Ex Parte Riemers

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2019

13756118 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/756,118 01/31/2013
110773 7590 01/10/2019
Haynes and Boone, LLP (50833)
Attn. IP Docketing
2323 Victory A venue , Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75219
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bill Clifford Riemers
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.
49145.25 7047
EXAMINER
AQUINO, WYNUEL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2199
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/10/2019 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):
ipdocketing@haynesboone.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BILL CLIFFORD RIEMERS
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Red Hat, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Action mailed September 30, 2016
("Final Act."), Appeal Brief filed July 27, 2017 ("App. Br."), Examiner's
Answer mailed December 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief filed
February 12, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The invention relates to scheduling processing jobs to run in a
computer system, and specifically, scheduling jobs when there are more jobs
to run than available slots for running them. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 9, and 12
are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject
matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
in a program that includes a defined number of job slots
for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one
of the slots; and
executing the first job, wherein the first job includes
logic for scanning a list of additional jobs scheduled to run
before a subsequent iteration of the first job and scheduling
those additional jobs for execution, further wherein a total
number of the additional jobs in the program exceeds the
defined number of job slots.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Santoli et al.
(US 2012/0204180 Al; Aug. 9, 2012) ("Santoli"), Hambrick et al.
(US 2008/0229330 Al; Sept. 18, 2008) ("Hambrick"), and Picinich et al.
(US 2005/0268299 Al; Dec. 1, 2005) ("Picinich"). Final Act. 2-24.
2
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, and Ly et al.
(US 2006/0020942 Al; Jan. 26, 2006) ("Ly"). Final Act. 25-28.
Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, Ly, and Linder
(US 2010/0153952 Al; June 17, 2010). Final Act. 28-29.
Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, and Linder. Final Act. 29-
30.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20
over Santoli, Hambrick, and Picinich
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Santoli, Hambrick, and Picinich teaches or suggests a "first job includes
logic for scanning a list of additional jobs scheduled to run before a
3
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
subsequent iteration of the first job," as recited in claim 1. 3 App. Br. 7-10.
Specifically, Appellant first argues the Examiner erred in finding Hambrick
teaches a "first job includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs,"
because Hambrick's "logic of the batch job itself' does not scan for jobs
(batch beans in Hambrick). Id. at 8-9 ( emphasis omitted). Second,
Appellant argues Hambrick and Picinich do not teach or suggest scheduling
"additional jobs ... to run before a subsequent iteration of the first job," but
rather, merely teach a "recurring" batch job. Id. at 9-10. We address
Appellant's two arguments in tum.
First, regarding the limitation "first job includes logic for scanning a
list of additional jobs," Appellant's argument regarding Hambrick
misconstrues the Examiner's findings. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds
the recited "first job" is taught by Hambrick' s batch job and logic that scans
an XJCL definition for respective batch beans. Ans. 32 (reading the claimed
job on 'job steps and setup operations ... used in order for the batch job to
complete"), 33 ("Hambrick teaches [the claimed] 'job (i.e.[,] ... a job step)
includes logic (i.e.[,] get method to obtain a list of accounts) ... ' and
therefore [teaches] the limitations"). That is, the Examiner finds Hambrick's
batch job and logic are collectively a "first job [that] includes logic for
scanning a list of additional jobs," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner
further finds Hambrick' s XJCL definition is a scanned "list of additional
3 Appellant argues claims 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20 as a group, App. Br. 10, and
we choose independent claim 1 as representative of the group.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
jobs," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4, 32-33. On this record, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred.
As the Examiner finds, Hambrick teaches a batch job configuration
(the job steps, classes, conditions, etc.) for calculating interest and respective
logic that scans the XJCL definition to determine the specific configuration
information and "batch beans," which are objects for modeling interactions
and managing data persistence. Ans. 32-33; Hambrick ,r,r 5, 21, 87, 96.
One of ordinary skill would have understood Hambrick's configuration and
logic together as a 'job;" that is, together they cause actions performed to
configure the calculations of interest. Hambrick ,r 87; see also Spec. ,r 2
("Processing jobs may include any of a variety of actions performed by a
computer system."). These actions, including scanning the XJCL definition
for batch beans, are collectively a "job [that] includes logic for scanning a
list of additional jobs," as recited in claim 1.
Appellant argues Hambrick does not describe the batch job as itself
performing the scan of the XJCL definition for batch beans, and thus does
not teach the batch job as being a 'job [that] includes logic for scanning a
list of additional jobs." App. Br. 9. This argument, however, does not
address the Examiner's finding that Hambrick's batchjob (configuration)
and the logic that scans an XJCL definition collectively constitute a "job" as
claimed. Moreover, nothing in claim 1 or the Specification precludes the
claimed job from being a collection of elements performing a task, and using
multiple data objects.
We now tum to Appellant's second argument, i.e., that the
combination of Hambrick and Picinich does not teach or suggest "additional
5
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
jobs scheduled to run before a subsequent iteration of the first job."
App. Br. 9--10. Appellant argues Hambrick does not disclose the batch
beans as completing before the next iteration of the batch job. Id. at 9.
Appellant further argues that Picinich teaches a recurring batch job, but does
not describe the batch job as completing before its next iteration. Id. at 9--
10. Appellant concludes that, at best, the combination of Hambrick and
Picinich "would result in Hambrick's calculating interest job being a
recurring job." Id. at 10. We, however, are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
As the Examiner finds, Picinich teaches a daily recurrence of a batch
job, and Hambrick teaches that a batch job invokes batch beans. Ans. 34--35
( citing Picini ch ,r,r 2-3); Final Act. 3 ( citing Hambrick ,r 87). The Examiner
further finds, in view of these teachings of Picini ch and Hambrick, that it
would have been obvious to schedule a daily recurrence of Hambrick's batch
job. Ans. 34--35. The Examiner also finds one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that, if a batch job recurs daily, its respective batch
beans also recur daily and are thus scheduled to run before the job's next
iteration (i.e., before the next day). Id. Appellant's arguments in the Appeal
Brief do not identify the alleged error in these findings, and in the Reply
Brief, Appellant acknowledges that if batch beans perform sub-jobs of the
batch job, "then they would necessarily be ... scheduled to run before any
subsequent iteration of the [batch] job," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3
( emphasis added). We, like the Examiner, find Hambrick teaches batch
beans perform "job steps" (i.e., sub-jobs) of the batch job, and that certain
6
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
batch beans are "needed for the batch job" and "invoke[ d] ... until a job
completion." Id. ,r,r 87, 96.
Moreover, as the Examiner finds (and Appellant does not contest),
one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine
Picini ch with Hambrick in order to more efficiently schedule batch jobs,
namely, doing so "periodically based upon availability of resources." Final
Act. 6; Ans. 6. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided "articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)
( citation omitted).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Hambrick's batch beans are
part of their respective batch jobs, and thus are not "additional jobs," as
recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3. This new argument could have been
raised in the Appeal Brief, and therefore is waived as untimely. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(4); see also Final Act. 3 (finding Hambrick's batch
beans teach the claimed "additional jobs"). Even if our reviewing court
were to find the argument timely raised, we would not be persuaded of error.
Hambrick teaches that batch beans perform calculations. Hambrick further
teaches a batchjob and logic ("first job [that] includes logic," as recited in
claim 1) configure the process of calculating. Hambrick ,r,r 87, 96. Because
calculating and configuring are distinct processes as taught in Hambrick, one
of ordinary skill in the art would consider batch beans as "additional" to the
batch job and logic. Spec. ,r 2 ( describing "jobs" as a "variety of actions").
7
Appeal2018-003555
Application 13/756,118
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us
the Examiner erred. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-1 7,
19, and 20 as obvious over Santoli, Hambrick, and Picinich.
Remaining Rejections
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 6-
8 and 18 for the same reasons as their respective independent claims 1 and
12, and because the additional references cited by the Examiner fail to
remedy the alleged deficiencies regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 12.
App. Br. 10-11. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 as obvious
over Santoli, Hambrick Picinich, and Ly. We also sustain the rejection of
claim 8 as obvious over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, Ly, and Linder.
Finally, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 as obvious over Santoli,
Hambrick, Picinich, and Linder.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
8