Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2016

13454693 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/454,693 04/24/2012 QimingChen
56436 7590 11/16/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82929186 4652
EXAMINER
LO,ANNJ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIMING CHEN and MEICHUN HSU
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Hewlett-Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to performing inter-query
engine communication. Spec., Abstract. A query engine is a component of
a database management system (DBMS) that executes a query and provides
a result. Spec. 1. Query engines may also import and export data between
their local databases. Id. To coordinate the exchange of data, the query
engines communicate amongst themselves (e.g., perform inter-query engine
communication). Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a message from a first query engine agent over a
signal communication network, wherein the first query engine
agent is associated with a first query engine, and wherein the
signal communication network comprises a first virtual network;
determining, by a second query engine agent associated
with a second query engine, a data exchange to perform based on
the message, and wherein a data communication network
comprises a second virtual network; and
performing the data exchange over the data
communication network.
Rejections
(1) Claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Faybishenko et al. (US 2003/0055818 Al;
Mar. 20, 2003) ("Faybishenko"). Final Act. 2-10.
2
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
(2) Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Faybishenko and Acedo et al.
(US 2009/0198699 Al; Aug. 6, 2009) ("Acedo"). Final Act. 10-11. 2
(3) Claims 10 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Faybishenko and Chen et al.
(US 2011/0047172 Al; Feb. 24, 2011) ("Chen"). Final Act. 11-12. 3
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that Faybishenko discloses the
limitations recited in claim 1?
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 the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-12; Ans. 2-8. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
2 In the body of the rejection of claims 8 and 20, the Examiner references
"Chambers" instead of Acedo. Final Act. 11. We find this reference to
"Chambers" to be a typographical error and treat the rejection as being based
on Faybishenko and Acedo herein.
3 The header of the rejection indicates that the rejection is based on
Faybishenko and Acedo. Final Act. 11. However, in the body of the
rejection the Examiner relies on Chen. Final Act. 12. We find the listing of
Acedo in the header of the rejection to be a typographical error and treat the
rejection as being based on Faybishenko and Chen herein.
3
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
§ 102 Rejection
Appellants do not separately argue claims 1-7, 9, 11, and 13-19. See
App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 1--4. We select claim 1 as representative.
Accordingly, claims 2-7, 9, 11, and 13-19 stand or fall with claim 1.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Contention 1
Appellants contend Faybishenko fails to disclose all the limitations
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 1--4. In particular, Appellants
contend Faybishenko fails to disclose "receiving a message ... over a signal
communication network" and "performing the data exchange over the data
communication network," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9-11; Reply
Br. 1-2. Appellants contend "Faybishenko discloses that all communication
between nodes is through the same hub architecture, and with no disclosure
of two networks, one for messages and one for data." App. Br. 9 (citing
Faybishenko i-fi-19-12, 48-52, 72-76; Figs. 1-3).
A "network" is "a system of linked computers." Network, Microsoft
Encarta Dictionary 595 (2004). Appellants' Specification provides that a
signal communication network "is used to pass messages between the
servers 102" and a data communication network "is used to transfer data
between the servers 102." Spec. i-f 11. Faybishenko discloses that a hub,
including a router for routing queries to providers, receives a query from a
consumer, determines an appropriate provider for responding to the query,
and then routes the query to that provider. Ans. 2-3 (citing Faybishenko
i-fi-150, 76). Faybishenko, therefore, discloses that the query is received from
the consumer via a first network that includes the consumer, the hub, and the
provider. Faybishenko discloses that the hub facilitates efficient query
4
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
routing by handling message routing between consumers and providers.
Faybishenko i-f 50. Faybishenko, therefore, discloses "receiving a message
... over a signal communication network," as recited in claim 1.
Faybishenko further discloses that upon receiving the query, the
provider generates a response and can forward the response to the consumer
via a different hub that includes a router for routing responses to consumers.
Faybishenko i-f 50. Faybishenko, therefore, discloses that the response (e.g.,
data) is transmitted to the consumer via a second network that includes the
provider, the different hub, and the consumer. As such, Faybishenko
discloses "performing the data exchange over the data communication
network," as recited in claim 1.
Contention 2
Appellants also contend Faybishenko does not disclose "wherein the
signal communication network comprises a first virtual network" and
"wherein a data communication network comprises a second virtual
network," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2.
"A reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention
'such that a skilled artisan could take its teachings in combination with his
own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the invention."'
In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (quoting In re LeGrice,
301F.2d929, 936(CCPA1962)). Furthermore, "[e]verypatent application
and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the
art to complement that [which is] disclosed." In re Bode, 550 F .2d 656, 660
(CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA
1973)). Those persons "must be presumed to know something" about the art
5
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
"apart from what the references disclose." In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516
(CCPA 1962).
Faybishenko discloses that each hub acts as an access point that
provides virtual access to a portion of or the entire distributed information
discovery network. Faybishenko i-f 50. A person of ordinary skill in the art
would understand Faybishenko as disclosing the first network that includes
the consumer, the hub, and the provider and the second network that
includes the provider, the different hub, and the consumer as being virtual
networks. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
Faybishenko discloses "wherein the signal communication network
comprises a first virtual network" and "wherein a data communication
network comprises a second virtual network," as recited in claim 1.
Contention 3
Appellants also contend Faybishenko does not disclose "receiving a
message from a first query engine agent ... associated with a first query
engine" and "determining, by a second query engine agent associated with a
second query engine, a data exchange to perform based on the message," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 3--4. In particular, Appellants
contend:
Faybishenko gives no indication that the consumers 140
have a query engine. Instead, the consumers 140 (users or
clients) which may be in a peer-to-peer (P2P) structure, such as
with "Napster" or "Gnutella," are merely entities or clients that
send search/ query requests.
While the consumers 140 may be "peers" with providers
120 in a distributed structure, the cited reference does not state
that the consumers 140 have a search engine. Therefore, in
Faybishenko, a message that is a basis of a data exchange is not
6
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
received from a query engine agent associated with a first query
engine, as claimed. Again, Faybishenko does not disclose that
the consumer 140 has a query engine.
App. Br. 13 (citing Faybishenko i-fi-18-12, 35-37, 48-52) (internal citations
omitted).
We do not find Appellants' contention persuasive. Appellants'
Specification defines a query engine as "a component of a database
management system (DBMS) that executes a query and provides a result."
Spec. i-f l. The Specification does not expressly define the term "query
engine agent" but provides that "[t]he query engine agents 208 exchange
messages across the signal communication network 106" and "[i]n response
to a receive message, and according to message type, the query engine
agents 208 make data available to query engines 202 using the data
communication network 104." Spec. i120. Faybishenko discloses that a
node may act as both a provider and a consumer and that a node may
comprise one or more consumers; one or more providers; and/ or one or more
hubs. Faybishenko, Fig. 6; i-fi-148, 100. Faybishenko discloses that the
provider may include a provider query request protocol (QRP) interface that
accepts queries from the hub and responds to the queries with query
responses. Faybishenko i174. Faybishenko discloses that the QRP interface
may call a searching interface of the provider, for example, a database
search engine in order to obtain data for the response. Id. Faybishenko also
discloses that the database "may be a database that provides persistency,
such as a GOODS (Generic Object Oriented Database System) database"
and "GOODS is an object-oriented fully distributed database management
system (DBMS) using an active client model." Faybishenko i182. As such,
7
Appeal2015-005421
Application 13/454,693
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Faybishenko discloses
the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and its respective dependent claims 2-7, 9, 11, and 13-19,
which Appellants do not argue separately .
§ 103 Rejections
Claims 8, 10, 12, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
based on Faybishenko and various additional references. Regarding claims
8, 10, 12, and 20, Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented
regarding the patentability of claim 1 and further argue the additional
references relied upon by the Examiner do not cure the deficiencies in the
disclosure ofFaybishenko discussed supra. See App. Br. 14--16.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8,
10, 12, and 20 for the reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8