Ex Parte Archer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 3, 2016

12770286 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 121770,286 04/29/2010 47478 7590 02/05/2016 IBM (ROC-KLS) c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP 8601 Ranch Road 2222 Ste. 1-225 AUSTIN, TX 78730 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Charles J. Archer 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. ROC920090090US 1 9416 EXAMINER MIRZA, ADNAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/05/2016 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): office@klspatents.com kate@klspatents.com hanna@klspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHARLES J. ARCHER, JAMES E. CAREY, MATTHEW W. MARKLAND, and PHILIP J. SANDERS Appeal2014-002813 Application 12/770,286 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20. We reverse. INVENTION Appellants' invention relates to a method of optimizing collective operations by an operational group on a parallel computer. See Spec. 4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of optimizing collective operations by an operational group on a parallel computer, wherein the operational group comprises a plurality of compute nodes, the method comprising: Appeal2014-002813 Application 12/770,286 receiving, by each of the nodes in the operational group, an instruction to perform a collective operation type; selecting, by each of the nodes in the operational group from a list of optimized collective operations, an optimized collective operation for the collective operation type; performing, by each of the nodes in the operational group, the selected optimized collective operation; determining, by one or more of the nodes in the operational group, whether a resource needed by the one or more nodes to perform the collective operation is not available; if a resource needed by the one or more nodes to perform the collective operation is not available: notifying, by one or more of the nodes in the operational group, the other nodes that the resource is not available; selecting, by each of the nodes in the operational group from the list of optimized collective operations, a next optimized collective operation; and performing, by each of the nodes in the operational group, the next optimized collective operation. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Neiman (US 7,590,983 B2, iss. Sept. 15, 2009) and MacNicol (US 6,691,101 B2, iss. Feb. 10, 2004). Final Act. 3-7. 1 ANALYSIS Appellants have presented several arguments directed to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 20, specifically addressing the evidence cited by the Examiner in rejecting these claims. We have reviewed 1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 21, 2013) ("Appeal Br."), Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 29, 2013) ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Oct. 24, 2013) ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2014-002813 Application 12/770,286 the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments cites additional portions of Neiman and MacNicol with minimal explanation as to how the references teach the limitations disputed by Appellants. The Examiner has not provided a sufficient explanation, nor is it apparent to us, how the cited passages relate to the specific claim limitations argued by Appellants. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection, as the Examiner has identified insufficient evidence and provided insufficient rationale to support the rejection of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Neiman and MacNicol. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 is reversed. REVERSED 3