Ex Parte Karenos et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 21, 201612814426 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/814,426 06/11/2010 48813 7590 07/25/2016 LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR) PO Box 765 Cardiff, CA 92007 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kyriakos Karenos 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. YOR920100140US1 9270 EXAMINER PITARO,RYANF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2171 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 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): pair@tuchmanlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KYRIAKOS KARENOS, MINKYONG KIM, HUI LEI, HAO YANG, FAN YE, and LIANGZHAO ZENG Appeal2015-000468 Application 12/814,426 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner'sfinalrejectionofclaims 1,2,8, 11, 12, 17, 18,and23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). 1 The real party in interest is identified as International Business Machines Corporation. (App. Br. 2.) 2 Claims 3-7, 9, 10, 13-16, and 19-22 have been objected to as dependent upon rejected base claims but otherwise indicated as allowable in the Final Action dated December 11, 2013. (Final Act. 6.) Appeal2015-000468 Application 12/814,426 We reverse. Claimed Subject Matter The claimed invention generally relates to a publish/subscribe overlay network control system linking publishers, subscribers, and brokers. (Title; Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative: 1. A system comprising: a plurality of computers; an overlay network linking the plurality of computers, the plurality of computers including a plurality of publishers, a plurality of subscribers, and a plurality of brokers, the overlay network including a first computer network having a first network protocol, the first computer network carried by a second computer network having a second network protocol; an agent carried by each of the publishers, the subscribers, and the brokers that adjusts the network's topology based upon collected runtime data of at least one of condition of each link within the network and broker availability to any publisher and subscriber; and an optimizer to automatically select at least one backup bridge and data path of each of the subscribers when a local domain's overlay node fails such that total traffic in the overlay network is minimized and message delay constraints between publisher and subscriber pairs are satisfied. Rejection Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zhao et al. (US 2006/0085507 Al; publ. Apr. 20, 2006) ("Zhao"), Baekelmans et al. (US 2006/0277299 Al; publ. Dec. 7, 2006) ("Baekelmans"), and Allan et al. (US 2010/0103813 Al; publ. Apr. 29, 2010) ("Allan"). (Final Act. 2-5.) 2 Appeal2015-000468 Application 12/814,426 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 5-15; Reply Br. 2-7). On the record before us, we concur with Appellants' contention (App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 6, 7) that the Examiner has not pointed to sufficient evidence that Allan and Zhao teach or suggest an optimizer to automatically select at least one backup bridge and data path of each of the subscribers when a local domain's overlay node fails such that total traffic in the overlay network is minimized and message delay constraints between publisher and subscriber pairs are satisfied, as recited in claim 1. The Examiner finds paragraph 6 of Zhao teaches a publish/subscribe system that "automatically load balances" published information traffic across paths, and paragraphs 22-24 and 28 of Allan teach backup bridge and data path selection providing a stable backup which will "restore minimum best effort connectivity" and "minimize the degradation of service during an outage." (Ans. 6 (citing Zhao i-f 6; Allan i-fi-122-24, 28); see also Final Act. 4.) Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes Allan combined with Zhao teaches the claimed optimizer affecting total traffic and message delay constraints. (Ans. 6.) Appellants argue Allan's traffic management does not teach an operation by which total network traffic is minimized and message delay constraints are satisfied as required by claim 1. (App. Br. 13.) We agree with Appellants the Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence to show that Zhao's "load balanc[ing] published information traffic" and Allan's "restor[ing] a minimum of best effort connectivity, and ... minimiz[ing] the degradation of service during an outage" teach that total traffic in an overlay 3 Appeal2015-000468 Application 12/814,426 network is minimized and message delay constraints between publisher and subscriber pairs are satisfied as claim 1 requires. (App. Br. 13, 14; Reply Br. 7; see Zhao i-f 6, Allan i-f 28). In light of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Zhao, Baekelmans, and Allan. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 12 and 18, which recite the limitations of selecting at least one backup bridge and data path such that total traffic in the overlay network is minimized and message delay constraints between publisher and subscriber pairs are satisfied. We similarly do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 8, 11, 1 7, and 23. We do not address Appellants' remaining arguments because this issue is dispositive as to all pending claims on appeal. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 12, 17, 18, and 23 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation