CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021004019 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

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. 15/849,924 12/21/2017 Ronald A. Lewis 1485-US-U1 5002 83809 7590 01/14/2022 CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 EXAMINER TAYLOR, JOSHUA D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): patent.docketing@lumen.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RONALD A. LEWIS Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 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. 1-2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An Oral Hearing was conducted on November 10, 2021. We will add a transcript of the Oral Hearing to the record in due course. We REVERSE. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CenturyLink Intellectual Property, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Dec. 21, 2017 (claiming benefit of 62/529,336, filed July 6, 2017); Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Apr. 14, 2021; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed June 11, 2021. We also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed Jan. 19, 2021; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 12, 2021. Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, “relates, in general, to methods . . . for implementing a distributed computing mesh, and, more particularly, to methods . . . for implementing a distributed computing mesh using a hierarchical framework to distribute workload across multiple computing nodes or multiple layers of computing nodes.” Spec. ¶ 3. More specifically, Appellant’s claimed subject matter is directed to a method for implementing a distributed computing mesh by assigning multiple network nodes as second control nodes (at least two first network nodes as at least two second control nodes), where the second control nodes receive a computing task (which is part of a larger computational problem) from the first control node. Each of the second control nodes determine an amount of computing power necessary to process the received computing task, designate additional network nodes to process portions of the computing task (based on the computing power determination), and send the portions of the computing task to the additional network nodes for processing. The second control nodes then receive the processed portions of the computing task from the additional network nodes. One of the second control nodes determines the amount of processing power available in a local area network and, based on that determination (that the processing power available in the local area network is insufficient to complete the computing task), designates additional control nodes or supplemental network nodes (located in a service provider network separate from the local area network) to complete the computing task. The second control nodes then combine the portions of the computing task to form a completed computing task and send the completed computing task to the first control node. The first control node combines the received completed computing Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 3 tasks to form a completed computational problem. See Spec. ¶¶ 15, 16, 21- 23, 25; Abstr. Claim 1, directed to a method and reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: assigning, with a first control node, at least two first network nodes as at least two second control nodes; receiving, with the at least two second control nodes, a computing task from the first control node, wherein the computing task is a portion of a computational problem; determining, with each of the at least two second control nodes, an amount of computing power necessary to process the computing task; designating, with each of the at least two second control nodes, one or more additional network nodes to process one or more portions of the computing task, based at least in part on the determined amount of computing power; sending, with each of the at least two second control nodes, the one or more portions of the computing task to the one or more additional network nodes for processing; receiving, with each of the at least two second control nodes and from the one or more additional network nodes, one or more processed portions of the computing task; determining, with the at least one second control node, an amount of processing power available in a local area network; designating, with the at least one second control node, at least one of one or more additional control nodes or one or more supplemental network nodes located in a service provider network to complete the computing task based on a determination that the amount of processing power available in the local area network is insufficient to complete the computing task, the service provider network being separate from the local area network, and the one or more additional control nodes or one or more supplemental network nodes are not included in the local area network; Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 4 combining, with each of the at least two second control nodes, the one or more portions of the computing task to form a completed computing task; and sending, with each of the at least two second control nodes, the completed computing task to the first control node; and combining, with the first control node, the completed computing tasks that are received from the at least two second control nodes, to form a completed computational problem. Appeal Br. 9-10 (Claims App.) (emphases added). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Lurie et al. (“Lurie”) US 2007/0124363 A1 May 31, 2007 de los Reyes et al. (“de los Reyes”) US 2011/0289134 A1 Nov. 24, 2011 Sun et al. (“Sun”) US 2013/0028091 A1 Jan. 31, 2013 Sirota et al. (“Sirota”) US 2015/0135185 A1 May 14, 2015 Huang et al. (“Huang”) US 2016/0072917 A1 Mar. 10, 2016 Liu et al. (“Liu”) US 2017/0300363 A1 Oct. 19, 2017 Eda et al. (“Eda”) US 2018/0349465 A1 Dec. 6, 2018 REJECTIONS3 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie, Liu, and Sirota. See Final Act. 2-8. 2. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and Sun. See Final Act. 9. 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 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. § 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 5 3. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and de los Reyes. See Final Act. 9-11. 4. The Examiner rejects claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and Eda. See Final Act. 11- 12. 5. The Examiner rejects claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and Huang. See Final Act. 12-14. ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 (as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 10, and 11) as being obvious over Lurie, Liu, and Sirota. See Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 3-11. The Examiner relies on Lurie for teaching most of the features of Appellant’s claim 1, including receiving a computing task that is a portion of a computational problem, combining portions of the computing task (performed by other nodes) to form a completed computing task using the second control nodes, sending the completed computing task to the first control node (using the second control nodes, and using the first control node to combine the completed computing tasks (received from the second control nodes) to form the completed computational problem. See Final Act. 2-4; Ans. 3-11 (citing Lurie ¶¶ 77, 78, 82-84; Figs. 3D, 4). The Examiner relies on Liu for determining computing power. See Final Act. 4- 5 (citing Liu ¶¶ 8, 28). Appellant contends that Lurie, Liu, and Sirota do not teach the disputed limitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Specifically, Appellant contends, inter alia, that: Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 6 Lurie fails to disclose or suggest (1) the separation of tasks into portions of tasks each of which are distributed to different workers, (2) the combination of completed portions of tasks into a completed task, or (3) the combination of completed tasks into a completed computational problem, all of which are recited in the present claims. Instead, Lurie simply distributes tasks, without any suggestion that the tasks are part of a greater whole or that the tasks themselves might be broken into portions to be completed by other nodes and then combined together by the distributing node. Appeal Br. 6. We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner-cited portions of Lurie describe a “job comprised of related tasks” that are distributed to workers to perform the tasks (technical computing). Lurie ¶ 78. The results (completed tasks) are then provided to the client (technical computing client). See Lurie ¶ 78; Fig. 3D. Similarly, Lurie describes a batch automated distribution mode where multiple jobs, each with multiple tasks, may be distributed. See Lurie ¶ 82; Fig. 4. But Lurie provides no disclosure showing that the jobs are combined. Further, the Examiner conflates the combination of the various tasks with the jobs. See Ans. 6-10. “A rejection based on section 103 clearly must rest on a factual basis[.]” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. Here, the Examiner does not provide a clear and consistent mapping of the recited claim features to the corresponding elements in Lurie, and resorts to speculation to provide the missing features and functionality. Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 7 But the mapping rule requires: “When a reference is complex or shows or describes inventions other than that claimed by the applicant, the particular part relied on must be designated as nearly as practicable. The pertinence of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim specified.” 37 C.F.R. §1.104(c)(2) (2019) (emphasis added).4 Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Lurie and Liu renders obvious Appellant’s claim 1. Claims 2, 3, 5, 10, and 11 depend from and stand with their claim 1. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 10, and 11. Obviousness Rejections of Claims 6, 7, 9, and 12-14 The Examiner rejects claim 6 as obvious over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and Sun. See Final Act. 9. The Examiner also rejects dependent claims 7 and 9 as obvious over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and de los Reyes. See Final Act. 9-11. The Examiner further rejects dependent claims 12 and 13 as obvious over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and Eda. See Final Act. 11-12. Additionally, the Examiner rejects claim 14 as obvious over Lurie, Liu, Sirota, and Huang. See Final Act. 12-14. In each rejection, the Examiner relies on Lurie to teach the distribution and combination of tasks and jobs (i.e., portions of computing tasks that are combined to form completed computing tasks that are combined to form a completed computational problem) as required by independent claim 1. As discussed with respect to claim 1 (supra), the 4 An agency is bound by its own regulations. See Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363, 388 (1957). Appeal 2021-004019 Application 15/849,924 8 Examiner does not persuasively show that Lurie teaches these features and functionality. The Examiner does not find that the additional cited references (Sun, de los Reyes, Eda, and Huang) cure the deficiencies of Lurie (supra). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 6, 7, 9, and 12-14 for the same reasons set forth for claim 1 (supra). CONCLUSION Appellant has also shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-14. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5, 10, 11 103 Lurie, Liu, Sirota 1-3, 5, 10, 11 6 103 Lurie, Liu, Sirota, Sun 6 7, 9 103 Lurie, Liu, Sirota, de los Reyes 7, 9 12, 13 103 Lurie, Liu, Sirota, Eda 12, 13 14 103 Lurie, Liu, Sirota, Huang 14 Overall Outcome 1-3, 5-7, 9- 14 REVERSED