Ex Parte Turk

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 18, 2017

11897182 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 18, 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.
11/897,182 08/28/2007 Mladen Turk P113 3851
14400 7590 04/18/2017
Patent Dneket AHminisitratnr
EXAMINER
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
65 Livingston Avenue
GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C
Roseland, NJ 07068 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/18/2017 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 MLADEN TURK
Appeal 2016-0066061
Application 11/897,182
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, AMBER L. HAGY, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 17—20, which are all of
the pending claims. Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 13, and 16 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Red Hat, Inc. (App. Br.
3.)
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
Introduction
According to Appellant:
Embodiments of the present invention relate to management of
connections between clients and web servers. Specifically, the
embodiments relate to a method and apparatus for reducing the
number of threads required to manage connections by assigning
idle connections to a common polling thread and releasing
working threads until needed to service data transmission over
the connection.
(Spec. 11.)
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with
the disputed limitation italicized, is exemplary of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring, by an acceptor thread, a connection request on
a plurality of ports of a system by polling interrupts generated by
the plurality of ports;
accepting the connection request by the acceptor thread;
in response to accepting the connection request, opening a
connection of a plurality of connections for the connection
request to generate an open connection;
assigning the open connection to a worker thread to
service a transfer of data over the open connection, wherein the
data comprises hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) data, and
wherein the worker thread is scheduled by an operating system
to process the transfer of data;
in response to assigning the open connection to the worker
thread, releasing the acceptor thread;
in response to having serviced the transfer of data,
determining by the worker thread whether a connection end
condition for the open connection is met by the worker thread,
wherein determining by the worker thread whether a connection
end condition for the open connection is met comprises checking
2
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
for incoming data, other than a close connection command, that
indicates the open connection is no longer needed;
in response to determining that the connection end
condition is met, closing the open connection to generate a closed
connection and releasing the worker thread assigned to the closed
connection;
in response to determining that the connection end
condition is not met and there is no further data activity
associated with the open connection,
assigning, by a processor, the open connection to a
poller thread, wherein the poller thread having the open
connection assigned is to detect a connection event and to
check for incoming data on the open connection assigned to
the poller thread, wherein the poller thread is to check on
one or more open connections of the plurality of
connections assigned to the poller thread;
releasing the worker thread assigned to the open
connection;
in response to detecting, by the poller thread, the
connection event, reassigning the open connection to a second
worker thread to service the transfer of data over the open
connection;
determining whether a time out expiration occurs in view
of whether a time to wait for the connection event exceeds a
determined time period; and
in response to determining that the time to wait exceeds
the determined time period, notifying an associated process of
the time out expiration.
3
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chintalapati et al. US 2002/0156897 A1
Oksanen US 2004/0199549 Al
Inden US 7,227,868 B2
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 14, 15, and 17—20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chintalapati and Inden. (Final
Act. 3-7.)
Oct. 24, 2002
Oct. 7, 2004
June 5, 2007
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Chintalapati teaches or
suggests
determining by the worker thread whether a connection end
condition for the open connection is met by the worker thread,
wherein determining by the worker thread whether a connection
end condition for the open connection is met comprises checking
for incoming data, other than a close connection command, that
indicates the open connection is no longer needed[,]
as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 9 and 17.
(2) Whether the Examiner failed to articulate a rational basis
supporting a motivation to combine the teachings of Chintalapati and Inden.
4
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—
7) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 2—5.) We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis.2
A. “checking for incoming data, other than a close connection
command, that indicates the open connection is no longer
needed”
The Examiner finds Chintalapati teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation of claim 1 by teaching
[ajfter servicing data on the connection, the worker thread checks
for “exceptions” on the connection that indicates the connection
is no longer needed. Although Chintalapati describes a close
connection command as one example of an exception, the use of
the plural term “exceptions” clearly indicates Chintalapati
contemplates other types of exceptions as well.
(Final Act. 4—5 (citing Chintalapati || 37—38, 45).) In the Answer, the
Examiner further notes:
Chintalapati clarifies that the term “exception” encompasses not
only a close connection command, but also other types of
exceptions that are functionally similar [to] but not identical to a
close connection command. For instance, Chintalapati states that
an “exception” can indicate either that “the user associated with
the client may have closed the connection, or the browser
2 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
application running on the client may have terminated'1'’
(emphasis added). See par. 58. Thus, one type of exception other
than a close connection command is an exception indicating that
the browser application has terminated.
(Ans. 3.) We agree the Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited
teachings of the prior art. We further note that the recited “incoming data” is
entitled to a broad construction. As the Examiner notes, and we agree,
Appellant’s Specification is not specific as to the types of “incoming data”
that could “indicate[] that the open connection is no longer needed,” as
recited in claim 1. (Id.) In particular, the Examiner finds: “Although
paragraph 34 of Appellant’s specification states that ‘the check can be based
on receiving a close connection command or similar incoming data that
indicates that the connection is no longer needed’ (emphasis added),
Appellant’s specification does not give even a single example of ‘similar
incoming data. ’ ” (Id.)
Appellant, however, argues the Examiner’s findings are in error
because
the relied upon portion of Chintalapati is concerned with “an
exception,” and examples of the “exception.” Although the
examples of the “exception” can be that the user associated with
the client may have closed the connection, or the browser
application running on the client may have terminated, the relied
upon portions of Chintalapati do not teach or suggest checking
for incoming data, other than a close connection command, that
indicates the open connection is no longer needed.
(App. Br. 3—4.)
Appellant’s conclusory arguments are not persuasive of Examiner
error. In particular, Appellant has not explained why the relied-upon
disclosure does not teach or suggest the claimed feature under its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification; rather, Appellant
6
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
merely alleges that the feature is different because it is described in different
terms. Cf In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that
the comparison of references to the claimed invention “is not an ‘ipsissimis
verbis’ test”). Appellant does not explain why Chintalapati’s teaching of an
“exception that indicates a closed connection at the client,” which may
include termination of a “browser application running on the client”
(Chintalapati | 58 (emphasis added)) would not encompass “incoming data,
other than a close connection command, that indicates the open connection
is no longer needed,” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). Appellant has,
therefore, not rebutted the Examiner’s findings.
B. Motivation To Combine
Appellant also argues the Examiner “has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with regards to claims 1, 9, and 17” (App. Br. 13)
because the Examiner has “fail[ed] to demonstrate a motivation to combine
the cited references” {id. at 14). We disagree. In the instant appeal, the
Examiner has provided a rationale supporting motivation by a person of
ordinary skill in the art to achieve the claimed subject matter. (Final Act. 7;
Ans. 4—5.) Specifically, the Examiner finds
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time of the invention to modify the system of
Chintalapati so that the poll thread notifies the poll manager that
the connection has expired because doing so allows the poll
manager to become aware that it needs to close the connection.
(Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 4—5.) Appellant does not address the substance
of the Examiner’s finding. Rather, Appellant takes issue only with the
brevity of the Examiner’s finding, challenging it as limited to a “single­
sentence statement.” (App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 7.) We disagree that the
Examiner’s findings are inadequate merely by virtue of their brevity.
7
Appeal 2016-006606
Application 11/897,182
Moreover, we note that, in presenting merely the conclusory contention that
the Examiner’s finding is itself “conclusory,” Appellant has not provided
persuasive evidence or line of reasoning explaining why the Examiner’s
stated rationale is erroneous or why a person of ordinary skill in the art
would not have reached the conclusions reached by the Examiner. See
DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464
F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, or of
independent claims 9 and 17, which Appellant argues collectively with claim
I. We, therefore, affirm that rejection, along with the rejection of dependent
claims 3, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, and 18—20, which Appellant does not argue
separately. (See App. Br. 9, 13, 14.)
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,3,6, 7, 9,
II, 14, 15, and 17—20 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8