Ex Parte Ensor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 11, 2016

12203582 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/203,582 09/03/2008
46363 7590 07113/2016
Tong, Rea, Bentley & Kim, LLC
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
12 Christopher Way
Suite 105
Eatontown, NJ 07724
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Robert Ensor
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.
LCNT/129654 3441
EXAMINER
BELCHER, HERMAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2016 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):
docketing@trbklaw.com
ipsnarocp@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES ROBERT ENSOR,
JAIRO ORLANDO ESTEBAN, VOLKER FREDRICH HILT,
MARKUS ANDREAS HOFMANN, and IVICA RIMAC
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
Technology Center 2400
Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CLEMENTS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 21-35. Claims 4-7, 9, and 11-20
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates generally to content distribution
networks, and specifically to a method and apparatus for promoting a data
item from storage on a device in an edge region to storage on a device in a
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
core region in response to an increase in the number of requests for the data
item. See generally Abstract; Spec. 1 :5---6; Claim 1. Claim 1 is illustrative
(disputed limitation in italics):
1. An apparatus for promoting a data item within a
data distribution network, comprising:
a processor configured to:
monitor at least one parameter for the data item, wherein
the data item is stored on a first data server of the data
distribution network, wherein the at least one parameter
comprises a number of requests for the data item;
when a determination is made, based on monitoring of
the at least one parameter, that an increase in the number of
requests for the data item causes an associated threshold to be
satisfied, initiate a process for promoting the data item from
being stored on the first data server to being stored on a second
data server of the data distribution network, wherein promotion
of the data item is in a direction from an edge region of the data
distribution network toward a core region of the data
distribution network.
REFERENCES
Lu US 7,069,325 Bl June 27, 2006
McDonnell US 7,257,386 Bl Aug. 14, 2007
Heather US 2008/0091555 Al Apr. 17, 2008
Kolhi US 2010/0312861 Al Dec. 9, 2010
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 8, 21, 24, and 26-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kolhi and Lu. Ans. 5-15.
2
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
2. Claims 22 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kolhi, Lu, and McDonnell. Ans. 15-18.
3. Claims 10 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kolhi, Lu, and Heather. Ans. 18-19.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER KOLHI AND LU
The Examiner finds that Kolhi teaches every element of claim 1
except for "an increase in the number of requests for the data item causes an
associated threshold to be satisfied," but cites Lu as teaching this feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 5-7, 21-22.
Appellants argue that Kolhi does not teach "promoting the data item
... from an edge region ... toward a core region," in response to "an
increase in the number of requests for the data item," as recited in claim 1,
because (1) Kolhi teaches the opposite process of moving data to lower-level
caches in response to an increase in the number of requests, and moving data
to a higher-level cache only as it becomes less popular; and (2) Kolhi's
teaching that "a higher level cache is capable of sharing the load" (Kolhi
i-f 40) does not imply that the requested data item is "promoted" from the
lower-level cache to the higher-level cache. App. Br. 12-15.
Appellants also argue that the proposed combination of Kolhi and Lu
would change the principle of operation ofKolhi. App. Br. 15-16.
Appellants also argue that the combination of Kolhi and Lu does not
teach "the user device is the data ingestion point," as recited in claim 24, or
"the data item enters the data distribution network via a user device," as
recited in claim 31, because neither Lu's "client request" nor its "transmit
3
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
identifier" are a "data item", as recited in both claims. App. Br. 18-19, 20-
21.
ISSUES
(1) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by
finding that Lu teaches "an increase in the number of requests for the data
item causes an associated threshold to be satisfied"?
(2) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred combining Kolhi and Lu
because the combination articulated with respect to independent claim 1
would change Kolhi's principle of operation?
(3) Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 24 and 31
by finding that Kolhi and Lu collectively would have taught or suggested
"the user device is the data ingestion point into the data distribution network
for the data item," and "the data item enters the data distribution network via
a user device," respectively?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 21
On this record, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner's
determination that Lu teaches "an increase in the number of requests for the
data item causes an associated threshold to be satisfied." The Examiner cites
(Ans. 6-7, 22), Lu's teaching that
New network nodes can be added, removed and changed, etc.,
potentially impacting the availability or desirability of a
particular communications path. Also, the desirability of any
communications path may be changed as a factor of the volume
of requests being directed to a particular server or over a
network node at any time. For example, public events may
cause the content stored on a particular content source to be in
4
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
great demand thereby increasing the volume of requests
directed to the source and the volume of communications
handled by the network facilities connected to that source.
Other factors, such as time zone changes, other traffic and
workload factors, etc. may also impact any content source
and/or its related network facilities' response times.
Lu, 1:25-37. This portion of Lu describes only the "desirability" of a
communications path changing over time, e.g., as it becomes busier. The
cited portions of Lu do not describe "desirability," however, as a measured
parameter or as a threshold associated with some measured parameter.
Indeed, this portion of Lu is silent as to a threshold, or whether the described
"increasing volume of requests directed to the source" causes a threshold to
be satisfied.
Even assuming that the cited portion of Lu taught "an increase in the
number of requests for the data item causes an associated threshold to be
satisfied," we are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the combination
of Kolhi with Lu is improper because it would change the principle of
operation of Kolhi. App. Br. 15-16. In Kolhi's content distribution
network, "[r ]elevant, e.g., popular content is distributed as close as possible
to the user or group of users that have the highest probability of requesting
the content," and "content is relocated to caching nodes higher in the
aggregation network as content becomes less demanded, e.g., less popular."
Kolhi, Abstract, i-f 20. Kolhi operates this way because
The placement of caching in a given location strongly affects
the overall performance of the system. If clients are not able to
find the content in the cache nodes, the system is ineffective
and the client will have to retrieve the content from the original
source. When a client is not able to find content in a given
cache node, this is called a cache-miss, which is undesirable.
5
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
Kolhi il 19. Thus, Kolhi's principle of operation relies on the placement of
popular content at the lowest-level cache in order to avoid cache misses. As
Appellants correctly point out (App. Br. 12-14), this is the opposite of the
process recited in claim 1, where an increase in the number of requests
causes a data item to be moved from an edge region toward the core region.
The modification proposed by the Examiner with respect to independent
claim 1-i.e., moving content from a lower-level cache ("edge region")
toward a higher-level cache ("core region") in response to an increase in the
number of requests for that content-would change the basic principles
under which Kolhi was designed to operate (see In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810,
813 ( CCP A 1959)) and would result in more cache misses, thereby
negatively affecting overall performance of the system.
The Examiner also finds that Kolhi's teaching that, "a higher level
cache is capable of sharing the load" "if a cache at a lower level breaks or is
overloaded with requests," (Kolhi i-f 40) teaches promotion from an edge
region toward the core region because such load sharing is achieved "by
copying data to [a] higher level server so the higher level server can share
the loads" (Ans. 21 ). Kolhi, however, does not describe how the load
sharing is achieved, and we find no support in Kolhi for the notion that it is
achieved by copying data from a lower level server to a higher level server.
As Appellants correctly point out, the content may already be stored at the
higher level cache. App. Br. 14--15.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 8, 10, and 21, which depend therefrom.
6
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
Claims 24 and 26-35
On this record, we are persuade of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claims 24 and 31.
In the rejection, the Examiner relies upon Lu's "client request," which
originates from Lu's client, and Lu's "transmit identifier," collectively, as
teaching that "the user device is the data ingestion point into the data
distribution network for the data item," as recited in claim 24 (Ans. 10), and
"the data item enters the data distribution network via a user device," as
recited in claim 31 (Ans. 14).
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that neither Lu's "client
request" nor its "transmit identifier" teaches the recited "data item." App.
Br. 18-19, 20-21. The "data item" of the claims is the content distributed
via the "data distribution network" of the preamble. Lu, in contrast,
describes its "client request" as a "client request/or content," (see, e.g., Lu,
7:20 (emphasis added)). Thus, while Lu's "client request" may be a request
for a "data item," we are not persuaded that it is itself a "data item."
We further disagree with the Examiner that "Lu is only relied on to
show that [a] data item such as a transmit identifier can be generated at a
client/user device as a result of [a] client request (i.e. user-generated
content)." Ans. 24. Lu's transmit identifier 170 is generated by master
server 140, not by a client/user device. See, e.g., Lu, 8:51-52 ("In step 214,
the master server 140 generates a transmit identifier 170 associated with the
client request 160.").
We also are not persuaded that Kolhi' s teaching of a fourth level 66 of
cache nodes at the terminal level "implicitly suggest[ s] the terminal device[]
is the ingestion point into the network." Ans. 24. The presence of a cache
7
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
on Kolhi's terminal device does not imply that the content in such a cache
originates from that device. Furthermore, as the Examiner acknowledges
(id.), Kolhi does not explicitly describe content entering the networking
through a terminal. To the contrary, "[i]n the preferred embodiment of the
present invention, all content is first stored in the head-end cache node."
Kolhi i-f 35. And in the other disclosed embodiment, where "the content is
initially randomly replicated across a set of cache nodes" that content cannot
initially be replicated to the terminal level because there must be room for a
"[a] downward replication of the content ... for popular content." Id
(emphasis added).
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 24 and 31, or of claims 26-30 and 32-35, which depend therefrom,
respectively.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Because the Examiner has not shown that either McDonnell or
Heather cures the deficiencies noted above, we also do not sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims 10, 22, 23, and 25.
Ans. 15-19, 25-27.
8
Appeal2015-002803
Application 12/203,582
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 21-35 under
§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 8, 10, and 21-35 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
9