Ex Parte Karenos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

12814426 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

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