Ex Parte Barsness et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 8, 2016

13708942 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/708,942 12/08/2012 Eric L. Barsness
46296 7590 03/10/2016
MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
P.O. BOX548
CARTHAGE, MO 64836-0548
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.
ROC920100042US2 8778
EXAMINER
CHIOU, ALBERT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/10/2016 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):
derekm@ideaprotect.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC L. BARSNESS, MICHAEL J. BRANSON, and
JOHN M. SANTOSUOSSO
Appeal2014-006877
Application 13/708,942
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to computer systems. See generally
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal2014-006877
Application 13/708,942
1. A computer-implemented method for relocating processing units in
a multi-nodal computer system, the method comprising the steps of:
starting a processing unit on a compute node of the multi-nodal
computer system with a data flow into the processing unit wherein the
processing units are part of an application executing on the compute node;
sampling the data flowing into the processing unit to produce sampled
data;
analyzing the sampled data to determine data types in the sampled
data; and
dynamically relocating the processing unit to a different node of a
different node type based on the determined types of data flowing into the
processing unit.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peterson (US 2005/0125798 Al, published June 9, 2005)
and Di Luoffo (US 2009/0228892 Al, published Sept. 10, 2009).
Claims 4, 6, 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peterson, Di Luoffo, and Cullen (US 2003/0105800 Al,
published June 5, 2003).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
2
Appeal2014-006877
Application 13/708,942
arguments, and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Di Luoffo teaches
"dynamically relocating the processing unit to a different node of a different
node type based on the determined types of data flowing into the processing
unit," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1
The Examiner cites Di Luoffo 's Figures 2, 4, 9 A and paragraphs 1 7,
57-59, and 82 for that claim limitation. See Ans. 5---6, 17-18. The cited
portions of Di Luoffo discuss "the service availability management agent
may locate an alternate resource node that meets the operational
requirements specified for the application for the type of plaiform at which
the resource node is positioned and relocate the application to the alternate
resource node." Di Luoffo i-f 17 (emphases added); see also Di Luoffo i-f 82.
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner fails to establish how Di
Luoffo's "meet[ing] the operational requirements specified for the
application for the type of plaiform" (emphasis added) constitutes the claim
requirement of "based on the determined types of data flowing into the
processing unit." See Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 4--5. The teachings of
Peterson, as applied by the Examiner, do not remedy the deficiencies of the
teachings of Di Luoffo. See Final Act. 3-4.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence to support
the rejection, we are constrained by the record to reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2---6 for similar reasons.
For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 7, and corresponding dependent claims 8-10.
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2014-006877
Application 13/708,942
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
4