Ex Parte Bryant et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2012

11278829 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 2012)

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.
11/278,829 04/06/2006 Jay S. Bryant ROC920050470US1 7058
46797 7590 08/10/2012
IBM CORPORATION, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
DEPT 917, BLDG. 006-1
3605 HIGHWAY 52 NORTH
ROCHESTER, MN 55901-7829
EXAMINER
GUPTA, MUKTESH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2444
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAY S. BRYANT, DANIEL P. KOLZ
and DHARMESH J. PATEL
____________

Appeal 2010-000940
Application 11/278,829
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-8. Claims 9-24 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-000940
Application 11/278,829

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for reducing load time in
a distributed computer by selectively reusing entries in a page table
generated during a previous invocation of the program at a particular
computer. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of loading a program on a computing system that
includes multiple processing nodes, comprising:

identifying, if available, a plurality of processing nodes that
previously executed the program, wherein the program is
associated with a computing job submitted for execution by the
computing system;

messaging each identified processing node to retain a page table
associated with the previous execution of the program; and

dispatching the computing job to the plurality of processing nodes.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Powers US 2006/0080389 A1 Apr. 13, 2006
(Filed Oct. 6, 2005)
Miloushev US 2006/0143350 A1 Jun. 29, 2006
(Filed Dec. 29, 2004)

Appeal 2010-000940
Application 11/278,829

3
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-8 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Powers and Miloushev. Ans. 3-18.1

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to
be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under § 103, does the combination
of Powers and Miloushev teach or suggest a method for loading a program
on a computing system which includes “identifying, if available, a plurality
of processing nodes that previously executed the program” and “messaging
each identified processing node to retain a page table associated with the
previous execution of the program” as set forth in Claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Powers and Miloushev fail to teach or suggest a
method of “loading a program on a computing system that includes multiple
processing nodes” that includes “identifying, if available, a plurality of
processing nodes that previously executed the program, wherein the program
is associated with a computing job submitted for execution by the computing
system” and “messaging each identified processing node to retain a page
table associated with the previous execution of the program,” as recited by
claim 1. App. Br. 10-11, Reply Br. 2-3.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 29, 2009;
the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 23, 2009; and, the Reply Brief filed
September 23, 2009.
Appeal 2010-000940
Application 11/278,829

4
The Examiner finds that Powers discloses “identifying, if available, a
plurality of processing nodes that previously executed the program, wherein
the program is associated with a computing job submitted for execution by
the computing system,” citing various paragraphs that refer to so-called
“intelligent agents” which measure various parameters of the computer
system, such as, memory availability, network capacity, storage capacity, et
cetera. Ans. 21.
Further, the Examiner cites Miloushev, ¶[238], for a disclosure of a
handler 440 which has access to a page table 411, finding the combination of
Powers and Miloushev discloses “messaging each identified processing node
to retain a page table associated with the previous execution of the
program,” as set forth in Claim 1. Ans. 28.
We find that while Powers discloses the use of “intelligent agents” to
measure various system parameters, there is no disclosure within Powers
that such “intelligent agents” are capable of “identifying, if available, a
plurality of processing nodes that previously executed the program, wherein
the program is associated with a computing job submitted for execution by
the computing system” as set forth in Claim 1.
Additionally, the existence of a page table within Miloushev, in our
opinion, cannot be said to disclose or suggest “messaging each identified
processing node to retain a page table associated with the previous execution
of the program,” as set forth in claim 1.
Appeal 2010-000940
Application 11/278,829

5
Consequently, we find the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-8
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Powers and Miloushev.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-8 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-8 is reversed.

REVERSED

pgc