Ex Parte Harvey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2013

11134251 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RICHARD H. HARVEY,
DAMON N. GROENVELD, and RONALD W. RAMSAY
____________________

Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-31, 33-50, 74, and 98-105, the only
claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellants invented a method, system, and computer recording
medium for handling a directory service operation, including determining
whether an alternate evaluator can respond to the operation and evaluating
the operation using the alternate evaluator when it is determined that the
alternate evaluator can respond to the operation. Specification 4:1-21.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for handling a directory service operation,
comprising:
[1] receiving, at a switch, an operation destined to a primary
evaluator;
[2] determining, by the switch, whether an alternate
evaluator can respond to the operation based on the type or
content of the operation;
[3] in response to a positive determination by the switch,
redirecting the operation to the alternate evaluator prior to the
operation being received by the primary evaluator; and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Apr. 22, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Aug. 6, 2010),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jun. 7, 2010), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Jul. 29, 2009).
Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251

3
[4] evaluating the operation, by the alternate evaluator, by
accessing data stored in local memory, wherein evaluating the
operation, by the alternate evaluator, involves fewer processing
layers than evaluating the operation using the primary
evaluator.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Vange
Lennon
Fleming
Lea
Wahl
Akahane
Cameron
Chen
Lloyd
US 2002/0004796 A1
US 2002/0107973 A1
US 2002/0129153 A1
US 6,477,573 B1
US 2003/0088656 A1
US 2004/0010617 A1
US 2004/0225670 A1
US 2005/0091344 A1
US 2005/0102297 A1
Jan. 10, 2002
Aug. 8, 2002
Sep. 12, 2002
Nov. 5, 2002
May 8, 2003
Jan. 15, 2004
Nov. 11, 2004
Apr. 28, 2005
May 12, 2005
Amer-Yahia US 6,980,985 B1 Dec. 27, 2005

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-31, 33-50, 74, and 98-105 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wahl and Chen.
Claims 3 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Fleming.
Claims 7, 31, and 103 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Amer-Yahia.
Claims 17 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Vange.
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Akahane.
Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251

4
Claims 21 and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Lloyd.
Claims 23, 24, 46, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wahl and Cameron.
Claim 100 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Lennon.
Claim 105 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wahl and Lea.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12,
14-17, 19-31, 33-50, 74, and 98-105 turns on whether the combination of
Wahl and Chen teaches or suggests (1) “wherein evaluating the operation,
by the alternate evaluator, involves fewer processing layers than evaluating
the operation using the primary evaluator” and (2) “receiving, at a switch, an
operation destined to a primary evaluator” and “in response to a positive
determination by the switch, redirecting the operation to [an] alternate
evaluator prior to the operation being received by the primary evaluator.”

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-31, 33-50, 74, and 98-105 rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Wahl and Chen
The Appellants first contend that the combination of Wahl and Chen
fails to teach or suggest “wherein evaluating the operation, by the alternate
evaluator, involves fewer processing layers than evaluating the operation
using the primary evaluator,” as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 12-13 and
Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251

5
Reply Br. 2. The Appellants specifically argue that claim 1 requires “fewer
processing levels” whereas Chen only describes routing based on quality
levels. Id.
We disagree with the Appellants. The Specification provides that the
term “processing layers” can include a component in a server that converts
“the query to standard protocols such as SQL, interpreting the SQL,
executing the SQL . . . and/or utilizing an operating system to retrieve data
from a database.” Specification 6:27:31. While the Specification provides
this description, neither the Specification nor the claims limit the scope of
the term “processing layers.” Chen describes that routing intermediary 22
determines whether to route a query to a high-end server 23 or low-end
server 24. Chen ¶¶ 0034-0036 and Fig. 2. The routing is determined based
on whether the query can be satisfied by the low-end server. Id. The low-
end server may utilize a database that has more limitations, such as MySQL,
than the database of the high-end server, such as DB2. Id. That is, Chen
discloses that the processing layers of the low-end server are limited or
fewer than those of the high-end server. As such, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Wahl and Chen describe this limitation.
The Appellants further contend that the combination of Wahl and
Chen fails to teach or suggest “receiving, at a switch, an operation destined
to a primary evaluator” and “in response to a positive determination by the
switch, redirecting the operation to [an] alternate evaluator prior to the
operation being received by the primary evaluator,” as per claim 1. App. Br.
13-14 and Reply Br. 3. The Examiner has responded to this argument. Ans.
27-28. We agree with and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact
and analysis, and reach the same legal conclusions as in that response. We
Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251

6
further point out that Chen describes this limitation, where Chen describes
routing intermediary 22 receives a request and determines whether to route
the request to a high-end server 23 or low-end server 24. Chen ¶¶ 0034-
0036 and Fig. 2. That is, the intermediary router is a switch that determines
whether to route a request to the high-end server or primary evaluator or to
the low-end server or alternate evaluator.

Claims 3, 7, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 100, 103, and 105
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over the cited prior
art
The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3,
7, 17, 21, 23, 24, 27, 31, 40, 41, 44, 46, 47, 100, 103, and 105 for the same
reasons asserted in support of claim 1 and the additional cited prior art fails
to cure the deficiencies in Wahl and Chen noted supra. App. Br. 14-16. We
disagree with the Appellants. The Appellants’ arguments were not found to
be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-31,
33-50, 74, and 98-105.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, 14-17, 19-31, 33-50, 74, and 98-105
is sustained.
Appeal 2010-011465
Application 11/134,251

7

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)(2011).

AFFIRMED

ke