Satori Worldwide, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 2, 2021

2019003630 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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. 15/159,447 05/19/2016 Lev Walkin M102103 1100US.1 16005 9133 148646 7590 03/02/2021 WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP/Satori Worldwide LL Attn: IP Docketing P.O. Box 7037 Atlanta, GA 30537-7037 EXAMINER CHACKO, JOE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/02/2021 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@wbd-us.com patents@mz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEV WALKIN, FREDRIK ERIK LINDER, and IGOR MILYAKOV Appeal 2019-003630 Application 15/159,447 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 The pages of Appellant’s Appeal Brief are not numbered. We refer to the pages by number as if numbered starting with page 1 being the caption page. 2 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Satori Worldwide, LLC. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-003630 Application 15/159,447 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to real-time, scalable publish-subscribe messaging. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: receiving from a plurality of origination processes a plurality of messages; identifying a respective destination node and a destination process on the destination node associated with each of the messages; storing each of the messages in a respective buffer for the destination process and destination node associated with the message; identifying one or more of the buffers wherein an aggregate size of all messages stored in each of the identified buffers exceeds a threshold; and for each identified buffer, (i) sending all messages stored in the buffer in bulk to the destination process on the destination node associated with the messages stored in the buffer, and (ii) de-allocating the buffer. REFERENCES The Examiner relies upon the following prior art : Name Reference Date Nikolov US 2005/0262205 A1 Nov. 24, 2005 Kirov US 2005/0262215 A1 Nov. 24, 2005 Kleymenov US 2008/0147915 A1 June 19, 2008 Strassner US 2015/0365358 A1 Dec. 17, 2015 REJECTIONS Claims 1–7, 10–16, and 19–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kirov, Nikolov, and Kleymenov. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2019-003630 Application 15/159,447 3 Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Kirov, Nikolov, Kleymenov, and Strassner. Final Act. 10. OPINION3 Appellant contends the Examiner errs because: 1) Nikolov fails to teach or suggest “identifying one or more of the buffers wherein an aggregate size of all messages stored in each of the identified buffers exceeds a threshold” and “for each identified buffer, (i) sending all messages stored in the buffer in bulk to the destination process on the destination node associated with the messages stored in the buffer,” and 2) the deficiencies with respect to Nikolov are not cured by the other references. Appeal Br. 4– 6; Reply Br. 2–3; see Final Act. 4–5. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Nikolov’s master queue is equivalent to the claimed buffer having an aggregate size above a threshold. See Ans. 13–14 (citing Nikolov ¶ 140–144). Nikolov discloses if the size limit for the master queue would be exceeded by the addition of a new, incoming message, messages are removed. Nikolov ¶ 140. In order to determine whether the size of the master queue would be exceeded by the addition of the new message, the aggregate size of the messages stored in the queue is determined to exceed a threshold, namely, the threshold that would prevent the addition of the incoming message. In other words, this passage of Nikolov teaches or suggests “identifying one or more of the buffers 3 Because Appellant argues all claims based on claim 1 (Appeal Br. 6–7), we review claim 1, and, except for our ultimate decision, do not address the remaining claims further. Appeal 2019-003630 Application 15/159,447 4 wherein an aggregate size of all messages stored in each of the identified buffers exceeds a threshold,” contrary to Appellant’s argument. Accordingly, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that claim 1 is unpatentable. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–7, 10–16, 19–25 103 Kirov, Nikolov, Kleymenov 1–7, 10–16, 19–25 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27 103 Kirov, Nikolov, Kleymenov, Strassner, 8, 9, 17, 18, 26, 27 Overall Outcome 1–27 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