Ex Parte Inampudi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

11252490 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MAHESWARA R. INAMPUDI and
JAMES W. PENNEY
____________________

Appeal 2010-010718
Application 11/252,490
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 5-17, 19, and 20 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-010718
Application 11/252,490

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “a system, method and
computer program product for executing an application designed for a grid
computing system by selecting to execute the application either in a local
environment or in a grid environment” (Spec. 1:4-8).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A system for executing a grid application, said system
comprising:

a local computer infrastructure configured to execute a
grid application in a local environment, wherein said local
computer infrastructure comprises a local computer workstation
having a central processing unit for executing one or more tasks
pertaining to said grid application;

a grid computer infrastructure configured to execute said
grid application in a grid environment, wherein said grid
computer infrastructure comprises a plurality of grid nodes
connected via a network communications channel, each of said
grid nodes having a central processing unit for executing one or
more tasks pertaining to said grid application; and

a local-grid facade code implemented within each of said
local computer infrastructure and said grid computer
infrastructure, said local-grid facade code having a parameter
switch for selecting either said local environment or said grid
environment and for executing said grid application in the
selected environment.

REFERENCE and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Miloushev (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No.
2006/0143350 A1).
Appeal 2010-010718
Application 11/252,490

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Miloushev does not teach executing a grid
application on a single local computer as claimed (Br. 5). Additionally,
Appellants contend Miloushev teaches a grid switch and not a parameter
switch that determines how a grid application is to be run (Br. 6).
The Examiner finds Miloushev teaches a grid switch that receives a
request and determines whether the request should be executed on a single
server as a conventional process or on multiple servers as an aggregated
process (Ans. 14).
Appellants do not define “parameter switch” in their Specification
except to state it selects a local environment or a grid environment for
executing an application (Spec. 2:12-14). Thus, under the Examiner’s broad
but reasonable interpretation, the Examiner is correct in finding Appellants’
parameter switch reads on Miloushev’s grid switch. Further Miloushev’s
paragraph [0194] states the grid switch performs resource allocation and
paragraph [0195] determines whether a process will execute on a single
server or multiple servers as claimed (Ans. 14). Although Miloushev does
not teach selecting a local environment, the claim requires “selecting either
said local environment or said grid environment for executing said grid
application in the selected environment.” As Miloushev does teach selecting
at least a grid environment, the limitations of Appellants’ claims 1 and 5-9
are met.
Claims 10-17, 19, and 20 contain substantially the same limitations as
claims 1 and 5-9, and Appellants provided substantially the same arguments
(Br. 6-7). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of these claims as anticipated
by Miloushev for the above reasons.
Appeal 2010-010718
Application 11/252,490

4
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 5-17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tkl