Ex Parte DeCusatis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 17, 2018

13360717 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/360,717 01/28/2012 126453 7590 04/19/2018 International Business Machines Corporation - IT Rich Lau - IPLaw Department 2455 South Road, B/008-2 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Casimer M. DeCusatis 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. POU920110015US 1 5014 EXAMINER AHMED, MOHAMMED ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/19/2018 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): poiplaw2@us.ibm.com ituchman@tuchmanlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CASIMER M. DECUSATIS, RAJARAM B. KRISHNAMURTHY, ANURADHA RAO, and NASEER SIDDIQUE Appeal2017-011576 Application 13/360,717 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2017-011576 Application 13/360,717 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention "relates to the field of computer networking, and, more particularly, to database systems." Spec. iT 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows: 1. A system comprising: a root-server including a first computer processor; a segment-server including a second computer processor, the segment-server storing data based upon the data's frequency of use by a client and the geographical location of the client, where the data is stored at the segment-server only if the client is geographically closer to the segment-server than the root-server and any other segment-server in the system, and the data stored is at least write data; and a consistency unit to update the root-server based upon data stored by the segment-server and client. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bornstein (US 2008/0008089 Al; Jan. 10, 2008); Landsman (US 8,805,950 Bl; Aug. 12, 2014); and O'Loughlin (US 2008/0286743 Al; Nov. 20, 2008). Final Act. 2-6. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 17, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, O'Loughlin, and Hoole (US 2010/0318645 Al; Dec. 16, 2010). Final Act. 6-7. The Examiner rejected claims 7-9, 18, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, O'Loughlin, and Mehrotra (US 2011/0246518 Al; Oct. 6, 2011). Final Act. 7-8. 2 Appeal2017-011576 Application 13/360,717 The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, 0 'Loughlin and Singh (US 2012/0016931 Al; Jan. 19, 2012). Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS THE REJECTION BASED ON BORNSTEIN, LANDSMAN, AND 0 'LOUGHLIN Claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22. Appellants assert that the Examiner erred in finding that Landsman teaches "that cache data is stored based on the geographical distance between the client and the web cache," as required by claim 1. App. Br. 7. Appellants maintain that Landsman teaches selecting a client web cache based on efficiency, not geographical distance. Id.; Reply Br. 3. Appellants, in particular, point to Landsman's teaching that "in certain circumstances, the client systems 106 may be located closer to the central server 102 than the selected client web cache 104, but may still communicate with the selected client web cache 104 more efficiently than with the central server due to communication delays that are unrelated to distance." App. Br. 7 (quoting Landsman, col. 6, lines 10-15). The Examiner responds that Landsman sufficiently teaches the disputed claim limitation and explains that "Landsman teaches 'typical' functionality that determines caching data based on distance of the central (root) server from the client, and the distance of the client web cache (segment) from the client. Examiner has construed 'typical' to be the normal operating procedure and clearly anticipates the [disputed claim limitation]." Ans. 4. The Examiner notes that although there may be an "anomaly 3 Appeal2017-011576 Application 13/360,717 situation" where the distance is closer to the central server, this is due to network issues and does not negate Landsman teaching of typically determining the web cache based on distance. Id. We agree with the Examiner. Landsman expressly teaches using geographic distance to select the client web cache. For example, Landsman describes that "the central server 102 identifies a suitable client web cache 104 to which to direct the client for future requests for data related to web application 118" "[u]sing the relevant geographic location information . .. . " Landsman, col. 5, 11. 59-62 (emphasis added). Further, Landsman recites that "[i]dentification of a suitable client web cache 104 may be based, for example, on whether a client web cache exists in the same geographic region as the client system 106 .... " Landsman, col. 5, 11. 62-65. In other words, Landsman describes there may be different ways to identify a suitable client web cache but distance is expressly taught as one way. Landsman further identifies geographical distance between clients and servers as a cause of high latency and Landsman is directed to addressing this problem. See, e.g., col. 1, 11. 47-51. A skilled artisan, therefore, would understand that Landsman at least suggests selecting the closest client web cache. Landsman's additional teaching that, in general, the selected client web cache, in certain circumstances due to network issues, may be further from the client than the central server, does not negate Landsman's express teaching of using distance to select the client web cache. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Landsman at least teaches or suggests "the segment-server storing data based upon ... the geographical location of the client, where the data is stored at the segment- 4 Appeal2017-011576 Application 13/360,717 server only if the client is geographically closer to the segment-server than the root-server and any other segment-server in the system." Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as well as claims 2-5, 10, 11, 13-16, and 19-22 not argued with particularity. THE REJECTIONS BASED ON BORNSTEIN, LANDSMAN, O'LOUGHLIN AND ADDITIONALLY CITED PRIOR ART Claims 6--9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24 Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24. Appellants do not present separate arguments for the rejections of these claims but rather rely on the arguments presented for claim 1. As discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and, therefore, we are also not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24 as unpatentable over Bornstein, Landsman, O'Loughlin, and the additionally cited prior art. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 6-9, 12, 17, 18, 23, and 24. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±)(2016). AFFIRMED 5