Ex Parte Archer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12722107 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121722,107 03/11/2010
47478 7590 03/21/2016
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.
ROC920090089US 1 2419
EXAMINER
WOO, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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, JAMES E. CAREY,
MATTHEW W. MARKLAND, and PHILIP J. SANDERS
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722,107 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest is identified as International Business Machines
Corporation. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722, 107
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to discovering a resource in a distributed computing
system. Abstract.
EXEMPLARY CLAIMS
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for discovering a resource in a distributed computing
system, the distributed computing system including a plurality
of nodes, each node characterized by a unique rank, the method
compnsmg:
sending, by a node requesting information regarding a
resource to one or more nodes in the distributed computing
system, an active message to perform a collective operation;
contributing, by each node not having the resource, a
value of zero to the collective operation;
contributing, by a node having the resource, the node's
rank to the collective operation;
storing a result of the collective operation in a buffer of
the requesting node; and
identifying, in dependence upon the result of the
collective operation, the rank of the node having the resource.
App. Br. 10 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 12, 15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Archer et al. (2009/0037377 Al; published
Feb. 5, 2009)(hereinafter "Archer!"). Final Act. 6-13.
2
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722, 107
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Archer! and Archer et
al. (2007/0242609 Al; published Oct. 18, 2007)( hereinafter "Archer2").
Final Act. 14--28.
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. §1 OJ rejection
The Examiner finds claim 15 is drawn to "a computer readable
storage medium" and, as reasonably broadly interpreted in light of the
Specification, the claim covers both transitory and non-transitory media.
Final Act. 3. According to the Examiner, the Specification uses non limiting
language to describe "a computer readable storage medium" and, therefore,
one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the claim covers both
transitory and non transitory media. Id. (citing Spec.2 44, 11. 1-5: "A
computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to
... "). The Examiner finds the claim must be rejected under 35 USC§ 101
as covering non -statutory subject matter. Id. (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F .3d
1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to
statutory subject matter)).
Appellants argue the Specification supports that the disputed term is
tangible. App. Br. 5. Further, Appellants contend "storage media" and
"signal media" are separate types of mediums and claim 15 recites "storage
2 The Examiner cites [0125]. As clear from the context, this is harmless
clerical error.
3
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722, 107
medium" which is limited by the Specification to "an electrical connection
having .... " Id. at 6.
We do not agree with Appellants the disputed term is limited by the
Specification as argued by Appellants because the Specification uses non
limiting language to describe the disputed term: "may be, for example, but
not limited to ... (a non exhaustive list)". Spec. 43, 1. 30 through p 44, 1. 26.
See also Ans. 30-31. We are not persuaded of error and instead agree with
the Examiner's findings because neither the claims nor Appellants'
Specification defines "computer readable storage medium" so as to exclude
transitory media. Consequently, the claimed medium encompasses
transitory media, which is not patent eligible. See Ex parte Mewherter, 107
USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential); see also In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d
1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); and U.S. Patent & Trademark Office,
Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat.
Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 15, and
dependent claims 16-20 as these claims are not argued separately by
Appellants.
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection
Appellants argue the cited portions of Archer 1 do not disclose the
claim 1 limitation "identifying, in dependence upon the result of the
collective operation, the rank of the node having the resource." App. Br. 6.
(citing i-f 54). According to Appellants:
4
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722, 107
the cited portion of Archer 1 generally describes a gather
collective operation in which elements are gathered from
ranked compute nodes. Archer 1 also describes assigning each
compute node a sequential identifier termed a "rank" that
uniquely identifies the node's location in the tree network for
use in both point to point and collective operations in the tree
network. See Archer! at paragraphs 45, 47, and 53. That is,
the cited portion of Archer! is concerned with using a node's
rank to perform a collective operation - not using the results of
a collective operation to determine a rank. Said another way,
Archer 1 describes generating a collective operation result based
on a rank - not identifying a rank based on a collective
operation result. Because Archer 1 describes generating a
collective operation result based on a rank - not identifying a
rank based on a collective operation result, the cited portion of
Archer 1 does not disclose "identifying, in dependence upon the
result of the collective operation, the rank of the node having
the resource," as in independent claims 1, 8, and 15 of the
present application.
App. Br. 7.
The Examiner finds Archer discloses the disputed limitation. Final
Act. 7 (citing i-f 54). The Examiner further finds:
Archer! discloses that the collective operation requires that all
processes on all compute nodes within an operational group call
the same collective operation with matching arguments; the all
reduce operation performs an "OR" function on the buffers of
the global combining network so that the matching record is
placed in the results buffer) (Archer!, para. 46, 62), the rank of
the node having the resource (Archer! discloses that each
computed node in the operational group is assigned an unique
rank that identifies the particular computed node in the
operational group) (Archer!, para. 45).
Ans. 31-33.
5
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722, 107
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments because the Examiner
does not identify where Archer 1 discloses "identifying, in dependence upon
the result of the collective operation, the rank of the node having the
resource," as recited in claim 1. (emphasis added). We agree with
Appellants "Archer! describes generating a collective operation result based
on a rank - not identifying a rank based on a collective operation result."
App. Br. 7. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 as Archer I
does not meet the requirement for anticipation. A claim is anticipated only
if each and every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly
or inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as
required by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814
F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite the disputed limitation and,
therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of these claims. We also do not
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 5, 9, 12, and 18 for the same
reasons.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
Appellants argue error in the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 6, 7,
10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, and 20 over Archer! and Archer2 because this
rejection is based on the Examiner's finding that Archer! discloses all
limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 8. We agree with
Appellants as discussed above regarding Archer 1 and, therefore, we do not
sustain this rejection.
6
Appeal2014-002881
Application 12/722, 107
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 15-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7