Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 15, 2022

2021000249 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2022)

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. 15/084,823 03/30/2016 David L. Holcombe 170103-1881 8741 71247 7590 02/15/2022 Client 170101 c/o THOMAS HORSTEMEYER, LLP 3200 WINDY HILL RD SE SUITE 1600E ATLANTA, GA 30339 EXAMINER GREENE, JOSEPH L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2452 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/15/2022 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): docketing@thip.law uspatents@tkhr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID L. HOLCOMBE ____________ Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before KARL D. EASTHOM, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision finally rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. II. DISCLOSED AND CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The Specification relates to “facilitat[ing] throttling of client access to network services that may be implemented on various computing devices that may be located in disparate locations.” Spec. ¶ 13. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Amazon Technologies, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 2 The Specification explains that, in “a network service environment, effectively and efficiently throttling access to a particular API, data store, or other network service can facilitate uptime and help ensure the various network services have sufficient capacity to provide services to application clients.” Id. ¶ 2. Independent claim 1 follows: 1. A method, comprising: receiving, by a request throttling client, authorization from a request throttling server to make a determination to process a network service request received by a network service device corresponding to a network service independent of consulting the request throttling server, the network service request being received over a network on behalf of a client; extracting, by the request throttling client, at least one request parameter from the network service request, wherein the at least one request parameter describes at least one of: a user or customer identifier associated with the client, a name or identifier of the network service, an API or function within the network service, or a marketplace identifier; identifying, by the request throttling client, at least one throttling policy applicable to the at least one request parameter cached within the request throttling client, the at least one throttling policy obtained from the request throttling server with the authorization to make the determination to process the network service request; identifying, by the request throttling client, usage data of the network service, the usage data cached within the request throttling client; determining, by the request throttling client, whether the network service request should be granted based at least in part upon the at least one throttling policy and the usage data of the network service cached within the request throttling client, wherein the at least one throttling policy defines a particular amount of capacity to allocate to the network service device, Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 3 wherein the usage data comprises data related to the at least one request parameter; in response to determining that the at least one request parameter does not violate the at least one throttling policy, generating, by the request throttling client, a value indicating that the network service device should process the network service request; and processing, by the network service device, the network service request. 2 Appeal Br. 26-27 (Claims Appendix). III. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal follows: Name Reference Date Schaefer et al. (“Schaefer”) US 2006/0259949 A1 Nov. 16, 2006 Yoshioka et al. (“Yoshioka”) US 2007/0237535 A1 Oct. 11, 2007 Raja et al. (“Raja”) US 2011/0153724 A1 June 23, 2011 Qureshi et al. (“Qureshi”) US 2011/0173681 A1 July 14, 2011 Heinz et al. (“Heinz”) US 8,144,587 B2 Mar. 27, 2012 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may consider whether the claimed “identifying, by the request throttling client, at least one throttling policy applicable to the at least one request parameter cached within the request throttling client” lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, claim 1 introduces “extracting, by the request throttling client, at least one request parameter from the network service request,” but fails to recite caching the at least one request parameter prior to “identifying, by the request throttling client, at least one throttling policy applicable to the at least one request parameter cached within the request throttling client.” (emphasis added). Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 4 IV. REJECTIONS Claims 1-20 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-17, and 19-28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,313,604. Final Act. 3. Claims 9, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Raja, Heinz, and Qureshi. Final Act. 5. Claims 1-8, 11, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Raja, Heinz, Qureshi, and Schaefer. Final Act. 8. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Raja, Heinz, Schaefer, Qureshi, and Yoshioka. Final Act. 17-18. V. OPINION Double Patenting Rejection Appellant does not traverse the rejection of claims 1-20, which stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1-3, 5-10, 13-17, and 19-28 of U.S. Patent No. 9,313,604. Final Act. 3. “If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection - the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.” Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s double patenting rejection of claims 1-20. Section 103 Rejections Claim 1 recites extracting, by the request throttling client, at least one request parameter from the network service request, wherein the at least Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 5 one request parameter describes at least one of: a user or customer identifier associated with the client, a name or identifier of the network service, an API or function within the network service or a marketplace identifier. The Examiner finds that Raja teaches extracting a request parameter from the network service request. Final Act. 8-9 (citing Raja ¶¶ 47, 252); see also Ans. 20. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Raja’s “parameter is submitted from one appliance to another, via the header field” and that “the appliance handles the requests.” Ans. 25 (citing Raja ¶¶ 47, 219). The Examiner relies on Qureshi to teach throttling by specific network service entities. Final Act. 10 (citing Qureshi ¶ 10). Appellant argues that Raja’s using TCP options or IP header fields does not teach “extracting, by the request throttling client, at least one request parameter from the network service request” as claimed. Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant argues that Raja’s “parameters being ‘submitted into the TCP or IP header field for extraction by the receiving appliance’” does not teach “a ‘request parameter’” as claimed. Reply Br. 4. According to Appellant, Raja’s “appliance ‘encod[ing] any type and form of data or information into custom or standard TCP and/or IP header fields or option fields of network packet to announce presence, functionality or capability to another appliance’” does not teach “extracting . . . at least one request parameter from the network service request” as claimed. Id. at 10. Raja discloses that “the appliance 205 encoded any type and form of data or information into custom or standard TCP and/or IP header fields or option fields of network packet to announce presence, functionality or capability to another appliance 205’” and that “an appliance 205’ may Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 6 communicate with another appliance 205’ using data encoded in both TCP and/or IP header fields or options.” Raja ¶ 47 (emphasis added). As persuasively argued by Appellant, Raja does not teach “extracting . . . at least one request parameter from the network service request.” Raja teaches an appliance encoding information to send to another appliance. However, Raja’s information (i.e., parameter) is encoded to communicate/announce functionality or capability from one appliance to another appliance, which does not teach extracting a request parameter from a network service request. In particular, Raja’s appliance to appliance communication announcing functionality or capability does not teach a “network service request” as claimed. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1, independent claims 9 and 15, which recite the same material limitation, and claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, dependent therefrom. VI. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-000249 Application 15/084,823 7 In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 Nonstatutory Double Patenting, 9,313,604 1-20 9, 12, 13 103 Raja, Heinz, Qureshi 9, 12, 13 1-8, 11, 14-20 103 Raja, Heinz, Qureshi, Schaefer 1-8, 11, 14-20 10 103 Raja, Heinz, Schaefer, Qureshi, Yoshioka 10 Overall Outcome 1-20 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED