Ex Parte Riemers

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 8, 2019

13756118 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/756,118 01/31/2013 110773 7590 01/10/2019 Haynes and Boone, LLP (50833) Attn. IP Docketing 2323 Victory A venue , Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75219 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bill Clifford Riemers 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. 49145.25 7047 EXAMINER AQUINO, WYNUEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/10/2019 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BILL CLIFFORD RIEMERS Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 1 Technology Center 2100 Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, which constitute all claims pending in the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies Red Hat, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. 2 In this Decision, we refer to the Final Action mailed September 30, 2016 ("Final Act."), Appeal Brief filed July 27, 2017 ("App. Br."), Examiner's Answer mailed December 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and Reply Brief filed February 12, 2018 ("Reply Br."). Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The invention relates to scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system, and specifically, scheduling jobs when there are more jobs to run than available slots for running them. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 9, and 12 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots; and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs scheduled to run before a subsequent iteration of the first job and scheduling those additional jobs for execution, further wherein a total number of the additional jobs in the program exceeds the defined number of job slots. App. Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Santoli et al. (US 2012/0204180 Al; Aug. 9, 2012) ("Santoli"), Hambrick et al. (US 2008/0229330 Al; Sept. 18, 2008) ("Hambrick"), and Picinich et al. (US 2005/0268299 Al; Dec. 1, 2005) ("Picinich"). Final Act. 2-24. 2 Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, and Ly et al. (US 2006/0020942 Al; Jan. 26, 2006) ("Ly"). Final Act. 25-28. Claim 8 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, Ly, and Linder (US 2010/0153952 Al; June 17, 2010). Final Act. 28-29. Claim 18 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, and Linder. Final Act. 29- 30. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20 over Santoli, Hambrick, and Picinich Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Santoli, Hambrick, and Picinich teaches or suggests a "first job includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs scheduled to run before a 3 Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 subsequent iteration of the first job," as recited in claim 1. 3 App. Br. 7-10. Specifically, Appellant first argues the Examiner erred in finding Hambrick teaches a "first job includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs," because Hambrick's "logic of the batch job itself' does not scan for jobs (batch beans in Hambrick). Id. at 8-9 ( emphasis omitted). Second, Appellant argues Hambrick and Picinich do not teach or suggest scheduling "additional jobs ... to run before a subsequent iteration of the first job," but rather, merely teach a "recurring" batch job. Id. at 9-10. We address Appellant's two arguments in tum. First, regarding the limitation "first job includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs," Appellant's argument regarding Hambrick misconstrues the Examiner's findings. App. Br. 8-9. The Examiner finds the recited "first job" is taught by Hambrick' s batch job and logic that scans an XJCL definition for respective batch beans. Ans. 32 (reading the claimed job on 'job steps and setup operations ... used in order for the batch job to complete"), 33 ("Hambrick teaches [the claimed] 'job (i.e.[,] ... a job step) includes logic (i.e.[,] get method to obtain a list of accounts) ... ' and therefore [teaches] the limitations"). That is, the Examiner finds Hambrick's batch job and logic are collectively a "first job [that] includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs," as recited in claim 1. The Examiner further finds Hambrick' s XJCL definition is a scanned "list of additional 3 Appellant argues claims 1-5, 9-17, 19, and 20 as a group, App. Br. 10, and we choose independent claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 jobs," as recited in claim 1. Ans. 4, 32-33. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As the Examiner finds, Hambrick teaches a batch job configuration (the job steps, classes, conditions, etc.) for calculating interest and respective logic that scans the XJCL definition to determine the specific configuration information and "batch beans," which are objects for modeling interactions and managing data persistence. Ans. 32-33; Hambrick ,r,r 5, 21, 87, 96. One of ordinary skill would have understood Hambrick's configuration and logic together as a 'job;" that is, together they cause actions performed to configure the calculations of interest. Hambrick ,r 87; see also Spec. ,r 2 ("Processing jobs may include any of a variety of actions performed by a computer system."). These actions, including scanning the XJCL definition for batch beans, are collectively a "job [that] includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs," as recited in claim 1. Appellant argues Hambrick does not describe the batch job as itself performing the scan of the XJCL definition for batch beans, and thus does not teach the batch job as being a 'job [that] includes logic for scanning a list of additional jobs." App. Br. 9. This argument, however, does not address the Examiner's finding that Hambrick's batchjob (configuration) and the logic that scans an XJCL definition collectively constitute a "job" as claimed. Moreover, nothing in claim 1 or the Specification precludes the claimed job from being a collection of elements performing a task, and using multiple data objects. We now tum to Appellant's second argument, i.e., that the combination of Hambrick and Picinich does not teach or suggest "additional 5 Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 jobs scheduled to run before a subsequent iteration of the first job." App. Br. 9--10. Appellant argues Hambrick does not disclose the batch beans as completing before the next iteration of the batch job. Id. at 9. Appellant further argues that Picinich teaches a recurring batch job, but does not describe the batch job as completing before its next iteration. Id. at 9-- 10. Appellant concludes that, at best, the combination of Hambrick and Picinich "would result in Hambrick's calculating interest job being a recurring job." Id. at 10. We, however, are not persuaded the Examiner erred. As the Examiner finds, Picinich teaches a daily recurrence of a batch job, and Hambrick teaches that a batch job invokes batch beans. Ans. 34--35 ( citing Picini ch ,r,r 2-3); Final Act. 3 ( citing Hambrick ,r 87). The Examiner further finds, in view of these teachings of Picini ch and Hambrick, that it would have been obvious to schedule a daily recurrence of Hambrick's batch job. Ans. 34--35. The Examiner also finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, if a batch job recurs daily, its respective batch beans also recur daily and are thus scheduled to run before the job's next iteration (i.e., before the next day). Id. Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief do not identify the alleged error in these findings, and in the Reply Brief, Appellant acknowledges that if batch beans perform sub-jobs of the batch job, "then they would necessarily be ... scheduled to run before any subsequent iteration of the [batch] job," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis added). We, like the Examiner, find Hambrick teaches batch beans perform "job steps" (i.e., sub-jobs) of the batch job, and that certain 6 Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 batch beans are "needed for the batch job" and "invoke[ d] ... until a job completion." Id. ,r,r 87, 96. Moreover, as the Examiner finds (and Appellant does not contest), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Picini ch with Hambrick in order to more efficiently schedule batch jobs, namely, doing so "periodically based upon availability of resources." Final Act. 6; Ans. 6. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has provided "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007) ( citation omitted). In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Hambrick's batch beans are part of their respective batch jobs, and thus are not "additional jobs," as recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 2-3. This new argument could have been raised in the Appeal Brief, and therefore is waived as untimely. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(4); see also Final Act. 3 (finding Hambrick's batch beans teach the claimed "additional jobs"). Even if our reviewing court were to find the argument timely raised, we would not be persuaded of error. Hambrick teaches that batch beans perform calculations. Hambrick further teaches a batchjob and logic ("first job [that] includes logic," as recited in claim 1) configure the process of calculating. Hambrick ,r,r 87, 96. Because calculating and configuring are distinct processes as taught in Hambrick, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider batch beans as "additional" to the batch job and logic. Spec. ,r 2 ( describing "jobs" as a "variety of actions"). 7 Appeal2018-003555 Application 13/756,118 For the foregoing reasons, Appellant's arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 9-1 7, 19, and 20 as obvious over Santoli, Hambrick, and Picinich. Remaining Rejections Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 6- 8 and 18 for the same reasons as their respective independent claims 1 and 12, and because the additional references cited by the Examiner fail to remedy the alleged deficiencies regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 12. App. Br. 10-11. For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 as obvious over Santoli, Hambrick Picinich, and Ly. We also sustain the rejection of claim 8 as obvious over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, Ly, and Linder. Finally, we sustain the rejection of claim 18 as obvious over Santoli, Hambrick, Picinich, and Linder. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 8