Ex Parte Walkin et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 26, 2018

14821421 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/821,421 08/07/2015 LevWalkin
148646 7590 10/30/2018
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Satori Worldwide LL
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30537-7037
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.
Ml02103 1020US1 15003 1907
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC,RYANJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2018 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):
patents@mz.com
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEV W ALKIN and FRED RIK ERIK LINDER
(Applicant: Satori Worldwide, LLC)
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14--16, 19, 21-23, 25, and 27-29.
Claims 4, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 18, 20, 24, 26, and 30 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Satori Worldwide, LLC as the real party in interest.
Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a publish-subscribe ("PubSub") system that
stores messages in a buffers with associated time-to-lives that allow new
subscribers to receive messages that were published prior to the time of
subscription. Spec. p. 1, 11. 4--22. The buffers are divided into a set of
blocks which each store messages. Spec. 18, 11. 16-21. The blocks are
assigned respective time-to-lives, and once the time-to-live of a block
expires, the block and its messages are removed from the buffer. Spec. 18,
11. 16-21. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving one or more commands to create a buffer for a
channel, wherein the buffer has time-to-live and can store a
plurality of messages;
receiving the plurality of messages from a publishers, each
of the messages being associated with the channel;
storing the received messages in the buffer, the buffer
comprising a plurality of blocks, each block having a respective
time-to-live and wherein the block stores one or more of the
received messages;
after storing the received messages:
removing one or more of the blocks having
respective time-to-lives that have expired; and
providing messages for the channels to one or more
subscribers from one or more unremoved blocks, wherein
the provided messages persist in the unremoved blocks
until respective time-to-lives of the unremoved blocks
expire.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
2
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bevan US 2007/0013948 Al Jan. 18, 2007
Lauder US2007/0028I73A1 Feb.1,2007
Telfer US 2008/0235366 Al Sep. 25, 2008
Mayo US 2011/0179162 Al Jul. 21, 2011
Haugland US 2011/0231523 Al Sep. 22, 2011
NAMPALLY US 2015/0207851 Al Jul. 23, 2015
Google Cloud Platform, "What is Google Cloud Pub/Sub?" located at
https://cloud.google.com/pubsub/overview, August 7, 2015 with
indication of most recent update July 14, 2015.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 22, 23, 25, 27, and 29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Lauder, Telfer, Google
Cloud Platform, Mayo, and Haugland. Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 2, 15, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lauder, Google Cloud Platform, Mayo, Haugland, and
Bevan. Final Act. 7.
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lauder, Google Cloud Platform, Mayo, Haugland, and
Nampally. Final Act. 8.
Claims 8 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Lauder, Google Cloud Platform, Mayo, Haugland, and
Applicant Admitted Prior Art ("AP A"). Final Act. 9.
3
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Telfer and Mayo teach
or suggest "storing the received messages in the buffer, the buffer
comprising a plurality of blocks, each block having a respective time-to-live
and wherein the block stores one or more of the received messages," as
recited in claim 1?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Telfer teaches or
suggests "removing one or more of the blocks having respective time-to-
lives that have expired," as recited in claim 1?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Haugland teaches or
suggests "wherein the provided messages persist in the unremoved blocks
until respective time-to-lives of the unremoved blocks expire," as recited in
claim 1?
Fourth Issue: Has the Examiner erred in relying on Appellants'
Specification as Admitted Prior Art in concluding claim 8 is obvious?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation "storing the received
messages in the buffer, the buffer comprising a plurality of blocks, each
block having a respective time-to-live and wherein the block stores one or
more of the received messages." App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). In
rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable, the Examiner finds this limitation present
in the combined teachings of Telfer and Mayo. More specifically, the
Examiner finds Mayo teaches "storing the received messages in the buffer,
the buffer comprising a plurality of blocks," and Telfer teaches "each block
4
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
having a respective time-to-live," and relies again on Mayo for teaching
"wherein the block stores one or more of the received messages." Final
Act. 4 (citing Mayo ,r 93 and Telfer ,r 40).
Appellants contend the Examiner's findings are in error, and they
offer several arguments in support. First, Appellants argue that Telfer fails
to teach "the buffer comprising a plurality of blocks." App. Br. 5. In
particular, Appellants argue Telfer teaches only that messages are stored
within a buffer, but those messages are not contained within blocks as
required by the claim. Id. According to Appellants, "the 'messages' in
Telfer cannot be 'blocks' as recited in claim 1 at least because they do not
store one or more received messages as recited in the claim, but rather are
the messages themselves." Reply Br. 2. Appellants further contend that
"even if messages as described in Telfer could be interpreted as buffer
blocks ... they still do not teach or suggest blocks 'having a respective time-
to-live' as recited [in claim 1 ]." Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Mayo demonstrates
that it was known in messaging systems to store messages in queues. We
agree with the Examiner that storing messages in queues as taught by Mayo
teaches storing messages in the recited "blocks" because queues are portions
of memory having discrete size. See Mayo ,r 93. Appellants' Specification
does not provide a definition of "blocks." The examples of "blocks" in the
Specification include allocations of memory space (Spec. 19, 11. 24--26),
channel positions (Spec. 19, 11. 8-11 ), or a number of messages (Spec. 18,
11.17-18). The message queues described by Mayo are encompassed by
these broad examples. Telfer teaches the use of message data buffers that
"contain information regarding the messages that make up a transaction."
5
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
Telfer ,r 40. Telfer further teaches that messages may be assigned a time-to-
live value. Telfer ,r 40 ("In particular, transaction buffers 150, 151, 152
contain information regarding the transaction itself and about the handling of
messages for the transaction (e.g., lifetime, priority, etc.)."). We agree with
the Examiner that, taken together, the combined teachings of Telfer and
Mayo would have at least suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art
that it would be beneficial to add the message queues of Mayo to the
message data buffers taught by Telfer.
Appellants argue "the 'messages' in Telfer cannot be 'blocks' as
recited in claim 1 at least because they do not store one or more received
messages as recited in the claim, but rather are the messages themselves."
Reply Br. 2. But the Examiner does not rely solely on Telfer for disclosure
of the recited "blocks." Rather, the Examiner finds the message queues
taught by Mayo correspond to the claimed "blocks." Accordingly, this
argument is not persuasive of error. Appellants also argue "even if messages
as described in Telfer could be interpreted as buffer blocks ... they still do
not teach or suggest blocks 'having a respective time-to-live."' This
argument also is unpersuasive for two reasons. First, as we explained above,
Telfer teaches assigning lifetimes to respective messages. Telfer ,r 40 ("the
handling of messages for the transaction (e.g., lifetime, priority, etc.)").
Second, it does not address the rejection made by the Examiner-that Mayo
supplies a teaching of the recited "blocks" which include messages and
Telfer teaches assigning time-to-lives to data to a substructure of the buffer.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Telfer and
Mayo at least suggest "storing the received messages in the buffer, the buffer
6
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
comprising a plurality of blocks, each block having a respective time-to-live
and wherein the block stores one or more of the received messages."
Second Issue
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner also relies on Telfer for the
limitation "removing one or more of the blocks having respective time-to-
lives that have expired." Final Act. 4 (citing Telfer ,r 40); Ans. 5. The
Examiner finds that "Telfer removes the buffers which contain[] the blocks
when the buffer's lifetime expires." Ans. 5. The Examiner reasons that
when the time-to-live of the buffer expires, the time-to-live of the blocks
within the buffer also expires. As a result, the Examiner concludes,
"through the normal and usual operation of the system, Telfer teaches [ the
disputed limitation] via the removal of the expired buffers containing the
expired blocks." Id.
Appellants argue Telfer does not disclose this limitation because it
"merely describes removing a 'buffer' without any teaching or suggestion of
removing a block within a buffer based on a 'time-to-live' of the block."
App. Br. 9.
This argument is substantially the same as the argument we addressed
above in connection with the first issue. That is, we agree with the
Examiner that Telfer's messages are assigned a time-to-live, and Telfer at
least suggests removing the expired messages from the message data buffers
when their time-to-lives have expired. See Final Act. 4. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by Appellants argument.
Third Issue
Claim 1 also recites the limitation "wherein the provided messages
persist in unremoved blocks until respective time-to-lives of the unremoved
7
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
blocks expire." App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner finds this
limitation taught by Haugland. Final Act. 5; Adv. Action 2 ("Haughland
clearly teaches these features in at least 117 which shows that messages (in
'blocks') persist until the TTL expires at which point they are removed.").
The Examiner explains that the term "block" in reasonably interpreted to
mean data existing in a discrete unit. Ans. 6. Based on that interpretation,
the DNS [domain name servers] records in Haugland are blocks, and
Haugland fields within those records are messages that persist until they
expire and are removed. Ans. 6.
Appellants argue Haugland is deficient because it relates to domain
name servers and merely teaches removing a name-to-IP address mapping in
a DNS cache at the expiration of the mapping entry's TTL parameter. App.
Br. 9-10. According to Appellants, because Haugland does not teach
buffers having blocks as a substructure to store messages, it cannot render
obvious "wherein the provided messages persist in unremoved blocks until
respective time-to-lives of the unremoved blocks expire." App. Br. 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants argue that
Haugland does not disclose buffers having blocks as a substructure.
However, the Examiner does not rely on Haugland for disclosing buffers
having blocks as substructure. Rather, the Examiner relies on Telfer to show
the buffer/block structure as we discussed above. The Examiner relies on
Haugland only to show that it was known for messages to persist as discrete
data units (i.e., as blocks) until the TTL expires. See, e.g. Haugland ,r 117
("The time to live (TTL) parameter affects the way domain name servers
cache messages received from foreign name servers."); Ans. 6. Thus,
8
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
Appellants' argument does not squarely address the rejection made by the
Examiner, and it is not persuasive of error.
Fourth Issue
Appellants present a separate argument for claim 8. Claim 8 depends
from claim 1 and recites "wherein providing messages for the channel to one
or more subscribers occurs after a predetermined time period." App. Br. 15
(Claims Appendix). The Examiner rejects claim 8 as being obvious over
Appellants' admitted prior art ("AP A") because the Specification describes
that Nagle's algorithm is a well-known acknowledgement scheduling
algorithm that may be used to send messages after a predetermined time
period. Final Act. 9 ( citing Spec. 16, 11. 17-20). The Examiner finds that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to implement
Nagle's algorithm, as taught by Appellants' Specification because it is
"well-known and advantageous method[] of improving network efficiency."
Ans. 7.
Appellants argue the Examiner's reliance on AP A is misplaced
because the Specification provides no indication that it would have been
obvious to combine the AP A with the other cited references, and that the
Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight in doing so. App. Br. 12.
Appellants also argue the mere reference to Nagle's algorithm in the
Specification is not an admission that "providing messages for the channel to
one or more subscribers occurs after a predetermined time period" was
known in the prior art. Reply Br. 5. Appellants contend "Nagle's algorithm
[ ] deals with acknowledgement of packets through a network and does not
deal with delivery of messages for a channel to subscribers of the channel."
Id.
9
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The limitation of
claim 8 essentially covers scheduling the publication of messages. The cited
portion of the Specification relied upon as AP A teaches that known
acknowledgement scheduling algorithms such as Nagle algorithm can be
used to "send the channel foo's messages (from the streamlet 4102) to the
MX node 461 ... every 50 milliseconds." Spec. 16, 11. 17-19. This
description teaches the recited "providing messages for the channel to one or
more subscribers occurs after a predetermined time period" because it
describes that channel foo's messages (i.e., the "messages for the channel")
are sent to the MX node (i.e., "to one or more subscribers") every 50
milliseconds ("after a predetermined time period"). Thus, because claim 8 is
simply an embodiment where the publication of message is scheduled, and
the Specification indicates that scheduling algorithms such as Nagle's
algorithm were well-known, we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious to implement scheduling as recited in claim 8 utilizing Nagle's
algorithm. Accordingly we sustain the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Summary
Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in concluding
claim 1 would have been obvious. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Nor are we persuaded the Examiner erred
in relying on APA in rejecting claim 8. Accordingly, we also sustain the
rejection of claim 8. Appellants offer no separate arguments for
patentability for any other claim. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as
representative of the remaining claims, and we sustain their rejections for the
same reasons.
10
Appeal 2018-002418
Application 14/821,421
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6, 8-10, 12, 14--16,
19, 21-23, 25, and 27-29.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11