INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 14, 2020

2019003327 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 14, 2020)

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. 15/088,466 04/01/2016 SHAHROKH DAIJAVAD YOR920151435US1 7764 48915 7590 08/14/2020 CANTOR COLBURN LLP-IBM YORKTOWN 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 EXAMINER PATEL, HIREN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2196 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/14/2020 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): usptopatentmail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SHAHROKH DAIJAVAD, NIRMIT V. DESAI, SONGCHUN FAN, MARTIN G. KIENZLE, THEODOROS SALONIDIS, RAHUL URGAONKAR, and DINESH C. VERMA ____________ Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention relates to “deployment and execution of sensing and computation tasks in a network of computing devices.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 1. A computer implemented method for deployment and execution of tasks in a network of computing devices, the computer implemented method comprises: creating by a requester device of a task for deployment and execution in the network wherein the task is composed of a set of computing and sensing programs and a task representation that includes at least one of computing requirements, data requirements, and context requirements; transmitting the task representation to at least one member of the network of computing devices; selecting a plurality of computing devices in the network that match at least one of the computing requirements, the data requirements, and the context requirements in the task representation; deploying each of the set of computing and sensing programs of the task to the selected computing devices; and identifying one of the plurality of computing devices in the network other than the requester device as a coordinator device, wherein the coordinator device is configured to coordinate an execution of the set of computing and sensing programs by the selected computing devices and wherein the one of the plurality of computing devices is identified as the coordinator device based on determining which of the plurality of computing devices has been a member of the network of computing devices a longest period of time. Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.). Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1–6, 10–15, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nochta,2 Rosenberry,3 and Girault.4 Final Act. 3–11. The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault, and Ligman.5 Final Act. 11–13. The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault, and Chai.6 Final Act. 13–15. The Examiner rejects claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault, and Miluzzo.7 Final Act. 15–17. OPINION The Examiner relies on Girault for the limitation “the one of the plurality of computing devices is identified as the coordinator device based on determining which of the plurality of computing devices has been a member of the network of computing devices a longest period of time,” as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 19. Final Act. 7 (citing Girault 2 Nochta et al., US 2007/0233881 A1 (pub. Oct. 4, 2007). 3 Rosenberry, US 5,349,682 (iss. Sept. 20, 1994). 4 Girault, US 2016/0183054 A1 (pub. June 23, 2016). 5 Ligman et al., US 2014/0349571 A1 (pub. Nov. 27, 2014). 6 Chai et al., US 2015/0006735 A1 (pub. Jan. 1, 2015). 7 Miluzzo et al., US 2014/0141744 A1 (pub. May 22, 2014). Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 4 ¶¶ 14, 39). Specifically, the Examiner cites Girault’s disclosure of causing “the device in the network with the longest elapsed time since startup” to function as a master device. Girault ¶ 14; see Final Act. 7. The Examiner finds that “the measured elapsed [time since startup] of the device that is in the network (part of network) as taught by Girault represents the duration of time the device has been a member of the network.” Ans. 7. Appellant argues that Girault fails to teach or suggest the above limitation because “the time since a device was started up, as taught by Girault, is not the same as, or equivalent to, the time since a device joined a network, as claimed.” Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, “[t]his is particularly true in ad hoc networks where devices may join and leave the network much more frequently than the devices are restarted.” Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant. A person with ordinary skill in the art would have understood Girault’s “startup” to be essentially concurrent with joining the network because Girault is concerned with selecting a master device from “a plurality of plotter devices belonging to the same network” in a way that “prevents the master from being switched frequently.” Girault ¶¶ 6, 15; see id. ¶ 10, Abstr. Otherwise put, we find that Girault’s very purpose of “comparing the elapsed time after startup” is to designate the device that has been a member of the network for the longest period of time as the master device, in order to prevent frequent switching of the master device. See id. ¶ 15. Although Appellant argues that startup and joining a network are not the same with respect to ad hoc networks (Appeal Br. 7) and presents a hypothetical example of a device that is the first to start up but the last to join the network (Reply Br. 2), Appellant does not point to any portion of Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 5 Girault indicating that the devices start up without joining the network or that they might leave the network other than by shutting down. On the contrary, Girault describes the plotter devices as “belonging to the same network” (Girault ¶ 10) and discloses that each one notifies the other devices in the network of its presence “[o]nce the startup of the plotter device . . . is complete and it has been connected to the marine network” (id. ¶¶ 52–53). This strongly suggests that the devices join the network at startup.8 Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the elapsed time since startup of a device in Girault’s network represents the period of time the device has been a member of the network (see Ans. 7), and, thus, that Girault teaches or suggests identifying a device as the coordinator device based on which device has been a member of the network for the longest period of time (see Final Act. 7). Appellant further argues that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Nochta and Girault because “[t]he fields of art of Girault and Nochta are wholly unrelated to one another.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant acknowledges that Nochta is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (“assigning a computing task or service to smart devices in a network”), but argues that “Girault is directed to a system for monitoring and plotting the physical distance between electronic devices.” Id. 8 Likewise, the drawings and corresponding description in Girault reflecting the master role being handed off when “the operation of the plotter device [then serving as the master] ends” (see, e.g., Girault Figs. 3, 4, ¶¶ 54, 55, 57) suggest that devices remain in the network until shut down. Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 6 A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, regardless of the problem addressed, or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention). See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Appellant only asserts that Girault is from a different field of endeavor than Nochta and a different field of endeavor than the claimed invention, and does not address Girault’s pertinence to the problem faced by the inventors. We find that Girault’s disclosure of choosing a master device based on elapsed time after startup to “prevent[] the master from being switched frequently” is reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed in the Specification of choosing a coordinator device in a network of computing devices. Girault ¶¶ 14–15; see Spec. ¶ 23. Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that both Nochta and Girault are analogous art because they are in the same general field of endeavor as the claimed invention, i.e., “managing devices belonging to [the] same network.” Ans. 7. We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in order to prevent frequent switching of the master or coordinator device. See Final Act. 7; Ans. 7–8 (citing Girault ¶ 15). For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of independent claims 1, 10, and 19, as well as the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of dependent claims 2–9, 11–18, and 20 not separately argued by Appellant. Appeal 2019-003327 Application 15/088,466 7 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–6, 10–15, 19, 20 103 Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault 1–6, 10–15, 19, 20 7, 16 103 Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault, Ligman 7, 16 8, 17 103 Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault, Chai 8, 17 9, 18 103 Nochta, Rosenberry, Girault, Miluzzo 9, 18 Overall Outcome 1–20