Ex Parte Clarke

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2019

11866906 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/866,906 10/03/2007
37945 7590 04/02/2019
DUKEW. YEE
YEE AND AS SOCIA TES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Paul Clarke
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.
AU920070011US1 8019
EXAMINER
WHEATON, BRADFORD F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2019 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
mgamez@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL PAUL CLARKE 1
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN G. NEW, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant states the real party-in-interest is International Business
[Machines] Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
SUMMARY
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 8, 9, 12-14, 16, 17, 20-22 and
24--27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Massa et al. (US 2006/0090095 Al, April 27, 2006)
("Massa") and Rathunde et al. (US 2009/0007135 Al, January 1, 2009)
("Rathunde"). 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a method for shutting down a first
instance of a computer-based application and starting up a second instance
of the application. Abstract.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1, 6, 9, 14, 17, are 22, are
independent. Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and recites:
1. A method for shutting down a first instance of an
application and starting up a second instance of the application,
wherein the first instance of the application has associated
therewith at least one first-instance support resource, and the
second instance of the application has associated therewith at
least one second-instance support resource that the second
2 Appellants do not argue claims 25-27 in their Appeal Brief. We therefore
summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of these claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(iv) ("[A]ny arguments or authorities not included in the appeal
brief will be refused consideration by the Board").
2
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
instance of the application depends upon in order to run, the
method comprising:
responsive to an order to move the first instance of the
application, starting up the at least one second-instance support
resource that the second instance of the application depends upon
in order to run;
shutting down the first instance of the application after the
at least one second-instance support resource is running; and
starting up the second instance of the application
responsive to initiating, but prior to completing, the shutting
down of the first instance of the application, wherein the first
instance of the application is shut down after the second instance
of the application is running.
App. Br. 23.
ISSUES AND ANALYSES
We adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusion that the
claims are prima facie obvious over the combined cited prior art. We
address the arguments raised by Appellant below.
A. Group I: Claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21
Appellant argues claims 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21 as a single group.
App. Br. 10-18. Appellant's arguments are directed to claim 1, which we
select as representative. See 37 C.F.R § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue 1
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of Massa and Rathunde teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting:
"starting up the second instance of the application responsive to initiating,
3
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
but prior to completing, the shutting down of the first instance of the
application, wherein the first instance of the application is shut down after
the second instance of the application is running." App. Br. 10.
Analysis
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, that Massa teaches shutting
down a first instance of an application and starting up a second instance of
the application and, responsive to an order to move the first instance of the
application, starting up the at least one second-instance support resource the
second instance of the application depends upon in order to run. Final Act.
5---6 ( citing Massa ,r,r 60, 55). The Examiner finds that Massa further teaches
and starting up the second instance of the application responsive to
initiating, but prior to completing, the shutting down of the first instance of
the application. Id. at 6. However, the Examiner finds that Massa does not
expressly teach shutting down the first instance of the application after the at
least one second-instance support resource is running. Id.
The Examiner finds that Rathunde teaches shutting down the first
instance of the application after the at least one second-instance support
resource is running, and the first instance of the application is shut down
after the second instance of the application is running. Final Act. 6 ( citing
Rathunde ,r,r 33, 37, 38). The Examiner finds that the ARP and IP
Addresses taught by Rathunde can be reasonably interpreted to be the
claimed support resources of the first group of processors. Id. (and
additionally citing Rathunde Fig. 4B).
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the contemporary art to have modified the teachings of
Massa, with the teachings of Rathunde to include shutting down the first
4
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
instance of the application after at least one second instance support resource
is running, in order to shorten the downtime during the move. Final Act. 6-
7. The Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine the references so as to improve the readiness of the
application during a move by causing it to be in to a more stable state,
helping to reduce errors at start up. Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that the claims require two different instances of the
same application: a "first instance" of the application and a "second
instance" of the application. App. Br. 10. Appellant contends that the
claims further require that the first instance of the application is shut down
after the second instance of the application is running, and that the second
instance of the application is started up: (1) responsive to initiating; but (2)
prior to completing, the shutting down of the first instance of the application.
Id.
Appellant asserts that this timing criteria is depicted at time T3 in
Figure 5, and described in paragraph [0029] of Clarke (US 2009/0094608
Al, April 29, 2009) ("Clarke," i.e., Appellant's published application), in
which the second instance of the application is started up in response to
initiating the shutdown of the first instance of the application, but the
shutdown of the first instance of the application has not been completed by
the time the second instance of the application is started up. App. Br. 11.
Appellant argues that paragraph [0055] of Massa, upon which the
Examiner partially relies, teaches that if a resource depends upon other
resources, the resource is brought online after the resources on which it
depends are already online. App. Br. 11. Therefore, Appellant asserts, there
is but a single timing-based criteria associated with bringing a "resource"
5
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
online, and that single timing-criteria is that any dependent resources must
first be brought online. Id. at 12. According to Appellant, there is no
timing-based criteria regarding: "but prior to completing, the shutting down
of the first instance of the application" that is with respect to the starting up
of a "second instance of an application," as claimed. Id. Rather, argues
Appellant, only the timing of resource dependencies is described in this
paragraph of Massa. Id.
With respect to paragraph [0060], Appellant argues that Massa
teaches that if a failover manager takes a resource offline, the group is
restarted on another node in the cluster. App. Br. 12. Appellant contends
that there is no mention of any particular timing criteria with respect to the
order or sequencing of these take offline and restart actions. Id. Appellant
asserts that, under either possible timing scenario, the claimed dual timing-
based characteristics pertaining to the starting up of a second instance of an
application are not described. Id. By way of example, Appellant posits
assuming that the failure triggered the resources to be taken offline, followed
by the group being restated on another node. Id. In this scenario, argues
Appellant, there is no timing-based criteria regarding: "but prior to
completing, the shutting down of the first instance of the application" with
respect to the starting up of a second instance of an application, as recited in
the claims. Id. Rather, Appellant asserts, a group is restarted responsive to
taking a failed resource offline (i.e., a single timing-based criterion regarding
a startup action). Id.
Appellant further posits assuming that an alternative timing possibility
occurs according to the teachings of Massa, where the resource failure
triggered the group to be restarted on another node, followed by the failed
6
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
resource being taken offline. App. Br. 12. In this instance, argues
Appellant, there is no timing-based criteria regarding: "but prior to
completing, the shutting down of the first instance of the application," that is
associated with the starting up of a second instance of an application, as
recited in the claims. Id. at 13. Instead, Appellant asserts, a group is
restarted responsive to failure of a resource (i.e., a single timing-based
criteria regarding a startup action). Id.
Consequently, Appellant argues, the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims by failing to show that Massa teaches two distinct timing-based
criteria regarding the starting up of the second instance of an application,
where such two distinct timing based criteria are with respect to another
instance of this application. Final Act. 13.
Appellant next points to the Advisory Action of December 14, 2016,
in which the Examiner finds that Massa teaches the dual-application-
instance synergistic interplay, in which a second instance of a particular
application is started up ( 1) responsive to initiating the shutting down of the
first instance of the application, but (2) prior to completing the shutting
down of the first instance of the application. Final Act. 13 (citing Adv. Act.
2 (citing Massa ,r,r 60, 99, Fig. 5 steps 508 and 510)).
According to Appellant, paragraph [0099] of Massa teaches actions
that are performed with respect to a single node, i.e., there are no inter-node
dependencies described with respect to starting up one node while shutting
down another node. App. Br. 14. Instead, argues Appellant, a single node
being shutdown is described without respect to the state of another node. Id.
Specifically, Appellant contends, Massa describes in paragraph [0099]
that the node continues to perform work until a shutdown is requested. App.
7
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
Br. 14. Appellant asserts that, if a shutdown is requested for this single
node, step 508 of Figure 5 is performed to perform clean-up operations for
this single node. Id. Appellant asserts that Massa teaches that he single
node is then shut down after performing such single-node cleanup
operations. Id.
Therefore, Appellant asserts, this cited passage of Massa teaches that
a single node is shutdown responsive to a shutdown request, but makes no
mention of a two-part conditioning with respect to restarting the group on
another node; only a single-condition causing the shutdown of a single node
(i.e., shutdown has been requested). In contrast, Appellant argues, claim 1
requires a two-part conditioning with respect to starting up a second instance
of an application.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. Paragraph [0060] of
Massa teaches:
For example, if a resource ( e.g., an application) fails, the failover
manager 80 may choose to restart the resource, or to take the
resource offline along with any resources dependent thereon. If
the failover manager 80 takes the resource offline, the group is
restarted on another node in the cluster 59, known as pushing the
group to another node. A cluster administrator may also
manually initiate such a group transfer. Both situations are
similar, except that resources are gracefully shutdown for a
manually initiated fail over, while they are forcefully shut down
in the failure case.
( emphasis added).
The Examiner finds that Massa teaches a graceful shutdown means
the node continues to perform the remaining work (i.e. the application runs)
when the event to gracefully shutdown is detected. See Ans. 3 ( citing Massa
8
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
,r 99). We agree with the Examiner that Massa thus teaches: starting a
second application ( 1) responsive to initiating the shutting down of the first
instance of the application (i.e., choosing to restart the application when it
fails), but (2) prior to completing the shutting down of the first instance of
the application (i.e., the first application is gracefully shut down, performing
the remaining work before terminating). Id.
In paragraph [0099] Massa teaches that:
In general, the work continues until some event occurs or a time
of delta elapses, where delta is the arbitration time (e.g., three
seconds) described above. Preferably, the node continues to
perform work and runs a background process when an event/time
interval is detected. Events may include a graceful shutdown, a
failure of a replica member, and a failure of a node. Step 702 tests
if a shutdown has been requested, whereby if so, step 702 returns
to step 508 of FIG. 5 with a TRUE shutdown status. Step 508
performs various cleanup tasks, and step 510 tests the shutdown
status, ending operation of the node if TRUE.
We agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the
contemporary art would understand that these tasks would take a certain
amount of time to complete and that Massa also teaches initiating a second
instance of the application upon the shutdown. See Massa ,r 60; Ans. 4.
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would understand that the second instance of the application would
start on initiation of the shutdown command in the first instance application,
but the first instance would continue with its cleanup tasks while the second
instance was commencing.
Issue 2
9
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combined cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 1 reciting
"shutting down the first instance of the application after the at least one
second instance of the application is running." App. Br. 15.
Analysis
Appellant again argues that the claims require a particular timing
relationship is recited with respect to the two instances of the application, in
which the first instance of the application is shut down after the second
instance of the application is running. App. Br. 15. Appellant asserts that
the Examiner ignored this limitation of the claims. Id. ( citing Final Act. 6).
Appellant argues further that Massa teaches the opposite of what is
claimed; teaching that a group is restarted on another node if a resource is
taken offline. App. Br. 15. Appellant interprets this to mean that the Massa
shutdown/offline state occurs before the new restart is performed/running.
Id. In contrast, Appellant asserts, the claims require that the
shutdown/offline state occurs after the second instance of the application is
runmng.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. As we have
explained supra, Massa teaches restarting the application on a new node and
executing a graceful shutdown, during which "cleanup" procedures take
place. See Massa ,r,r 60, 99. We agree with the Examiner that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have understood from these teachings of
Massa that the first application shuts down after performing the cleanup
procedures of a graceful shutdown after the second procedure has begun
running on another node.
10
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
Issue 3
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that the combined
cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting:
"responsive to an order to move the first instance of the application, starting
up the at least one second-instance support resource that the second instance
of the application depends upon in order to run." App. Br. 15.
Analysis
Appellant argues that this limitation requires another specialized
invocation/triggering mechanism in which the specialized
invocation/triggering mechanism is with respect to an application and a
dependent resource. App. Br. 15. Specifically, Appellant contends that a
second-instance support resource that the second instance of the application
depends upon is started up responsive to an order to move the first instance
of the application, i.e., an inter-instance interaction regarding the first
instance of the application and a support resource of the 'second instance' of
the application. Id.
Appellant disputes the Examiner's finding, which relies upon
paragraphs [0055], [0059], and [0060] of Massa, as teaching the disputed
limitation. App. Br. 15-16. According to Appellant, paragraph [0055] of
Massa teaches dependencies among different resources, and their particular
online/offline timing, but neither teaches nor suggests a second resource of a
second instance/first instance of an application invocation/triggering
mechanism (i.e. an inter-instance invocation/triggering mechanism), as
required by claim 1. Id. at 16.
11
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
With respect to paragraph [0059] of Massa, Appellant argues that
Massa describes a group that fails over in a particular listed order. App. Br.
16. Appellant asserts that there is no teaching or suggestion in Massa of any
synergistic interplay between a support service associated with the second
instance of an application and the first instance of the application. Id.
With respect to paragraph [0069] of Massa, Appellant asserts that
Massa teaches that a manager may choose to restart resources or take them
offline, along with any dependent resources, but neither teaches nor suggests
a second resource of a second instance/first instance of an application
invocation/triggering mechanism (i.e., an inter-instance
invocation/triggering mechanism), as recited in claim 1. Id. at 16-17.
Instead, Appellant contends, resources are either restarted on the same node
or taken offline.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument. Massa expressly
teaches that:
Resources expose interfaces and properties to the cluster service
66, and may depend on other resources, with no circular
dependencies allowed. If a resource does depend on other
resources, the resource is brought online after the resources on
which it depends are already online, and is taken offline before
those resources.
Massa ,r 59 ( emphasis added). We have noted supra that Massa teaches that
a resource can also be an "application." See Massa ,r 60 ("For example, if a
resource (e.g., an application) fails ... ,"). Combining the teaching of Massa
in paragraph [0059] with those of paragraph [0060] which, as we have
explained, teaches that a second instance of an application is started in
response to failure of the first application, we agree with the Examiner that a
person of ordinary skill would have understand from Massa that, upon
12
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
initiation of the second instance of the application upon another node (i.e.,
"pushing" or moving the application) in response to the failure of the first
application, paragraph [0059] would also necessarily require the initiation of
the second-instance support resource in response to the failure of the first
instance of the application and startup of the second instance of the
application.
Furthermore, the Examiner also relies upon Rathunde as teaching this
limitation. See Final Act. 6. We agree with the Examiner that Rathunde
teaches multiple processors running instances of the same application. See
Rathunde, Fig. 1. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner with respect to
Rathunde teaching a "second-instance support resource." Rathunde teaches:
At 350, IP filters are removed with respect to the first group. ARP
[Address Resolution Protocol] is then enabled on the first group
of application processors at 352, the static routes are removed at
354 for the first group of APs, and the IP addresses are published
for the first group at 356.
Rathunde ,r 37 (emphasis added). Appellant's Specification provides no
explicit definition of the claim term "support resource"; consequently, the
Examiner may adopt the broadest reasonable definition of the claim term
consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367
F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We agree with the Examiner's finding
that enabling a protocol to resolve and publish IP addresses reasonably
corresponds to the claim term "support resource."
We agree with the Examiner that Rathunde teaches the second support
resource is started prior to starting the second instance of the application
( which, as explained supra, is performed at initiation of the shutdown of the
first instance of the application). Rathunde teaches the ARP is enabled on
13
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
the processor and the IP addresses published prior to the second instance
being brought online ("in-service"). Rathunde ,r 37; see also Ans. 5. We
consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 5,
9, 13, 17, and 21 which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
B. Group II (claims 4, 12, and 20)
Appellant argues claims 4, 12, and 20 together. App. Br. 18-19.
Appellant's arguments are directed to claim 4, which we select as
representative. See 37 C.F.R § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combined cited
prior art references teaches or suggests "wherein the step of shutting down
the first instance of the application overlaps with the step of starting up the
second instance of the application" as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 18.
Analysis
Appellant argues that Rathunde teaches application states in a first
processor group are transitioned from a "ready-to-run" state to an "in-service
state." App. Br. 12 (citing Rathunde ,r,r 36, 37). With respect to paragraph
[0036] of Rathunde, Appellant contends that this paragraph teaches that, if
no fast backout is desired, the application on the second group of processors
is brought down. Id. Appellant asserts that it neither teaches nor suggests
two-steps overlapping with one another, or processing associated with two
instances of an application; instead, a single application is shutdown. Id.
With respect to paragraph [0037], Appellant argues that Rathunde
teaches that the application status in the first processor group are brought to
14
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
an in-service state, but that there is no mention of two steps overlapping with
one another, or processing associated with two instances of an application;
instead, a single application is brought to an in-service state. Id.
The Examiner responds that Rathunde teaches the specific timing
viewed of the overlap between the shutting down of one instance and the
starting up of another instance of the application. Ans. 5 ( citing Rathunde
,r,r 34, 36-38; Figs. 4A-4C). The Examiner points to steps 332 and 334 of
Figure 4A as showing the startup of one instance of the application by
bringing the version of that application up to a point just below full service.
Id. The Examiner finds that step 346 of the same process, as shown in
Figure 4B, shows the start of the shutdown of the other instance of the
application, in which the service is brought down. Id. Then, the Examiner
finds, steps 360-380 in Figures 4B-4C show that the original instance is
brought up to a fully-in-service state followed by a soak period before the
second application processors are taken offline. Id. The Examiner finds that
Rathunde thus teaches the overlapping between the startup of one instance of
the application and the shutting down of another instance of the application.
Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. We agree with, and
adopt, the Examiner's reasoning with respect to Figures 4A--4C and the
accompanying text, which show startup of a second instance of the
application, which is the maintained in a "ready-to-run" status (but not in-
service status), while the in-service application (i.e., the first instance of the
application) is being shutdown, followed by bringing the second instance of
the application to in-service status. See Rathunde ,r,r 33-38, Figs. 4A---C.
15
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
We consequently affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, as well
as claims 12 and 20 which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
C. Group III (claims 6, 8, 14, 16, 22, and 24)
Appellant argues claims 6, 8, 14, 16, 22, and 24 together. App. Br.
19-20. Appellant's arguments are directed to claim 6, which we select as
representative. See 37 C.F.R § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combined cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 6 reciting
"responsive to an order to move the first instance of the application from a
first system to a second system, starting up the at least one second-instance
support resource that the second instance of the application depends upon."
App. Br. 19-20.
Analysis
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 6 for similar
reasons to those presentedsupra with respect to the corresponding limitation
of claim 1 reciting "responsive to an order to move the first instance of the
application, starting up the at least one second-instance support resource that
the second instance of the application depends upon in order to run." We
are not persuaded. We have explained supra why we agree with the
Examiner that the cited passages of Massa and Rathunde teach the disputed
elements of the limitation cited by Appellant. We incorporate that reasoning
here and find Appellant has not shown the Examiner erred its rejection of
16
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
claim 6. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 6, as well as claims
14, 16, and 22, which were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 8, 16, and 22 were argued separately in Group IV,
addressed below.
D. Group IV (claims 8, 16, and 24)
Appellant argues claims 8, 16, and 24 together. App. Br. 19--20.
Appellant's arguments are directed to claim 8, which we select as
representative. See 37 C.F.R § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Issue
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combined cited
prior art references teach or suggest the limitation of claim 8 reciting:
[W]herein the third instance of the application is running on the
third system of the system cluster while the first instance of the
application is running on the first system and continues running
on the third system after shutting down the first instance of the
application responsive to the third instance of the application
completing a start up of the third instance of the application.
App. Br. 20; see also Final Act. 11, 14 (rejecting claims 16 and 24
"under the same reasoning" applied to claim 8).
17
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
Analysis
Appellant argues paragraphs [0056] and [0057] of Massa and
paragraphs [0016] and [0018] of Rathunde teach the use of a time service by
nodes of a cluster. App. Br. 20-21. Appellant argues that none of the cited
passages teaches or suggests that a first instance of the application is shut
down after a third instance of the same application has completed a startup,
as recited in claim 8. Id. at 21-22.
The Examiner responds that Rathunde teaches that there are a
plurality m of processors, each configured to run one or more instances of
the same application software, therefore, m instances of the application can
include a third instance of the application. Ans. 5 ( citing Rathunde ,r 16).
The Examiner finds that Rathunde teaches that there is no specific timing
tied between the third instance of the application and the second instance of
the application and, therefore, they are not specifically connected through
this timing. Id. at 5---6. The Examiner finds that the claim language recites
that "the third instance of the application is running on the third system of
the system cluster while the first instance of the application is running on the
first system," yet the first instance of the application is shut down responsive
"to the third instance of the application completing a startup of the third
instance of the application." Id. at 6. The Examiner interprets this claim
language as meaning that the instances of the application as a partially
started up and a partially shut down instance of the application. Id.
We are not persuaded by the Examiner's reasoning. The Examiner
points to no teaching of Rathunde, that teaches or suggests that the first
instance of the application is shut down responsive to the third instance of
the application completing a startup of the third instance of the application.
18
Appeal2017-010144
Application 11/866,906
In other words, the claim requires a causal relationship between the startup
of the third instance of the application and the shutdown of the first.
We consequently reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 8, as well
as claims 16 and 24, which were "rejected under the same reasoning." See
Final Act. 11, 14.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4---6, 9, 12-14, 17, 20-22, and
25-27 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 8, 16, and 24 as unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART
19