Ex Parte Liu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2012

11444919 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LEI LIU

Appeal 2010-0071721
Application 11/444,919
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JOHNNY A.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is SUN Microsystems, Inc. (App. Br. 4.)
Appeal 2010-007172
Application 11/444,919

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for managing and servicing
applications in a plurality of zones in a partitioned operating system. (Fig. 1,
Spec. ¶¶ [0006], [0026].) In particular, upon identifying the collection
requirements contained in a service management request, a data collector
matches the requirements against the specific performance attributes of the
zones to thereby identify the zone that conforms to the requirements, and to
subsequently service the application therein. (Spec. ¶¶ [0041], [0046],
[0049].)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method for managing a service executing in a zone
environment comprising:
receiving a service management request;
identifying a collection of requirements required by the service
management request;
triggering a data collector to collect zone-specific performance
attributes from a plurality of zones, wherein the plurality of zones
execute on at least one host, wherein the at least one host executes an
operating system, and wherein each zone of the plurality of zones is a
separate partition of the operating system;
Appeal 2010-007172
Application 11/444,919

3
identifying at least one zone in the plurality of zones that has
zone-specific performance attributes conforming to the collection of
requirements, wherein the zone-specific performance attributes
comprise an amount of free resources allocated to the at least one
zone; and
provisioning the service on the at least one zone based on the
service management request, wherein the service comprises an
application.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Malin US 2006/0149845 A1 Jul. 6, 2006
(filed Dec. 30, 2004)

Liu (“APA”) US 2007/0282992 A1 Dec. 6, 2007
(filed Jun. 1, 2006

Official Notice
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Malin and
Official notice.
2. Claims 7 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Malin, Official notice and
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (APA).
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8-16.
Appeal 2010-007172
Application 11/444,919

4
Dispositive Issue: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that Malin teaches or suggests identifying one of a plurality of zones,
each corresponding to a separate partition of an operating system, wherein
the identified zone has zone-specific performance attributes conforming to
the collection requirements in a service request to thereby service the
identified zone, as recited in claim 1?
Appellant argues that Malin does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 9-16.) In particular, Appellant
argues that Malin discloses a system for allowing an Internet provider to
adjust the amount of bandwidth delivered to an Internet subscriber based on
the subscriber’s Internet service. (Id. at 10.) According to Appellant, Malin
discloses a verification check to determine if an already identified network
application on an Internet subscriber’s computer is authorized to use
additional bandwidth, as opposed to determining if one of a plurality of
zones/applications includes attributes that comply with the service
requirements in a request. (Id. at 13.) Further, Appellant argues that even if
the Examiner equated a zone to a network application, such interpretation
would require Malin to teach provisioning an application on a network
application. Appellant submits that such a teaching is wholly absent from
Malin. (Id. at 14.)
In response, the Examiner finds that Malin’s disclosure of an
application running on the operating system of the subscriber’s computing
device teaches a zone on the operating system. (Ans. 9.) Further, the
Examiner finds that partitioning an operating system as a plurality of
Appeal 2010-007172
Application 11/444,919

5
separate zones is well-known in the art for isolating a plurality of
applications in the zones to thereby improve the manageability thereof (Id.
at 10.) Furthermore, the Examiner finds that Malin’s disclosure of matching
the bandwidth and latency attributes in an application QoS profile with the
requirements in a service request teaches identifying zone-specific attributes
that conform to the requirements in a service request. (Id. at 11.)
Based upon our review of the record, we do not find error in the
Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate conclusion of
obviousness regarding claim 1.
Figure 1 is reproduced below:

Figure 1 depicts an exemplary shared network architecture
Appeal 2010-007172
Application 11/444,919

6
As depicted in Figure 1, Malin discloses a plurality of applications
(121, 132) running on a computing device (122), whereupon one of the
applications issuing a request for additional bandwidth, an application
manager (120) checks the service profile of the computing device subscriber
to determine whether the subscriber is authorized to have the requested
bandwidth. If so, the application manager provides the requested level of
service to the computing device to thereby allow the application to continue
its execution. (¶¶ [0039], [0040], [0044].) We note at the outset that
Appellant has not rebutted the Examiner’s finding that it is well-known in
the art to partition the operating system of a computer into zones, each of
which being separately assigned to one of a plurality of applications to
isolate the applications, thereby enhancing management thereof.
Accordingly, we find that the ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily
appreciated that Malin’s disclosure of a plurality of applications running on
a single computer teaches that the applications are allocated to respective
zones or partitions within the operating system of the computing device.
Further, we find that while the request for additional bandwidth originates
from an already known application/zone, Malin’s disclosure of matching the
requested bandwidth with profiles of authorized applications in the profile
database to determine if the requested application belongs to that group
[0040] teaches determining whether the attributes of the application conform
to those in the request. Therefore, we find Malin’s disclosure of verifying
that one of a plurality of applications running on a computing device is
authorized to receive a requested additional bandwidth teaches the disputed
Appeal 2010-007172
Application 11/444,919

7
limitations. It therefore follows that Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2-20 not separately argued fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj