Ex Parte Bain

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12733926 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
12/733,926 06/14/2010 William L. Bain SC0810 6886
21325 7590 08/31/2017
JAMES L. DAVISON
14110 NE 79th Street #36
WOODINVILLE, WA 98072
EXAMINER
MCCARTHY, CHRISTOPHER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2017 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 WILLIAM L. BAIN
____________

Appeal 2016-006858
Application 12/733,926
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, AMBER L. HAGY, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 6–8, all the pending claims in the
present application. Claims 1–5 are canceled. See Claims Appendix. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to implementing highly
available data-parallel-operations on a computational grid. See Abstract.

Appeal 2016-006858
Application 12/733,926

2
Claim 6 is illustrative:
6. A method for implementing highly available data-
parallel operations in a computational grid comprised of
multiple nodes by tracking the progress and completion of
method invocations, comprising:
a) a highly available, distributed cache system with
multiple nodes, each node having a set of data objects packaged
into multiple partitions;
b) an initiating node starting a data-parallel
operation, said operation comprising a set of method
invocations made on selected data objects within all or some of
said multiple partitions;
c) each affected partition, containing data object(s)
effected by the method invocation, reporting completion of the
data-parallel operation to the initiating node, or a successor
node if the initiating node fails;
d) tracking completion of the data-parallel
operation by determining which partition(s) have failed to
report results to the initiating node or its successor; and
e) resending the method invocations to alternate
partition(s), residing in the computational grid as a result of
being in a highly available condition, that replaced the non-
reporting partition(s).

Appellant appeals the following rejections:
R1. Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gross (US 7,543,180 B2, June 2, 2009) and Clark (US
2005/0283658 A1, Dec. 22, 2005);
R2. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gross, Clark, and Holenstein (US 7,103,586 B2, Sept. 5,
2006).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
Appeal 2016-006858
Application 12/733,926

3
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
Rejection under § 103(a)
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Gross and Clark
collectively teach or suggest each affected partition reporting completion of
the data-parallel operation and determining which partition(s) have failed to
report, as set forth in claim 6?
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s
arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of the references teaches or suggests partition
completion reporting.
As identified by Appellant, “[n]either Gross []or Clark teach or
suggest using partition completion tracking” (App. Br. 8). For example, as
admitted by the Examiner, Gross “does not teach [] the node comprises
multiple partitions” (Final Act. 3) and is thus not relied upon to teach any
partition completion reporting. Instead, the Examiner relies upon Clark to
teach a node comprising multiple partitions (id., citing Clark ¶ 20).
We find that Clark merely discloses partitioning a node’s internal
architecture and that “[a]ffected partition sets are failed over fast and in
constant time” (¶ 20). However, the Examiner fails to illustrate where/how
Clark (or Gross) teaches that each affected partition (or node) reports
completion of the data-parallel operation and/or determining which partition
(or node) has failed to report. The Examiner’s findings merely show that
Gross “monitors the health of each of the N-M primary computing nodes”
Appeal 2016-006858
Application 12/733,926

4
for being “at risk of failure” (see Gross 2:19). However, the Examiner has
not explained how this relates to the claimed “determining which partition(s)
have failed to report results.”
Furthermore, Appellant contends that “[a]dding the partitions of Clark
to the set-aside nodes of Gross and then impliedly making Gross account for
partitions that failed to complete the method invocations totally changes the
principle of operation of Gross” (App. Br. 6), and that the “Examiner has not
replied to the [aforementioned] Argument” (Reply Br. 2). We agree with
Appellant that the Examiner does not address Appellant’s aforementioned
argument regarding whether the combination would “change the principle of
operation” of Gross in the Response to Argument section of the Answer (see
Ans. 4–5). In light of the aforementioned lack of explanations by the
Examiner, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s §103(a) rejections
of claims 6–8.
Since we agree with at least the aforementioned arguments advanced
by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 6–8.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 6–8 is reversed.

REVERSED