee in view of Jindal discloses or at least suggests that the replicated (i.e., the same predetermined) services would be "available" on all of the servers. In particular, we find that any user or client would have access to the replicated services by accessing any server. Although Appellants further contend that modifying Banerjee would render it "unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of providing diversity based upon location" (App. Br. 12), Appellants appear to have viewed the combination from a different perspective than that of the Examiner. Specifically, although Appellants argue that providing the same predetermined remote computing services available on any of the client computer systems in any of the regions is "[i]n direct opposition to providing diversity based upon location" and that "Banerjee would be required to eliminate diversity based upon location" in order to provide the contested limitation (id.), we agree with the Examiner that modifying Banerjee to include Jindal's feature of replicated services "is well within the means and technical grasp of one of ordinary skill in the art" and "would not have an adverse effect on Banerjee's existing geographically distributed remote computing services" (Ans. 7). \Ve conclude it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replicate the business method to be serviced to the requesting client in Banerjee among the servers, as disclosed by Jindal (FF), resulting in the same business method (i.e., computing service) available on each server and 7 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 thus "available" to any client in any of the regions. That is, under our broad, yet reasonable, interpretation of "predetermined remote computing services" discussed above, replicated computing services are the same computing services, and, although, Banerjee's replicated business method computing services are processed according to different internationalization contexts, the same computing services are available to clients in different regions. Thus, contrary to Appellants' contention, modifying Banerjee to include the same service available to any client in any of the regions does not require Banerjee to eliminate diversity based on location. Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 over Banerjee and Jindal. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 2-5 separate from claim 1 (App. Br. 12). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of claim 2 over Banerjee and Jindal, in further view of Husain; of claim 3 over Banerjee and Jindal, in further view of Wen; and of claims 4 and 5 over Banerjee and Jindal, in further view of Woo. Claims 6-8 With respect to claim 6, similar as with claim 1 above, Appellants contend, and we find unpersuasive, "Jindal appears completely silent as to 'the same remote computing services for a particular user are available to the user on any of the client kiosks in any of the regions"' (App. Br. 14). We agree with the Examiner that Jindal discloses services replicated among the servers (Final Act. 4; FF). Accordingly, applying the same rationale here as we do to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that the same remote computing services for a particular user would be available to the user on any of the client kiosks in any of the regions (Final Act. 9-12). In particular, 8 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 we find that any user or client kiosk would have access to the replicated (i.e., same) services regardless of which server the user on the client kiosk accessed, in the combination of Gaos and Jindal. Although, Appellants contend that the Final Office Action has failed to provide "what reason there is for a user to have access to all of that user's particular applications for all of that user's specific electronic and computer devices in each and every household" (App. Br. 16), this argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited claim language. In particular, claim 6 does not require access to all of a user's particular applications for all of that user's specific electronic and computer devices from every household. Given our broadest reasonable interpretation of "computing services" above, we agree with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Gaos's servers providing services to client kiosks with Jindal's replication of computing services among the servers (Final Act. 9--11) would provide the same computing services for a particular user available to the user on any of the client kiosks in any of the regions. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the system of geographically distributed client kiosks of Gaos to include Jindal's replication of services among the servers in order to "provide the same remote computing services on servers that are located in different geographical region[ s ]" (Final Act. 11 ), thus "provid[ing] load balancing among various regions" (Ans. 9). That is, we find the Examiner has provided sufficient articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 6 over Banerjee, Jindal, and Lerro. 9 Appeal2014-004279 Application 12/999,260 Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 7 and 8 separate from claim 6 (App. Br. 16). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejections of claim 7 over Banerjee, Jindal, and Lerro, in further view of Islam and Taylor; and of claim 8 over Banerjee, Jindal, Lerro, Islam, and Taylor, in further view of Wen. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation