Ex Parte Natarajan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 15, 2015

11624253 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/624,253 01/18/2007 Ramesh Natarajan YOR920060598US1 6278
48150 7590 01/15/2015
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
DAO, TUAN C.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAMESH NATARAJAN, THOMAS PHAN,
and SATOKI MITSUMORI
____________

Appeal 2012-010161
Application 11/624,253
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20.
1
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1
Appellants state they are appealing the rejections for claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,
14–17, 19, and 20. (App. Br. 2.) However, Appellants’ Notice of Appeal
list all claims 1–20, and Appellants also request the Board to “remove all
rejections of claims 1–20.” (App. Br. 18.) We shall therefore treat this
appeal as including all claims, i.e., claims 1–20.
Appeal 2012-010161
Application 11/624,253

2
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to middleware components that
support the execution of computational applications on a high-performance
computing platform. (See Abstr.) Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as
follows:
1. A computer system, comprising:
a high performance computing (HPC) platform comprising a
plurality of processors for executing parallel processings; and
a set of middleware components, as executed by at least one
processor in said computer system, providing a capability for
inputting to the high performance computing platform a
synchronization and a scheduling of individual data transfer and
computing tasks on the high performance computing platform,
wherein the set of middleware components comprises:
a job scheduler that receives a job submission description
file that encodes various steps in an application workflow, based on
extending a JSDL (job submission description language) schema; and
a data-staging gateway which automates a data extraction
and migration for an HPC application from remote data sources, using
specifications in the job submission description file, so as to control
an execution of data format conversions and access protocols to
automatically extract data from a remote data source and to store the
extracted data in a file system associated with the HPC platform, in a
format defined by the job submission description file.

Appeal 2012-010161
Application 11/624,253

3
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
2

The Examiner has rejected claims 1–4, 6–9, 14–17, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ryan (US 2007/0180451 A1;
published Aug. 2, 2007) and Ali Anjomshoaa et al., Job Submission
Description Language (JSDL) Specification, Version 1.0 (Nov. 2005),
currently available at http://www.ogf.org/documents/GFD.56.pdf (last
visited Dec. 22, 2014) (hereinafter, “Anjomshoaa”). (Ans. 5.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ryan, Anjomshoaa, and Bernardin (US
2003/0191795 A1; published Oct. 9, 2003). (Ans. 16.)
The Examiner has rejected claims 10–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ryan, Anjomshoaa, and Powers (US 2006/0080389
A1; published Apr. 13, 2006). (Ans. 17.)
The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ryan, Anjomshoaa, and Holovacs (US
2006/0236347 A1; published Oct. 19, 2006). (Ans. 18.)

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred.

2
Appellants’ arguments as to claims 2–20 either turn on their arguments as
to claim 1 or consist only of attorney argument and conclusory statements.
Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by
factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Lovin, 652
F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011); cf. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, because no separate arguments for patentability
are presented in connection with claims 2–20, we decide the appeal of the
rejections of claims 1–20 based on claim 1 alone and, except for our ultimate
decision, claims 2–20 are not further addressed herein.
Appeal 2012-010161
Application 11/624,253

4
Appellants contend that neither Ryan nor Anjomshoaa discloses “a
data-staging gateway which automates a data extraction and migration for an
HPC [high performance computing] application from remote data sources,”
as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants contend that neither reference
discloses “extraction of data from remote data sources.” (App. Br. 8–9, 14.)
As an initial matter, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 23) that a
“remote data source” includes any data source which is not located in the
same device/computer with the HPC application. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (disputed claim terms are construed in
accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation during patent
prosecution). Appellants’ Specification does not provide a definition of the
disputed remote data source nor is the Examiner’s interpretation inconsistent
with the broadest reasonable interpretation of the phrase. Therefore,
Appellants’ arguments based on a requirement that data sources 15–17 be
accessible through a network are not persuasive of error. (See App. Br. 9,
14–15.)
The Examiner finds Anjomshoaa teaches “automatically staging and
transferring data from Source to Target.” (Ans. 7, 21–22 (citing
Anjomshoaa, Figs. 1 and 2, pgs. 5–6, 15, and 37–39).) The Examiner also
finds Ryan teaches one or more client applications communicate with the
distributed computing system through a network. (Ans. 23 (citing Ryan,
Figs. 1 and 2, ¶¶ 25, 28, and 30–34).) Further, the Examiner finds the data
extracted in Ryan includes jobs, tasks, and work submitted by the client
application. (Id.) Based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“remote data source,” we agree with the Examiner’s findings that both
references teach the disputed limitation.
Appeal 2012-010161
Application 11/624,253

5
Next, Appellants contend that “a job scheduler that receives a job
submission description file that encodes various steps in an application
workflow, based on extending a JSDL (job submission description language)
schema,” as recited in claim 1, requires “modifications to the standard JSDL
specification, as explained in lines 4–17 of page 9 of the specification of the
present application.” (App. Br. 12.) We agree with the Examiner, however,
that the specific modifications to the JSDL specification discussed in the
specification and argued by Appellants are not recited in claim 1. (Ans. 27.)
We further observe that Anjomshoaa teaches that “JSDL 1.0 is an extensible
specification” and teaches ways of extending it. (See Anjomshoaa, 6, 44,
45.)
Finally, to the extent that Appellants contend that the references do
not teach using the gateway “so that the HPC core does not waste time on
latency due to such remote source data retrievals” (App. Br. 14), we agree
with the Examiner that such a limitation is not included in claim 1. (Ans.
34.) We also observe that the Examiner, rather than relying on hindsight
(see App. Br. 15), has articulated a reason with rational underpinning for
combining the references at issue (Ans. 8), which Appellants have not
substantively addressed. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.

Appeal 2012-010161
Application 11/624,253

6
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

kis