Ex Parte Archer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

12892192 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/892, 192 09/28/2010
47478 7590 06/29/2016
IBM (ROC-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
8601 Ranch Road 2222
Ste. 1-225
AUSTIN, TX 78730
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
CHARLES J. ARCHER
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.
ROC920100149US1 1808
EXAMINER
KRISHNAN, RAJESHWARI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2016 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHARLES J. ARCHER, MICHAEL A. BLOCKSOME,
TODD A. INGLETT, JOSEPH D. RATTERMAN, and BRIAN E. SMITH
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 7, 10-13, and 16-18, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 14, and 15 have been cancelled. App. Br.
12-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to routing data communications
packets in a parallel computer. Abstract.
Claim 7, reproduced below with the relevant language italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. An apparatus for routing data communications packets in
a parallel computer, the parallel computer comprising a plurality
of compute nodes organized for collective operations through at
least one data communications network,
each compute node comprising an operating system kernel
and a system-level messaging module, the system-level
messaging module comprising a module of automated
computing machinery that exposes a messaging interface to
applications,
each compute node including a routing table that specifies,
for each of a multiplicity of route identifiers, a data
communications path through the compute node,
the apparatus comprising a computer processor, a
computer memory operatively coupled to the computer
processor, the computer memory having disposed \'l1ithin it
computer program instructions that, when executed by the
computer processor, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of:
initializing, by the operating system kernel, a compute
node's routing table with high priority routing table entries,
wherein high priority routing table entries include entries for
each data communications path through the compute node that
connects the compute node to another compute node in an
operational group organized for collective operations;
receiving in the compute node a data communications
packet, the data communications packet including a route
identifier value that identifies a specification of a data
communications path through each of a plurality of compute
nodes that the data communications packet traverses;
determining whether the compute node's routing table
contains an entry for the data communications packet's route
identifier value;
2
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
creating by the operating system kernel an entry for the
data communications packet's route identifier value in the
compute node's routing table if the compute node's routing table
does not have an entry for the data communications packet's
route identifier value;
routing, by the compute node, the data communications
packet through the compute node according to the data
communications path identified by the compute node's routing
table entry for the data communications packet's route identifier
value.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Flamm er us 5,488,608 Jan. 30, 1996
Nakamura US 6,553,031 B 1 Apr. 22, 2003
Hoenicke US 2006/0227774 Al Oct. 12, 2006
REJECTIONS2
Claims 7, 10-13, and 16-18 stand provisionally rejected on the
ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1
and 4---6 of co-pending Application No. 13/668,503. Final Act. 5-6.
Claims 7 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hoenicke in view of Flammer. Final Act. 9-13.
2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 7, 10-13, and 16-18 under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant
regards as the invention. See Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
Claims 10-12 and 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hoenicke in view of Flammer and Nakamura. Final
Act. 14--17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree
with Appellants' arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below.
Claims 7 and 13
Appellants argue Flammer does not teach "creating by the operating
system kernel an entry for the data communications packet's route identifier
value in the compute node's routing table," as recited in claim 7. Br. 6-8.
According to Appellants, Flammer teaches creating an entry in a routing
table for a source node. However, Appellants argue, Flammer does not
teach the claim limitation "because a source node identifier is not a route
identifier value." Br. 8.
The Examiner finds Hoenicke teaches, inter alia, a "data
communications packet including a route identifier value that identifies a
specification of a data communication path." Final Act. 11; Ans. 3--4.
Although the Examiner notes that Hoenicke does not teach determining if
the routing table contains a specific route identifier value and updating the
table if it does not, the Examiner finds Flammer teaches updating a routing
4
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
table if the table does not contain routing information for a specific packet.
Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to
modify Hoenicke to include creating routing table entries "in order to reduce
overheads in packet processing." Final Act. 13.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject
matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light
of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Because Appellants' arguments are directed to the
references individually, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred.
Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings that
Hoenicke teaches using route identifier values (see Hoenicke i-fi-f 15, 29-31)
and Flammer teaches creating entries in a routing table when it does not
contain routing information (see Flammer 4:52-67). We further agree with
the Examiner (Final Act. 13) that it would have been obvious to modify
Hoenicke in view of Flammer with the creating limitation of claim 7.
According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 7, along
with the rejection of claim 13, which is argued on the same grounds.
Claims 10--12and16--18
Appellants argue Nakamura teaches a line interface unit with a limited
number of routing information entries. Br. 10. However, Appellants argue
Nakamura does not teach a node that has a maximum number of entries. Id.
5
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
Therefore, according to Appellants, the Examiner erred in finding Nakamura
teaches "wherein the compute node's routing table includes a maximum
number of entries, and the total number of data communications paths
through the compute node is greater than the maximum number of entries in
the compute node's routing table," as recited in claim 10. Id. Appellants
further argue that Hoenicke and Flammer do not teach or suggest the
limitation of claim 10. Id.
The Examiner finds Nakamura teaches a subrouting table for storing a
limited number of routing information entries. Final Act. 14 (citing
Nakamura 3: 4--11). The Examiner further finds that if the cache memory is
filled, it will delete an entry to make room for an additional entry. Ans. 5
(citing Nakamura 2:40-41, 2:48-52). Accordingly, the Examiner finds "it is
evident that the sub routing tables in Nakamura'031 can include only a
certain maximum number of entries, based on the capacity of the cache
memory in the line interface modules" and therefore teaches the additional
limitation of dependent claim 10. Ans. 5; see also Final Act. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred. Instead, we agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. Nakamura
discloses a subrouting table with a limited number of entries (Nakamura
3:4--12) which is the same as a maximum number of entries. Additionally,
Nakamura's teaching that the entries may need to be deleted to accept
additional routing entries (Nakamura 2:48-52) means that the number of
data communication paths is greater than the maximum number that can be
stored. Although Nakamura does not use the same language as claim 10,
there is no such requirement in an obviousness analysis. See In re May, 574
F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978) (An ipsissimis verbis test is not required).
6
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
To the contrary, the Examiner's findings are reasonable. The skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR
International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420-21 (2007). Appellants
do not present adequate evidence that the cited combination would have
been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. at 418-19).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 10, along with the
rejection of 16, which is argued on the same grounds, and claims 11, 12, 17,
and 18, which are not argued separately.
Provisional Double Patenting Rejection
Claims 7, 10-13, and 16-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground
of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting over specific
corresponding claims of copending application 13/668,503. Final Act. 5---6.
At the time this Decision was drafted, application 13/668,503 is still
pending, therefore, the rejection remains provisional. Appellants advance no
arguments regarding the provisional obviousness-type double patenting
rejection. Arguments not made are considered waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012).
Accordingly, we proforma sustain the Examiner's provisional
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 7, 10-13,
and 16-18 over the corresponding claims indicated by the Examiner, with
respect to copending application 13/668,503.
7
Appeal2015-001829
Application 12/892, 192
Conclusion
For at least the aforementioned reasons, on this record, Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred. We find a preponderance of the
evidence supports the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness for all claims on appeal.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 7, 10-13, and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decision
provisionally rejecting claims 7, 10-13, and 16-18 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
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
8