Ex Parte Peterson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

11831926 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

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.
11/831,926 07/31/2007 Nathan J. Peterson RPS920071014US1
(710.040)
5158
58127 7590 03/31/2016
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
FAN, HUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2016 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 NATHAN J. PETERSON and
ROD D. WALTERMANN
____________________

Appeal 2014-003281
Application 11/831,926
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-003281
Application 11/831,926
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1–
7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 19–21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
The invention relates to voting on resource ownership in a distributed
computer network (Spec. 1:4–5). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:

conducting a voting process to decide which machine in a
distributed network will run which resource, said voting process
comprising:

starting one or more machines in the distributed
network; and

conducting a discovery phase of predetermined
duration following the starting of the one or more
machines in the distributed network, the discovery phase
comprising:

sending announcement packets;

determining a number of machines discovered
during the discovery phase; and

sending a vote request packet following the
discovery phase, the vote request packet comprising the
number of machines discovered and a request to vote;

in response to a number of machines discovered in said
discovery phase being equal to a number of vote request packets
received, sending a ballot from the one or more machines; and

Appeal 2014-003281
Application 11/831,926
3
thereafter precluding another machine associated with the
distributed network from sending a ballot.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Raz US 5,701,480 Dec. 23, 1997
Piercey
Sporny
Niranjan
US 2005/0163061 A1
US 2008/0077635 A1
US 2008/0267147 A1
July 28, 2005
Mar. 27, 2008
Oct. 30, 2008

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1–7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sporny, Piercey, and Raz.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sporny, Piercey, Raz, and Niranjan.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the combination of Sporny, Pierce, and Raz
discloses all the limitations of claim 1, including that Raz teaches
“precluding another machine associated with the distributed network from
sending a ballot” (Final Act. 6–9). Appellants contend, among other things,
that “none of the references is at all concerned with ‘precluding another
machine associated with the distributed network from sending a ballot’ in
the context claimed’” (App. Br. 12). Specifically, Appellants argue the
Examiner’s finding that Raz teaches “‘excluding a node from participating
in a vote if the vote does not occur within a predetermined time limit’ . . . is
plainly incorrect.” (App. Br. 15) (citing Final Act. 5). Rather, Appellants
Appeal 2014-003281
Application 11/831,926
4
argue, Raz “appears to teach forcing votes and then aborting them” (App.
Br. 16).
Although we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Sporny
and Pierce teaches discovering machines and voting among the machines in
a distributed network (see Ans. 13–14), the Examiner’s reliance on Raz for
the feature of precluding a machine from voting is misplaced. Raz discloses
a procedure for committing transactions in a multi-version database that
includes an atomic commitment (AC) protocol for a multi-resource manager
(RM) environment, as follows: “Each participating RM votes either YES or
NO (also absence of a vote within a specified time limit may be considered
NO). . . . The transaction is committed by all RMs if and only if all have
voted YES. Otherwise it is aborted by all the RMs.” (Raz, col. 105, ll. 31–
40). Here, Raz discloses assigning a vote if an RM has not voted within a
certain time period. In contrast, the claimed invention recites “precluding
another machine . . . from sending a ballot,” i.e., preventing a machine from
voting. We find there to be a difference between not voting within a certain
time period, as in Raz, and being prevented from voting, as in claim 1.
Thus, we find the Examiner erred in finding Raz teaches “precluding another
machine associated with the distributed network from sending a ballot.”
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 11 and 20 which
recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2–7, 9, 12, 15, 17,
19, and 21 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1–7, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and
19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2014-003281
Application 11/831,926
5

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–7, 9, 11,
12, 15, 17, and 19–21 are reversed.

REVERSED