Ex Parte Hafri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 2018

15252989 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 15/252,989 08/31/2016 Younes Hafri 148646 7590 10/01/2018 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Satori Worldwide LL Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30537-7037 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. Ml02103 lllOUSl 16010 5628 EXAMINER JANGBAHADUR, LAKERAM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2469 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/01/2018 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): patents@mz.com IPDocketing@wbd-us.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YOUNES HAFRI, LEV W ALKIN, and FRED RIK ERIK LINDER 1 Appeal 2018-003 689 Application 15/252,989 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1---6, 8-16, and 18-20. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Machine Zone, Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 The Examiner indicates that claims 7 and 17 contain allowable subject matter. Final Act. 21. Thus, claims 7 and 17 are not before us on appeal. Appeal 2018-003 689 Application 15/252,989 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' application relates to a publish-subscribe ("PubSub") messaging arrangement where publishers publish messages to topics and subscribers subscribe to topics and receive messages. Spec. ,r 2. An arrangement can include a number of "MX" nodes that serve as termination points for publishers and subscribers connecting through an external network, and a number of "Q" nodes in an internal network that buffer channel data for consumption by the MX nodes. See Spec. ,r 24; Fig. 2. In operation, each channel comprises messages stored in buffers, where each buffer comprises multiple copies stored on multiple respective nodes. Spec. ,r 83. When a failure is detected in a first node storing a buffer copy for a channel to which a subscriber is subscribed, any other of the multiple nodes storing a buffer copy is identified as a second node, and the subscriber is redirected to the second node. See id. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: maintaining a plurality of channels, wherein each channel comprises an ordered plurality of messages stored in one or more buffers, wherein each buffer comprises a respective time-to-live, wherein each buffer comprises a plurality of copies, and wherein each copy resides on a respective plurality of nodes; detecting a failure of a first node of the plurality of nodes, wherein the first node stores respective first copies of first buffers for one or more first channels, and wherein 2 Appeal 2018-003 689 Application 15/252,989 at least one subscriber is subscribed to messages of the one or more first channels; for a first buffer with a first copy residing on the first node, identifying, by one or more computer processors, any other of the plurality of nodes as a second node storing a second copy of the first buff er; redirecting, by the one or more computer processors, the at least one subscriber from the first node to the second node; and retrieving messages stored in the second copy on the second for the at least one subscriber. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1--4 and 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bevan (US 2007/0013948 Al; Jan. 18, 2007) and Agarwal (US 2016/0261480 Al; Sept. 8, 2016). Claims 5, 6, 8-10, 15, 16, 18, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Bevan, Agarwal, and Yates (US 8,074,055 Bl; Dec. 6, 2011). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Bevan and Agarwal fails to teach or suggest "identifying, by one or more computer processors, any other of the plurality of nodes as a second node storing a second copy of the first buffer," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-8. In particular, Appellants assert that the meaning of the disputed "identifying" limitation is "that more than one node (i.e., any other of the plurality of nodes) can serve (i.e. identify) as the second node-not just a single (predetermined) node." Id. at 8. Appellants argue Bevan fails to teach the "identifying" limitation because "Bev[ a ]n does not teach or suggest that its messages are replicated 3 Appeal 2018-003 689 Application 15/252,989 across multiple backup nodes but, rather, only a single node." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We begin by construing the language at issue in claim 1, namely, "identifying ... any other of the plurality of nodes as a second node." The "plurality of nodes" limitation is introduced in the limitation "wherein each buffer comprises a plurality of copies, and wherein each copy resides on a respective plurality of nodes." Here, no additional limitation is placed on the number of the "plurality of nodes." Accordingly, we find the plain meaning of the term "plurality" indicates there are two or more nodes on which copies of a buffer reside. In other words, claim 1 encompasses a method in which there are two nodes with copies of a buffer. Therefore, in the method of claim 1, after "detecting a failure of a first node of the plurality of nodes," the step of "identifying ... any other of the plurality of nodes as a second node storing a second copy of the first buffer" encompasses identifying the only other node as a second node in a two-node embodiment. That is, claim 1 covers a method where two nodes store copies of a buffer, and upon failure of the first node, the other node of the two---- "any other of the plurality of nodes," as recited in claim I-is identified as a second node. Based on the above construction, Appellants' argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Specifically, Appellants argue that Bevan only teaches a single backup node for a given failed node, as opposed to multiple backup nodes. See App. Br. 8. However, as noted above, claim 1 only requires there to be two nodes storing copies of a buffer, and thus includes an embodiment where only one other node remains as a backup after failure of a node. 4 Appeal 2018-003 689 Application 15/252,989 Further, the fact that Bevan discloses other nodes that are not backups for a failed node (see Reply Br. 4--7; Bevan, Figs. 13, 14) does not change the analysis. Claim 1 does not preclude there being other nodes in a network that do not store copies of a particular buffer and are therefore not available to act as backups for a failed node. Rather, claim 1 only requires "identifying ... any other of the plurality of nodes" where the "plurality of nodes" are nodes that store copies of a particular buffer. In other words, claim 1 requires at least one potential "second node" (i.e., backup node), but does not require every node that may exist in a network to be a potential "second node." Accordingly, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 1, and claims 2---6, 8-16, and 18-20, not specifically argued separately. See App. Br. 8-9. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-16, and 18-20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.50(f). AFFIRMED 5