Ex Parte Srinivasan

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2017

14077964 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2017)

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.
14/077,964 11/12/2013 Preetha SRINIVASAN 5135-113 1090
23117 7590 09/21/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
DOAN, HIEN VAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PREETHA SRINIVASAN
Appeal 2017-002971
Application 14/077,9641
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN D. HAMANN, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies Software AG as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002971
Application 14/077,964
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to “broker” software architecture, and
specifically, techniques for synchronizing broker servers (including changes
to documents or data on those servers) across different “territories.” Spec.
H 2—11. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and the subject matter of
the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method of managing operations of a computer network
in which a plurality of broker servers located at different
respective geographical locations are divided into one or more
distinct broker server territories, the method comprising:
calculating a minimum spanning tree (MST) for a
spanning tree that is represented by the plurality of broker
servers, which includes a first broker server, in the one or more
distinct broker server territories;
enabling brokered messaging and/or service provision
using the plurality of broker servers in the computer network, the
brokered messaging and/or service provision including at least:
receiving, at the first broker server of the plurality
of broker servers, an electronic data message from a first
publishing computing device that is different from any of
the plurality of broker servers;
performing, based on the electronic data message
and with processing resources of the first broker server, a
determination of which of plural subscribing computing
devices that the electronic data message will be sent, the
plural subscribing computing devices being different from
the plurality of broker servers; and
sending the electronic data message based on the
determination;
in response to a change being made to the first broker
server, propagating a message indicative of the change to other
ones of the plurality of broker servers, the message being
2
Appeal 2017-002971
Application 14/077,964
propagated to other ones of the plurality of broker servers in
accordance with the calculated MST.
App. Br. 29 (Claims App.).
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Miyao (US 2012/0158924 Al; June 21, 2012) and Manion
et al, (US 2005/0216559 Al; Sept. 29, 2005) (“Manion”). Final Act. 3-15.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding a rationale to combine
Miyao with Manion because they are fundamentally incompatible and
directed to different purposes. App. Br. 18—19; Reply Br. 5. Specifically,
Appellant argues Manion is directed to a peer to peer network for sharing
information without the need of a server, whereas Miyao teaches servers
capable of high-throughput data transfer. Id. Appellant contends one of
ordinary skill in the art would not consult teachings related to peer-to-peer
architecture (as taught in Manion) when attempting to improve the server-
based technology of Miyao. Id.', Final Act. 6. We are persuaded by
2 The Examiner also rejected claims 1, 12, and 18—20 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 112(a), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, but the Examiner withdrew this rejection in the
Answer. Ans. 6.
3
Appeal 2017-002971
Application 14/077,964
Appellant’s argument, and need not address the additional arguments
regarding alleged error.
The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would combine the
references to “improve better methods to provide distribute[d] content over
the Internet or within an enterprise installation by creating content
distribution groups of one or more computing device[s].” Final Act. 6
(citing Manion 17). The foregoing statement in the Final Action, however,
simply describes what Manion alone teaches. Manion 17. Manion teaches
creating content distribution groups “without the need of a server,” which
“improve[s] the efficiency of content distribution and the corresponding
scalability.” Id. at | 6. The Examiner’s finding does not explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would combine this teaching in Manion with
Miyao’s “network designing method” that utilizes high throughout
“servers.” Miyao 1—2, 49; KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
418 (2007) (Examiner must provide “articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness”).
The Examiner’s Answer similarly lacks any articulated reasoning for
combining the references. The Examiner finds, “[o]ne would be motivated
to...[combine the references] to provide distribute[d] content over the
Internet to the computer device with high throughput of data transfer to be
executed between servers by calculating a minimum spanning tree (MST)
for a spanning tree that is represented by the plurality of broker servers.”
Ans. 10 (emphasis added). Again, however, Manion disavows the use of
servers. On the record before us, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
rationale explaining how Manion “would have commended itself to an
inventor’s attention in considering [the] problem[s]” of Miyao, or vice versa.
4
Appeal 2017-002971
Application 14/077,964
Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1321
(Fed. Cir. 2011); see id. at 1322—23 (finding sufficient basis for combining
references that share the “same purpose,” “goal,” or “objective”); see also In
re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (reference teaches away from
combination “when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference . . .
would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference”).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1—20.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20.
REVERSED
5