Ex Parte Nguyen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2013

09750475 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/750,475 12/28/2000 Lynh Nguyen STL919990134US3/A8644 7832
46159 7590 01/30/2013
SUGHRUE MION PLLC
USPTO CUSTOMER NO WITH IBM/SVL
2100 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THU V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2452
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LYNH NGUYEN
____________

Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475
1

Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation.
Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 18-22, and 24, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. Claims 2-5, 9-12, 16, 17, and 23 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to automatically re-
establishing a connection to a data source accessible by a plurality of remote
applications. See Spec. 1, ll. 13-14.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for automatically re-establishing a connection
to a data source accessible by a plurality of remote applications, the
method comprising:
providing at least one interface module configured to interface
with a remote application;
providing at least one port module configured to interface
between the interface module and the data source;
providing a connection manager to facilitate the interface
between the interface module and the at least one port module;
detecting unavailability of the data source, by the at least one
port module, in response to an initial request for the data source by the
remote application;
dynamically detecting availability of the data source, by the at
least one port module, in response to a subsequent request for the data
source; and
re-connecting the data source to the remote application in
response to the subsequent request,
wherein the at least one port module sends an error message to
the interface module indicating the unavailability of the data source,
Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475

3
reestablishes a connection with the data source, and reconnects the
remote application to the data source directly communicating with the
remote application, and
wherein the at least one port module bypasses the connection
manager in the subsequent request.

Appellant appeals the following rejection:

Claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 18-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yousefi’zadeh (US 6,950,848 B1, Sept.
27, 2005), Guenthner (US 6,134,588, Oct. 17, 2000), and Albert (US
6,549,516 B1, Apr. 15, 2003).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 18-22, and 24 as a group (App.
Br. 6-10). For claims 6-8, 13-15, 18-22, and 24, Appellant repeats the same
argument made for claim 1. We will, therefore, treat claims 6-8, 13-15, 18-
22, and 24 as standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). See also In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590 (Fed. Cir. 1991).

Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Albert discloses wherein
the at least one port module bypasses the connection manager in the
subsequent request, as claimed in claim 1?

Appellant contends that “future packets are not subsequent requests
for the data source. Accordingly, Albert does not teach or suggest ‘wherein
the at least one port module bypasses the connection manager in the
subsequent request.’” (App. Br. 8.)
Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475

4
The Examiner found that “it is reasonable to interpret each of Albert’s
subsequent packets within a data flow as a ‘subsequent request.’ There is no
language in the claim that prohibits interpreting ‘request’ as a ‘packet.’”
(Ans. 9.) The Examiner further concluded that “[b]ecause the future packets
are directed to the data source, it is reasonable to interpret the packets as
being requests [sic] for the data source” (id. at 10).
In essence, the Examiner admits that both Yousefi’zadeh and
Guenthner do not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one port module
bypasses the connection manager in the subsequent request, but instead
relies upon Albert to disclose such features. As such, we shall look for error
in the Examiner’s interpretation of Albert.
Specifically, Albert discloses that “[f]uture packets in either flow sent
from the client or the host match the affinity key in one of the fixed affinities
and are handled by the forwarding agent . . . It is no longer necessary to
forward such packets to the service manager” (Albert, col. 13, ll. 4-8). In
other words, Albert discloses that future packets are handled by the
forwarding agent and not necessarily the service manager. Appellant
disputes that such “future packets” are equivalent to the claimed “subsequent
requests for the data source.” However, we find that the Examiner
associates Albert’s “future packets” with “future requests” (i.e., subsequent
requests) for the data source, seemingly because the packets in Albert are not
shown to be automatically transmitted, i.e., without first being requested. At
least for this reason, we find the Examiner’s interpretation of Albert’s packet
flow (e.g., being the result of a request) reasonable.
2

2
In our previous Decision issued December 4, 2009, we further found that
Guenthner discloses detecting unavailability (e.g., a “Bad” server) and
Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475

5
Thus, based on the record before us, we find no error in the
Examiner’s interpretation of Albert, essentially for the reasons indicated by
the Examiner.

Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Guenthner discloses
sending an error message to the interface module indicating the
unavailability of the data source, as claimed in claim 1?

Here, the Examiner relies upon Guenthner to teach the above noted
feature (see Ans. 6 and 10). As such, we shall look for error in the
Examiner’s interpretation of Guenthner.
Appellant contends that “Guenthner merely discloses that if no entry
is ‘Current’, then the routine returns an error. However, there is no teaching
or suggestion of (i) an error message being sent to the interface module and
(ii) [] error message indicating the unavailability of the data source” (App.
Br. 10).
The Examiner found that Guenthner discloses “providing an error
indication to the user” and that “[t]he error is provided to the user when
there are no data sources available based on a determination from a list of
servers” (Ans. 10). We agree with the Examiner.
Specifically, Guenthner discloses that “[w]hen the browser issues a
request, a name service returns a list of IP addresses that may service that
request. . . . and IP addresses are selected from the list. . . until a connection
to an appropriate server is obtained” (Abstract). Guenthner further discloses

dynamically detecting (e.g., at frequent intervals) availability of the server in
response to a subsequent request (e.g., retrying entries)(Decision, 6).
Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475

6
that “[i]f a particular server fails to respond in response to a selected IP
address, a ‘timeout’ policy is preferably enforced. In particular, the browser
marks (in the HAL) the failed entry ‘Bad’ for a given time period” (col. 5, ll.
57-60). In Guenthner, the system “returns an IP address list 52 for use by
the browser, or it returns an error. If the Renew HAL routine returns an
error, the routine branches to step 82 and provides an error indication to the
user” (col. 6, ll. 37-40). In addition, “[i]f no entry is ‘Current’, the routine
branches to step 112 and returns an error” (col. 7, ll. 50-51).
In other words, Guenthner discloses a method for securing a list of IP
addresses of Web servers that host content requested by a client. In
Guenthner, if a server fails (i.e., is unavailable) an error indication is
returned to the user (i.e., user interface). The recited “sends an error
message to the interface module indicating the unavailability of the data
source” is strikingly similar (at least conceptually) to Guenthner’s teachings
noted supra, and the Examiner’s reliance on this functionality is therefore
persuasive as Guenthner teaches sending an error indicator to an interface.
Therefore, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 for essentially the same reasons argued by
the Examiner, as discussed above. For the reasons previously discussed
regarding claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 6-
8, 13-15, 18-22, and 24, as these claims are not separately argued.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 13-15, 18-
22, and 24.
Appeal 2013-002018
Application 09/750,475

7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) .

AFFIRMED

kis