Ex Parte Craggs

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2013

11421835 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013)

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.
11/421,835 06/02/2006 Ian Gerald Craggs GB920040060US1 3191
75949 7590 09/27/2013
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy
36 South State Street
Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
MUDRICK, TIMOTHY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte IAN GERALD CRAGGS
____________________

Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
1

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-18.
2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
The claims are directed to client responsibilities in messaging
systems. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of distributing messages from a broker device
in a messaging system implemented by at least one physical
processor to a plurality of client systems communicatively
coupled to said broker device; the method comprising:
defining a separate quality of service (QoS) level for
messages provided by the broker device of the messaging
system to each said client system;
receiving separately in said broker device of the
messaging system, from each said client system, a message
defining a maximum queue storage capacity provided by said
client system to the broker device of the messaging system; and
degrading, with the broker device of the messaging
system, the QoS level of messages transmitted from said broker
device to one of the client systems in the event that said broker
device determines that said one of the client systems exceeds
said maximum queue storage capacity for said one of the client
systems.

1
Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Apr. 28, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 27,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jul. 2, 2010).
2
The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

3
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Iliadis
Bolam
Homberg
U.S. 5,742,606
U.S. 6,154,781
U.S. 6,661,802 B1
Apr. 21, 1998
Nov. 28, 2000
Dec. 9, 2003
Mandato U.S. 2002/0010771 A1 Jan. 24, 2002

“ACCC Online Disk Space Policy” Academic Computing and
Communications Center, pp. 1-3 (June 18, 2004).
Rejections
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Mandato and Homberg. Ans. 5-12.
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mandato, Homberg and Iliadis. Ans. 12-15.
Claims 4, 10 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mandato, Homberg, Iliadis, and “ACCC Online Disk
Space Policy” Academic Computing and Communications Center, pp. 1-3
(June 18, 2004). Ans. 15-16.
Claims 6, 12 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Mandato, Homberg and Bolam. Ans. 16-17.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions as to all rejections. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

4
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 17-29). We concur
with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we highlight
Appellant’s arguments serially as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 12-23.
Claim 1
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Mandato and Homberg
teach or suggest
receiving separately in said broker device of the
messaging system, from each said client system, a message
defining a maximum queue storage capacity provided by said
client system to the broker device of the messaging system; and
degrading, with the broker device of the messaging
system, the QoS level of messages transmitted from said broker
device to one of the client systems in the event that said broker
device determines that said one of the client systems exceeds
said maximum queue storage capacity for said one of the client
systems
as recited in independent claim 1?
Appellant contends that Mandato and Homberg fail to teach that a
client system sends a message defining its capacity to a broker device. App.
Br. 13. Instead, Appellant argues, Mandato teaches that negotiations
triggering a reduction in QoS levels taught in Mandato occur between peer
devices based on detected QoS violation, not on a queue capacity message.
App. Br. 13-14 (citing Mandato, ¶¶ [0082]-[0084]). Appellant argues that
Mandato also fails to teach or suggest:
degrading, with the broker device . . . , the QoS level of
messages transmitted from said broker device to one of the
client systems in the event that said broker device determines
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

5
that said one of the client systems exceeds said maximum
queue storage capacity for said one of the client systems.
App. Br. 15. Appellant argues that “Mandato makes no reference to a
broker device determining that a client system has exceeded its maximum
queue storage capacity, or that the degradation of QoS level is based on such
a determination.” App. Br. 15. Appellant also asserts that the two options
Mandato teaches for renegotiating a QoS level do not involve messages
exchanged between peers. App. Br. 14.
The Examiner answers that although Mandato refers to peers,
Mandato teaches that peers also act as QoS brokers that coordinate resource
management across hardware and software units. Ans. 18 (citing Mandato,
Table 1, QoS Broker Definition). The Examiner also finds that as part of
managing the QoS Contract, the QoS Broker uses messages that are
piggybacked into data messages sent through the system. Ans. 18 (citing
Mandato, ¶¶ [0192], [0170]). The Examiner finds that Mandato is not
limited to the two renegotiation strategies discussed in ¶¶ [0081]-[0084] and
instead specifically teaches a renegotiation involving messaging. Ans. 20
(citing Mandato, ¶¶ [0195]-[0199]). The Examiner further finds that
Mandato supports and teaches the piggybacking of QoS information within
data messages. Ans. 21-22.
Having reviewed Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred, we
agree with the Examiner. Mandato teaches that peers (which themselves can
be brokers) can trigger a reduction in QoS when conditions permit.
Mandato, ¶ [0193]; see Ans. 19. Specifically, Mandato acknowledges that
“one of the peers could eventually be a QoS Broker embedded within the
network.” Mandato ¶ [0193]. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments that
Mandato does not teach using messages to set QoS (App. Br. 14), we find
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

6
that Mandato teaches that messages piggyback the negotiation information
in other data messages such that explicit negotiation messages are not
required. Mandato ¶ [0192]. We also find that the renegotiation strategies
taught in Mandato expressly discuss negotiation after degradation. Mandato,
¶¶ [0082]-[0084].
With respect to Homberg, Appellant contends that the “high water
mark which indicates a length at which a queue is considered congested”
(App. Br. 14) disclosed in Homberg fails to read on “a message defining a
maximum queue storage capacity provided by said client system to the
broker device of the messaging system” as recited in claim 1. Appellant also
argues that the congestion in Homberg is not equivalent or analogous to the
“maximum queue storage capacity” of claim 1. App. Br. 14-15 (stating that
percentage of congestions is not the same as a max capacity). Finally,
Appellant argues that “Mandato makes no reference to a broker device
determining that a client system has exceeded its maximum queue storage
capacity, or that the degradation of QoS level is based on such a
determination.” App. Br. 15; see Reply Br. 5-7.
We agree with the Examiner that the High Water Mark (HWM) in
Homberg is set to the queue maximum storage capacity to use effectively the
Discard Enabled (DE) bit and minimize frame loss. See Ans. 23, 24 (citing
Homberg, col. 2, ll. 32-43). Homberg teaches that the HWM is a
predetermined value that is equated to the queue maximum. Homberg, col.
9, ll. 7-18; col 2, ll. 10-44. We also find that Homberg teaches that the
HWM may be set to the maximum storage capacity of the queue to minimize
the amount of lost frames. Homberg, col 2, ll. 10-44, col. 9, ll. 7-18; see
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

7
Ans. 24-25. Homberg equates the HWM with the capacity of the queue.
See Homberg, col 2, ll. 10-44.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Homberg does not
teach transmitting the HWM to a broker, but instead only uses it for internal
queue management. Reply Br. 8. One cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually when the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner relies on the combination of Mandato
and Homberg in which the renegotiation between peers and the QoS Broker
as suggested by Mandato includes the HWM suggested by Homberg. Ans.
6-7.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Mandato
fails to show that “degradation occurs as a result of a client system
exceeding its maximum queue storage capacity.” Reply Br. 10. As the
Examiner finds (Ans. 21-22), Mandato expressly discloses using
piggybacked messages for “session level degradation path information” that
is sent among peers. Mandato, ¶ [0197]; see Ans. 21-22 (citing ¶¶ [0163],
[0170], [0192], and [0195]-[0199]).
For the above reasons, we find that the Examiner did not err in finding
that Mandato and Homberg teach or suggest
receiving separately in said broker device of the
messaging system, from each said client system, a message
defining a maximum queue storage capacity provided by said
client system to the broker device of the messaging system; and
degrading, with the broker device of the messaging
system, the QoS level of messages transmitted from said broker
device to one of the client systems in the event that said broker
device determines that said one of the client systems exceeds
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

8
said maximum queue storage capacity for said one of the client
systems.
as recited in independent claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
Independent Claims 7 and 13
Independent claims 7 and 13 recite limitations similar the claim 1
limitations for “receiv[ing] . . . a message defining a queue storage capacity”
and “degrade[ing] the QoS level.” App. Br. 17, 19. Appellant relies on the
same arguments presented for claim 1 for claims 7 and 13. App. Br. 17-19.
In addition, Appellant makes no separate argument for dependent claims 5
and 17. App. Br. 12-20. Based on the discussion above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 5
and 17 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
Claims 2, 8 and 14
Issue: Did the Examiner erred in finding that Mandato, Homberg and
Iliadis teach or suggest
conditioning message transmission from said broker device to
each said client system on a separately received agreement by
the client system that exceeding said maximum message queue
storage capacity provided to the client system by the messaging
system will result in a downgrading of the message QoS level
for the delinquent client system
as recited in dependent claims 2, 8 and 14? App. Br. 21-22 (emphasis
added).
Appellant argues claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14 and 15 together as they recite
the same limitation. App. Br. 21-22. We select dependent claim 2 that
depends from claim 1 above as representative of claims 3, 8, 9, 14 and 15.
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

9
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claim 2 rely on those presented
above with respect to claim 1 regarding Homberg and Mandato. App. Br.
22. Appellants also argue that the combination of Mandato, Homberg and
Iliadis fails to teach or suggest “‘a separately received agreement by the
client system’ related to QoS degradation terms.” App. Br. 22. Appellant
contends that Iliadis is irrelevant because it deals with an overflow state in
an output queue and not withholding message transmission based on QoS
levels. Id.
The Examiner answers that Iliadis is used to “teach the concept of
conditional message transmission” for a time period “when an overflow
stated is detected.” Ans. 28-29 (citing Iliadis, col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 8).
Having reviewed Appellant’s arguments, we agree with the Examiner
that inhibiting transmission of certain traffic for a time period, as taught by
Iliadis (Iliadis, col. 4, l. 66 – col. 5, l. 8), in combination with Mandato and
Homberg, which teach use of a HWM communicated among clients to
negotiate and degrade the QoS level, suggests a separate agreement as
recited in claim 2. See Ans. 28-29. “[I]t is not necessary that the inventions
of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention
under review.” In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence that the message
limitations based on overflow conditions suggested in Iliadis are
inapplicable to the overflow state of an output queue or the QoS messaging
negotiations using a HWM suggested in Mandato and Homberg.
Appeal 2011-000654
Application 11/421,835

10
For the reasons stated above, we find that the Examiner did not err in
finding that Mandato, Homberg and Iliadis teach or suggest
conditioning message transmission from said broker device to
each said client system on a separately received agreement by
the client system that exceeding said maximum message queue
storage capacity provided to the client system by the messaging
system will result in a downgrading of the message QoS level
for the delinquent client system
as recited in dependent claims 2. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 14 and 15 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).
Claims 4, 10 and 16 and Claims 6, 12, and 18
Appellant relies on the same arguments presented for independent
claims 1, 7 and 13 for claims 4, 6, 10, 12, 16 and 18. App. Br. 22-23. Based
on the discussion above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6,
10, 12, 16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-18 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD