Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 28, 2021

2020000127 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021)

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.
14/459,072 08/13/2014 Abhinit Kumar 13768.2441 3486
148708 7590 05/28/2021
Buckley, Maschoff & Talwalkar LLC
50 Locust Avenue
New Canaan, CT 06840
EXAMINER
ABU ROUMI, MAHRAN Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/28/2021 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):
microsoft@bmtpatent.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABHINIT KUMAR, ANDREA D’AMATO, DAVID
ALLEN DION, GOR NISHANOV, LOKESH SRINIVAS
KOPPOLU, and NICHOLAS MALIWACKI

Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–11 and 19–21 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by
Appellant, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1
See Final Act. 1–2; Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Microsoft Technology Licensing LLC. See Appeal Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Aug. 13, 2014;
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Mar. 28, 2019; and Reply Brief (“Reply
Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates
to computer systems that “may be linked together to form a cloud of
computing resources” “designed to be fault tolerant.” Spec. ¶ 2. More
specifically, Appellant’s claims recite a computer system including a
processor and a storage device having stored thereon computer-executable
instructions that cause the system to perform a method for communicating
workload updates between the computing resources, referred to as nodes, in
a cluster of nodes. The method determines a set of processing assignment
changes to send to a worker node. A subset of the determined processing
assignment changes to send to the worker node are assembled in the form of
an assignment packet based on a bandwidth limitation, to avoid exceeding a
predetermined maximum transmission unit (MTU). See Spec. ¶¶ 3, 41, 55,
57; Abstract. Claims 1 (directed to a system), 19 (directed to a system) and
21 (directed to a storage device) are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. At a computer system including at least one
processor, a
computer-implemented method for communicating workload
updates between computing nodes in a cluster of nodes, the
method comprising:
the computer system identifying a worker node, from the
cluster of nodes, that has been assigned to host a workload
configuration, the workload configuration comprising
processing assignments assigned to the worker node;
[t]he computer system receiving a data packet from the
worker node including a health status for the worker node and

Br.”), filed Sept. 19, 2019. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office
Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Aug. 31, 2018; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed
July 25, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
3
at least a version identifier identifying the workload
configuration currently assigned to the worker node;
the computer system determining that the version
identifier received in the data packet is different than a version
identifier of a previously received data packet;
the computer system evaluating the worker node’s
currently assigned workload configuration, based at least on the
received version identifier, to determine whether processing
assignment changes are to be made to the workload
configuration currently assigned to the worker node;
the computer system determining that processing
assignment changes are to be made to the workload
configuration currently assigned to the worker node;
the computer system determining a set of processing
assignment changes to send to the worker node;
the computer system selecting a subset of the set of
determined processing assignment changes to send to the
worker node;
the computer system generating an indication of the
selected subset of processing assignment changes to send to the
worker node in the form of an assignment packet, the
assignment packet being assembled with the selected subset,
based on a bandwidth limitation, to avoid exceeding a
predetermined maximum transmission unit for a protocol being
used to transfer the assignment packet; and
the computer system sending the assignment packet to
the worker node, including an indication for the worker node to
update the version identifier, resulting in both the processing
assignments currently assigned to the worker node and the
version identifier being updated at the worker node.
Appeal Br. 23–24 (Claims App.) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Maruyama et al.
(“Maruyama”)
US 2010/00198955 A1 Aug. 5, 2010
Breternitz et al.
(“Breternitz”)
US 2014/0047342 A1 Feb. 13, 2014
Sharma et al.
(“Sharma”)
US 2014/0149485 A1 May 29, 2014

REJECTION3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–114, 19 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama and Breternitz. See
Final Act. 6–15.
2. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2–3 and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama, Breternitz, and
Sharma. See Final 15–17.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects independent claims 1, 19, and 21 (as well as
dependent claims 4–11) as being obvious over Maruyama and Breternitz.
See Final Act. 6–15; Ans. 3–42. The Examiner rejects dependent claims 2,
3, and 20 as being obvious over Maruyama, Breternitz and Sharma. See

3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing date after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013),
this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103.
4 The Examiner mistakenly omits claim 11 in the statement of the rejection
for claims 1, 4–11, 19, 21. See Final Act. 6. The Examiner discusses the
rejection for claim 11 in the body of the rejection. See Final Act. 14. We
revise the statement of the rejection to include claim 11 for clarity and
consistency of the record.
Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
5
Final Act. 15–17. Appellant contends independent claims 19 and 21
generally include same limitations as independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7
and 9. Appellant argues independent claims 1, 19, and 21 together, and does
not address the dependent claims separately. See Appeal Br. 16–21. We
select independent claim 1 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with
respect to 1–11 and 19–21. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellant contends, inter alia, that Breternitz describes configuring a
node based on certain network configuration properties to avoid exceeding
network parameter limitations of the node. See Appeal Br. 20–21. In
contrast, claim 1 recites “the assignment packet being assembled with the
selected subset, based on a bandwidth limitation, to avoid exceeding a
predetermined maximum transmission unit.” Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
According to Appellant, no assignment packet is assembled based on a
bandwidth limitation to avoid exceeding a maximum transmission unit in
Breternitz. See Appeal Br. 20–21. More specifically, Appellant contends
Breternitz’s “node configurator” adjusts “the boot-time configuration of
each node” based on “user input provided by the network setting wizard.”
Reply Br. 3. The network setting wizard allows user input to adjust a node’s
network transmission bandwidth limits such as “network communication
rate.” Id. A network configurator selects and modifies a packet
communication rate based on the user input selection. See Reply Br. 3–4. In
summary, Appellant contends the node configurator in Breternitz adjusting
the boot-time configuration of each node and the network configurator
modifying the network parameters of the node do not assemble an
assignment packet based on bandwidth limitation to avoid exceeding a
maximum transmission unit. See Reply Br. 3–6.
Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
6
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner-cited portions of
Breternitz (in combination with Maruyama) do not teach or suggest the
assignment packet assembled “based on a bandwidth limitation, to avoid
exceeding a . . . maximum transmission unit” as recited in claim 1. See
Appeal Br. 19–21; Reply Br. 3–6. The Examiner relies on Breternitz to
teach a configurator modifying the configuration of a network “based on
network parameters” to “avoid bandwidth limitation.” Final Act. 10. In the
Answer, the Examiner explains that the configurator modifying network
parameters of the node is similar to an assignment packet being assembled
based on bandwidth limitations. See Ans. 34–39 (citing Breternitz ¶¶ 75, 97,
106, 159, 173–78, 189). The Examiner appears to rely on Breternitz’s
configuration file transmitted to a node based on network parameters as the
recited assignment packet assembled based on a bandwidth limitation, to
avoid exceeding a predetermined maximum transmission unit. See Ans. 34–
39. The Examiner-cited portions of Breternitz, however, disclose a
configurator that generates two files, file 28 and file 30, to configure
workload nodes. See Breterntiz ¶ 74, Fig. 1, 3. File 28 is used to configure
software on the workload nodes and file 30 is used to allocate workload
request parameters. See Breternitz ¶¶ 74–75. From the cited portions, the
workload request parameters are distributed among the nodes by distributing
the divided parts to the nodes such that multiple nodes operate in parallel to
execute the request based on requested modifications, not assembling
assignment packets based on bandwidth limitation to avoid exceeding MTU.
See Breternitz ¶ 75. A reasonable interpretation of the cited portions of
Breternitz include a configuration of the node’s network bandwidth
parameters and distributing the workload requests based on the node’s
network parameter configurations. See Breternitz ¶¶ 15–16, 73–75.
Appeal 2020-000127
Application 14/459,072
7
Breternitz’s configuration does not assemble the assignment packets based
on a bandwidth limitation to avoid exceeding a predetermined MTU. Id.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Maruyama and
Breternitz renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Independent claims 19 and
21 include limitations of commensurate scope. Claims 2–11 and 20 depend
from and stand with claims 1 and 19, respectively. Thus, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–11 and 19–21.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–11,
and 19–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–11 and 19–21.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–11, 19,
21
103 Maruyama,
Breternitz
1, 4–11, 19,
21
2–3, 20 103 Maruyama,
Breternitz, Sharma
2–3, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–11, 19–21

REVERSED