Ex Parte Barsness et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2017

13786785 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 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.
13/786,785 03/06/2013 Eric L. Barsness ROC920070343US3 2596
46296 7590 03/15/2017
MARTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
P.O. BOX 548
CARTHAGE, MO 64836-0548
EXAMINER
CHANG, JULIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2017 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):
derekm@ideaprotect.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC L. BARSNESS, DAVID L. DARRINGTON, AMANDA
RANDLES, and JOHN M. SANTOSUOSSO
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and
DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (filed September 28, 2015
“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief (filed March 4, 2016 “Reply Br.”); the
Examiner’s Answer (mailed January 4, 2016 “Ans.”); the Final Office
Action (mailed March 27, 2015 “Final Act.”); and the original Specification
(filed March 6, 2013 “Spec.”).
2 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 1.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to a computer implemented method for dynamically
updating I/O nodes in a massively parallel computer system. Spec. 141,
Figs. 6,1. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations
italicized and some formatting added:
1. A computer implemented method for an I/O configuration
mechanism to distribute I/O nodes in a multi-node computer system,
the method comprising the steps of:
monitoring the I/O characteristics of an executing job on a
block of compute nodes in the multi-node computer system with one
or more I/O nodes, wherein the I/O nodes are connected to the block
of compute nodes with a virtual network operating on a physical
network, and the I/O nodes communicate with a service node to
provide I/O communication to network resources, wherein the
compute nodes and the I/O nodes each comprise a processor and a
memory;
determining whether an I/O demand on the one or more I/O
nodes is above a threshold;
dynamically updating the I/O configuration to adjust a ratio of
I/O nodes to compute nodes for the block of compute nodes by
dynamically configuring the virtual network based on I/O
characteristics of the job determined by monitoring the job's I/O
characteristics, wherein the dynamically updating the I/O
configuration comprises performing the steps of:
suspending the job;
re-allocating the ratio of I/O nodes;
resetting a structure of the block of compute nodes with a new
allocation of I/O nodes that adjusts the ratio; and
resuming the job.
References and Rejections
The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows:
2
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
Bloch et al. US 2004/0024859 Al Feb. 5, 2004
(“Bloch”)
Bhanot et al. US 2004/0081155 Al Apr. 29, 2004
(“Bhanot”)
Blumrich et al. US 2004/0103218 Al May 27, 2004
(“Blumrich”)
Fatula, Jr. US 2005/0131993 Al June 16, 2005
(“Fatula”)
Oberlin et al. US 2007/0011485 Al Jan. 11,2007
(“Oberlin”)
Dawson et al. US 2007/0078960 Al Apr. 5, 2007
(“Dawson”)
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, and Bloch.4 Final Act. 3—6.
2. Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and Dawson. Final
Act. 7—8.
3. Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and Bhanot. Final Act. 8.
4. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and Dawson. Final Act. 8—12.
5. Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Blumrich, Oberlin, Bloch, and Bhanot. Final Act. 12—14.
6. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Blumrich, Oberlin, Bloch, Bhanot, Fatula, and
Dawson. Final Act. 14—16.
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of Claims 7—9 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph. Ans. 3.
3
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments.
Claims 1 and 4: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, and
Bloch.
Dynamically updating the I/O configuration.
Appellants argue Oberlin “does not teach or suggest dynamically
updating an I/O configuration as claimed” in Claims 1 and 4. App. Br. 5.
Appellants assert that adding an additional I/O node and assigning nodes as
I/O nodes by the user in Oberlin indicate that adjusting the I/O nodes is a
manual, rather than a dynamic, process. App. Br. 5 (citing Oberlin || 117,
132).
We interpret Appellants’ argument to be that the recitation
“dynamically” requires an artificial, rather than manual, means of updating
the I/O configuration. The context of “dynamically” as described in
Appellants’ Specification connotes real-time adjustment of the I/O
configuration based on system performance requirements. See Spec. 123
(“dynamically adjust the I/O node distribution based on the I/O performance
of the executing job.”). The Examiner finds Oberlin teaches that the
distributed processing system automatically allocates more application nodes
and reconfigures the number of application nodes assigned to an application.
Ans. 5 (citing Oberlin H 142, 143). The Examiner finds that these
adjustments in application nodes occur based on changes to the demand for
computing resources provided by the specific applications. Ans. 5 (citing
4
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
Oberlin 1145). Oberlin states that “[sjimilar examples of reconfigured
applications may utilize varying numbers of I/O nodes.” Oberlin 1145. We
agree with the Examiner because Oberlin teaches that automatic allocation
of application nodes includes assigning application nodes to the role of I/O
nodes based on the demand for computing resources. We are not persuaded
of error.
Adjust a ratio of I/O nodes to compute nodes.
Appellants contend Oberlin does not teach adjusting the ratio of I/O
nodes to compute nodes, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5, 6. Specifically,
Appellants argue that changing the different application roles to which
application nodes are assigned in Oberlin does not teach the recited changing
of the ratio of the I/O nodes to compute nodes. App. Br. 6 (citing Oberlin
144, 145). Appellants additionally contend Oberlin teaches changing
configuration of applications on application nodes by changing the role of
the application node, not changing the ratio of I/O nodes to compute nodes.
App. Br. 6 (citing Oberlin H 144, 145). These arguments are not persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner that changing the relative number of
application nodes with respect to the number of I/O nodes in Oberlin
inherently teaches changing the ratio of I/O nodes to compute nodes. Ans.
4. Oberlin teaches that the set of nodes 1310 with two I/O nodes and three
application nodes has been reconfigured to a set of nodes 1310’ with two I/O
nodes and two application nodes. Ans. 4 (citing Oberlin Figs. 13 A, 13B);
see Oberlin 1145. The Examiner finds the ratio of I/O nodes to compute
nodes in Oberlin changes from 2:3 to 2:2. Ans. 4 (citing Oberlin Figs. 13A,
13B).
5
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
Dynamically configuring the virtual network.
Appellants contend that the Examiner has not shown in Oberlin
“dynamically configuring the virtual network,” recited in Claim 1. App. Br.
6; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants additionally argue that the network structures
in Oberlin and Blumrich are different so as to preclude the obviousness of
the combination. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend that it would
not be clear to one of ordinary skill in the art how to add I/O nodes or where
to add I/O nodes to the tree topology of Blumrich. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with the
claims, which do not recite how or where I/O nodes are added to the virtual
network. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellanf s
arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations
appearing in the claims.”). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that adding a
new I/O node to the tree topology of Blumrich necessarily changes the
configuration of the tree topology. Ans. 7; Final Act. 5. Thus, we concur
with the Examiner’s explanation that Blumrich teaches I/O nodes and
compute nodes in a tree topology in which the ratio of I/O nodes to compute
nodes is configurable. Ans. 7.
Teaching Away
Appellants assert the specific I/O node ratio in Blumrich teaches away
from adding I/O nodes in Oberlin. App. Br. 7. Appellants argue Blumrich
teaches adjusting the ratio of computation to external input/output by
populating a circuit board with the desired number of I/O nodes. Reply
6
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
Br. 5 (citing Blumrich 131). Appellants contend that this adjustment is not
dynamic. Reply Br. 5.
We disagree with Appellants that Blumrich teaches a constant or rigid
I/O ratio that is not configurable. The Examiner explains, and we agree, that
the recited configuring of the virtual network can be achieved by adjusting
the number of I/O nodes and/or adjusting the number of compute nodes.
Ans. 9. Blumrich states “this ratio of I/O nodes to computer nodes is
configurable.” Blumrich 179. Thus, we concur with the Examiner that the
ratio of I/O nodes to compute nodes in Blumrich is configurable and may be
adjusted. Ans. 10 (citing Blumrich H 28, 79). The Examiner relies on
Oberlin, not Blumrich, to teach the recited “dynamically configuring.” Ans.
9 (citing Oberlin Figs. 13 A, 13B). Accordingly, we are not persuaded that
Blumrich teaches away from adjusting the ratio of I/O nodes to compute
nodes. Ans. 10.
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1 and 4.
Claim 2: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and
Dawson.
Appellants argue that the combination of references does not teach
“dynamically allocating I/O nodes to the job based on the job record,”
recited in Claim 2. App. Br. 8. Appellants assert Dawson teaches recording
historical data for jobs. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 6. Appellants contend the
recited job record may contain more information than just historical
information. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because “one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . .
7
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). As discussed above, the Examiner explains
Oberlin teaches adjusting the number of I/O nodes based on demand of an
application. Ans. 10 (citing Oberlin 1145). The Examiner finds Dawson
teaches predicting the demand of a job based on historical performance.
Ans. 10—11 (citing Dawson 142). The Examiner finds Dawson teaches
using this information to refine grid resource allocation. Final Act. 7 (citing
Dawson 132). The Specification describes that the job record includes
historical I/O utilization along with other elements. See Spec. 140. Because
the historical performance in Dawson teaches information included in the
job record, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of references
teaches dynamically allocating I/O nodes based on the job record. Ans. 11.
We sustain the rejection of Claim 2.
Claim 3: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and
Dawson.
Appellants contend that “Oberlin does not teach or suggest the
application controlling the I/O configuration,” recited in Claim 3. App. Br.
9; Reply Br. 7. Appellants assert the application node in Oberlin does not
teach the recited application. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue the application
is software controlled by a system or an administrative node. App. Br. 10.
Appellants additionally contend the user in Oberlin, not the application,
configures the computing node roles. Reply Br. 7 (citing Oberlin 1132).
The Examiner finds that Oberlin teaches the user inputting application
control parameters into a configuration utility application to control the I/O
configuration. Ans. 12 (citing Oberlin 1132). We agree with the Examiner
8
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
that the configuration utility application teaches the recited application
because Oberlin teaches that the configuration utility application passes the
input application control parameters to a computing node to reconfigure the
role of the computing node. Oberlin 1132. The Examiner additionally finds
Oberlin teaches an administrative node employing a policy engine as an
application to reconfigure application nodes. Ans. 12 (citing Oberlin 1138).
Contrary to Appellants’ argument, Oberlin teaches the policy engine, not the
administrative node, as the recited application. Oberlin 1138. Accordingly,
we sustain the rejection of Claim 3.
Claim 5: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and
Bhanot.
Appellants contend Claim 5 is patentable in view of their arguments
discussed above. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
erred.
Claim 6: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Fatula, Bloch, and
Dawson.
Appellants contend Claim 6 is patentable in view of their arguments
discussed above. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
erred.
9
Appeal 2016-003996
Application 13/786,785
Claim 7: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Bloch, and Bhanot.
Appellants contend Claim 7 is patentable in view of their arguments
discussed above. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 9.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
erred.
Claims 8 and 9: Obviousness Over Blumrich, Oberlin, Bloch,
Bhanot, Fatula, and Dawson.
Appellants contend Claims 8 and 9 are patentable in view of their
arguments discussed above. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 9.
In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner has
erred.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1—9 is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1).
AFFIRMED
10