Ex Parte Borro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2017

13403200 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2017)

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.
13/403,200 02/23/2012 Todd Borro 006119.00277 4570
30756 7590 03/27/2017
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.,
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NO. 006119
10 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE
SUITE 3000
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
RIVAS, SALVADOR E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2017 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):
PTO-30756 @ bannerwitcoff. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TODD BORRO, DAVID HOAG, and AJAY
MADHAVAN
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
Technology Center 2400
Before: DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1—11 and 14—28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 12 and 13 have been cancelled.
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to a clearing message
broker system providing messaging systems and methods used by exchange
computer systems to exchange messages (Abstract; Spec. 12). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An exchange computer system comprising:
a plurality of routers configured to route messages;
a computer readable medium storing an identification of a
plurality of message sources that generate messages; and
a partitioning coordinator router programmed with computer-
executable instructions to cause the partitioning coordinator
router to perform steps comprising
(a) accessing the identification of the plurality of message
sources,
(b) dynamically partitioning the plurality of message sources
among the plurality of routers to create a first assignment of the
plurality of message sources to the plurality of routers,
(c) determining to initiate a partitioning of the plurality of
message sources among the plurality of routers, and
(d) in response to (c), dynamically partitioning the plurality of
message sources among the plurality of routers to create a second
assignment of the plurality of message sources to the plurality of
routers, wherein the second assignment is different from the first
assignment.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
2
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
Annapareddy et al.
Yoshizawa et al.
Matsuzawa et al.
Thomas
Shiota
Kamentsky et al.
Baillargeon
Fukuhara et al.
US 2001/0021189 Al
US 2002/0103930 Al
US 2004/0052212 Al
US 2004/0215596 Al
US 5,602,839
US 6,333,933 B2
US 7,009,987 B1
US 7,286,529 B1
Feb. 11, 1997
Dec. 25,2001
Mar. 7, 2006
Oct. 23, 2007
Sept. 13, 2001
Aug. 1, 2002
Mar. 18, 2004
Oct. 28, 2004
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Annapareddy and Fukuhara (Non—Final Act. 3—11).
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Yoshizawa (Non—Final Act.
11-13).
Claims 6—9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Baillargeon (Non—Final Act.
13-19).
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Matsuzawa (Non—Final Act.
20-21).
Claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Fukuhara and Annapareddy (Non—Final Act. 21—
34).
Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fukuhara, Annapareddy, and Shiota (Non—Final Act. 34—
37).
3
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fukuhara, Annapareddy, and Thomas (Non—Final Act.
37-40).
Claims 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Kamentsky (Non—Final Act.
40-43).
Claims 25—28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fukuhara, Annapareddy, and Kamentsky (Non—Final Act.
43—45).
ISSUE
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1—11 and 14—28
Appellants contend their invention as recited in claim 1 is not obvious
over Annapareddy and Fukuhara (App. Br. 4—7). The issue presented by the
arguments is:
Issue: Does the combination of Annapareddy and Fukuhara teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious
a partitioning coordinator router programmed ... to cause the
partitioning coordinator router to perform steps comprising . . .
in response to (c), dynamically partitioning the plurality of
message sources among the plurality of routers to create a
second assignment of the plurality of message sources to the
plurality of routers, wherein the second assignment is
different from the first assignment,
as recited in claim 1 ?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend “Fukuhara’s teaching of multicasting engine 60B
taking over multicasting engine 60A . . . does not result in an assignment of
4
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
message sources that is different from a previous assignment” (App. Br. 5).
According to Appellants, the shadow multicasting engine 60B of Fukuhara
is processing the same messages as the multicasting engine 60A because the
shadow multicasting engine 60B is state accurate (id.). According to
Appellants, any assignments of message sources to engine 60A and shadow
engine 60B made before the failure remain the same as assignments after
engine 60A’s failure (id. at 5—6). Appellants further argue Fukuhara is
distinguished from claim 1, because the claimed first and the second
assignments are recited as different assignments and therefore cannot be the
same (id. at 6).
Appellants do not persuade us. We agree with the Examiner that
Annapareddy teaches “a routing method and means that distributes routing
decisions among the nodes of the network” (Ans. 4 (citing Annapareddy,
2:45—46)). We also agree with the Examiner that Fukuhara teaches
initializing a Multicast Engine and thus teaches the recited first assignment
(Ans. 4 (citing Fukuhara Tflf 62—63)). We further agree Fukuhara teaches a
backup router taking over operations when a router fails as Fukuhara
discloses multicasting engine 60B can be configured to be a state accurate,
shadow engine of multicasting engine 60A, taking over operations of
multicasting engine 60A if multicasting engine 60A becomes unavailable
(Ans. 5 (citing Fukuhara 1 63)).
Thus, we agree Fukuhara’s multicasting engine 60B shadowing
multicasting engine 60A, teaches in response to “determining to initiate a
partitioning the plurality of message sources among the plurality of routers,
. . . dynamically partitioning the plurality of message sources among the
plurality of routers to create a second assignment of the plurality of message
5
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
sources to the plurality of routers,” as recited in claim 1 (Ans. 5).
Appellants’ arguments that the first and the second assignments are the same
and are not “different” are not persuasive as we determine the first
assignment is to multicasting engine 60A and the second assignment is to
multicasting engine 60B — the second assignment is different from the first
assignment. More specifically, Fukuhara teaches multicasting engine B may
be a state accurate, shadowing engine that can take over if multicasting
engine 60A fails (Fukuhara 1 63).
As a matter of claim construction, we note Appellants have not
defined explicitly the term “assignment” in the Specification. The
paragraphs relied upon by Appellants as describing the disputed limitation
(App. Br. 2—3 (citing Spec. 26, 30)) are not inconsistent with the
Examiner’s interpretation of “assignment” in finding that Fukuhara teaches
the recited assignment (Ans. 5). Rather, we determine Fukuhara’s
assignments of message sources to both multicasting engines teaches the
recited first and second assignments.
Additionally, Appellants’ argument that assignments of message
sources to engine 60A and shadow engine 60B made before the failure
remain the same as assignments after engine 60A’s failure {id. at 5—6), is not
persuasive. Claim 1 does not preclude the second assignment from being
performed immediately following, or concurrent with, the first assignment.
We note claim 1 does not limit step c, “determining,” from occurring prior to
or concurrent with step b, “dynamically partitioning.” Indeed, Appellants’
contentions would require us to import limitations from the Specification
into the claim, which we decline to do.
6
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us the combination of
Annapareddy and Fukuhara fails to teach, suggest, or otherwise render
obvious the limitations as recited in independent claim 1. Independent
claims 4, 11, and 17, as well as the dependent claims were not separately
argued, instead, relying on the arguments set forth with respect to claim 1
(App. Br. 7—11). Therefore, we sustain the rejections of claims 1—11 and
14—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Annapareddy and Fukuhara is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Yoshizawa is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 6—9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Baillargeon is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Matsuzawa is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 14, 17, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Fukuhara and Annapareddy is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§103 (a) as being unpatentable over Fukuhara, Annapareddy, and Shiota is
affirmed.
7
Appeal 2016-005674
Application 13/403,200
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fukuhara, Annapareddy, and Thomas is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Annapareddy, Fukuhara, and Kamentsky is
affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 25—28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fukuhara, Annapareddy, and Kamentsky is
affirmed.
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
8