Ex Parte Van Vlimmeren et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2016

12936915 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/936,915 02/02/2011
65913 7590 07/29/2016
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bernardus Adrianus Cornelis Van Vlimmeren
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.
81051410 US04 7953
EXAMINER
COX,BRIANP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2016 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BERNARDUS ADRIANUS CORNELIS VAN VLIMMEREN and
JACK ALEXANDER GOOSSEN
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-23, which are all the
claims pending in the present patent application. Claim 2 is cancelled. App.
Br. 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify NXP B.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to processing an application that uses
at least one resource, wherein resources are located on different subsystems.
Spec. 1 :3-5.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method, comprising:
processing an application which uses a
plurality of resources;
generating at least one proxy depending on
the application;
the proxy claiming substantially all available
resources, wherein an actually used resource for
processing the application is determined depending
on at least one predefined criterion.
The Rejections
1. Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 14, 17, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jackson (US 8,321,871 Bl; Nov. 27, 2012) and
Stackhouse (US 7,437,728 B2; Oct. 14, 2008).
2. Claims 16, 18-20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Jackson, Stackhouse, and Rattner (US 2009/0158292 Al; June
18, 2009).
3. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Jackson, Stackhouse, Rattner, and "OpenMAJ(fM Integration Layer
Application Programming Interface Specification Version 1.0," (The
Khronos Group Inc., December 16, 2005).
2
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
4. Claims 6, 7, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Jackson, Stackhouse, Rattner, and Biro (US 2008/0320490 Al; Dec.
25, 2008).
5. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Jackson, Stackhouse, and Biro.
ANALYSIS
Rejection 1: Obviousness over Jackson and Stackhouse
Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 17 together. App. Br. 8.
Based on Appellants' arguments, we select independent claim 1 as
representative. Appellants contend, "Those skilled in the art would not
regard [Jackson's] 'jobs' as equivalent to the claimed proxy." Id. at 5.
Appellants further contend "Jackson teaches away from claiming
substantially all available resources." Id. at 7. Appellants continue, "those
skilled in the art would not regard [Stackhouse] management service as
equivalent to the recited proxy." Id.
Initially, as a matter of claim construction, we find Appellants have
not defined explicitly the term proxy in the claim nor the Specification. We
apply the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim terms, consistent with
the specification, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(citations omitted). Where, as here, the Specification does not explicitly
define a term, the term should be given its ordinary meaning. E-Pass Techs.,
Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Appellants contend, "Those skilled in the art would not regard
[Jackson's] 'jobs' as equivalent to the claimed proxy." App. Br. 5.
Appellants fail, however, to explain persuasively why the broadest
3
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
reasonable interpretation of the claimed proxy would not include Jackson's
jobs. As the Examiner correctly finds:
Jackson describes the creation of "jobs" as:
"receiving a request for resource availability in a
compute environment from a requestor (i.e., and
application side system), means for associating
transaction identification with the request and
resources within the compute environment (Jackson
col[.] 4, 11. 49-56); A job can be any venue or end of
consumption of resource for any broad purpose,
whether it be for a batch system, direct volume
access or other service provisioning (Jackson col. 5,
11. 5-8)[.]" Here Jackson describes the receipt of a
request from a requestor, which is analogous to an
application and means of associating the request
with resources that the application can utilize.
Furthermore, Jackson contemplates a very broad
interpretation of "Job," regardless, it is clear from
the disclosure of Jackson that a request is received
from an application side system and resources are
reserved with the intermediary step of creating a job
to facilitate the reservation of resources.
Ans. 4--5 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner, that
Jackson's description of jobs teaches or suggests the claimed proxy.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the
limitation "the proxy claiming substantially all available resources." The
Examiner cites Stackhouse, not Jackson, as teaching this limitation. Final
Act. 5. Where, as here, a rejection is based on a combination of references,
one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, Appellants fail to identify in the
record before us, disclosure in Jackson that would have discouraged a skilled
4
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
artisan from attempting the cited combination, and cause the artisan to "be
led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant."
In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). Thus,
we are not persuaded Jackson teaches away from claiming substantially all
available resources. Appellant also fails to explain persuasively why, given
the cited Stackhouse teaching of managing 100% of all available resources
(Ans. 5), the recited claiming resources would not encompass Stackhouse's
managing resources. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1 and 1 7.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claims 4
"because Jackson's policies are not equivalent to filter units because Jackson
lacks proxies." App. Br. 9. Appellants further contend the Examiner errs in
rejecting dependent claim 5 "[b ]ecause Jackson lacks proxies, Jackson all
[sic] cannot disclose any proxy filter units." Id. at 10. We find these
arguments unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 4 and 5.
Appellants advance no further arguments for dependent claims 3, 14,
and 23. App. Br. 13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 3, 14, and 23.
In addition to the arguments addressed above, Appellants contend the
Examiner errs in rejecting dependent claims 8 and 9 because "having
something 'utilized by a central node' is not equivalent to connecting a first
resource to a second resource." App. Br. 11-12. We agree with Appellants.
The cited portion of Jackson teaches or suggests that the allocated resources
are allocated within a single node. Jackson, 6:10-30. This recitation does
not, absent more, teach or suggest connecting the resources as set forth in
5
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
claims 8 and 9. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claims 8 and 9.
Rejection 2: Obviousness over Jackson, Stackhouse, and Rattner
Appellants advance no further arguments for dependent claims 16,
18-20, and 22 beyond those addressed above as unpersuasive in the context
of Rejection 1. See App. Br. 14. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of dependent claims 16, 18-20, and 22.
Rejection 3: Obviousness over Jackson, Stackhouse, Rattner, and OpenMax
Appellants advance no further arguments for dependent claim 21
beyond those addressed above as unpersuasive in the context of Rejection 1.
See App. Br. 15. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
dependent claim 21.
Rejection 4: Obviousness over Jackson, Stackhouse, Rattner, and Brio
Claims 6, 7, and 11-15 set forth connectable, connecting, or
connected resources. As discussed above in the context of Rejection 1, we
find the cited portion of Jackson teaches or suggests that the allocated
resources are allocated within a single node. Jackson, 6: 10-30. This
description does not, absent more, teach or suggest connecting the resources
as set forth in claims 6, 7, and 11-15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 6, 7, and 11-15.
6
Appeal2015-002950
Application 12/93 6,915
Rejection 5: Obviousness over Jackson, Stackhouse, and Brio
Claim 10 sets forth connecting resources. As discussed above in the
context of Rejection 1, we find the cited portion of Jackson teaches or
suggests that the allocated resources are allocated within a single node.
Jackson, 6: 10-3 0. This recitation does not, absent more, teach or suggest
connecting the resources as set forth in claim 10. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claim 10.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1, 3-5, and 16-
23.
We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 6-15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7