Ex Parte Batra et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 15, 2012

10335812 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VIRINDER M. BATRA, STEVEN M. MILLER, and KEITH J. PURCELL ____________________ Appeal 2010-005070 Application 10/335,812 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, LARRY J. HUME, and RAMA G. ELLURU, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005070 Application 10/335,812 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A method for providing access to a computational grid by a non-member device, comprising the steps of: 1) providing a first request from said non-member device; 2) sending said first request to a server operating within at least one computational grid; 3) invoking a web service by said server that implements an XML workflow definition grammar; 4) sending a second request from said web service to a grid member of said at least one computational grid, wherein said grid member is a computer contained within said at least one computational grid; 5) processing a solution by said grid member; and 6) returning said solution to said non-member device. Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Bernardin (US 2005/0021594 Al) and Ferstl (US 7,185,046 B2). 1 Appellants’ Contention Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because “Bernardin requires client devices to have previously-installed 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-21. Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-005070 Application 10/335,812 3 drivers to communicate with the grid manager (paragraphs 0028 - 0030), that is, they are ‘member devices’.” (App. Br. 7). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because Bernardin fails to teach or suggest non-member devices? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. As to Appellants’ above contention, we do not agree that the ability to communicate is determinative of grid membership. Appellants’ Specification indicates that a “member device can then communicate directly with the non-member device” (Spec. 3:18-19) without the non- member becoming a member of the grid. Rather, according to Appellants’ Specification, membership is determined based on cooperatively sharing computational resources within the grid. (Spec. 2:1-6). According to Appellants’ Specification, “[a]ny computer device that is not a part of the computational grid is referred to as a nonmember device.” (Spec. 2:11-13). We agree with the Examiner that Bernardin permits non-member devices to access the grid. That a special communication driver is used is of no moment. Appeal 2010-005070 Application 10/335,812 4 CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (2) Claims 1-21 are not patentable. DECISION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-21 are 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)(iv). AFFIRMED 2 msc 2 We have decided the appeal before us. However, should there be further prosecution of these claims, the Examiner’s attention is directed to recently issued guidance from the Director as follows below in the citations to the Federal Register and Official Gazette. Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 1-10, the Examiner’s attention is directed to Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co, 598 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc), and 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7170-71 (Feb. 9, 2011) at Part 2.I.; Suppl. Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications. Should there be further prosecution with respect to claims 11-21, the Examiner’s attention is directed to Aristocrat Techs. Australia Pty Ltd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and 76 Fed. Reg. 7162, 7167-68 at Part 1.III. C.1-3.