CA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 2, 2021

2019004984 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
14/755,179 06/30/2015 Erhan Giral 104.US20160020US1 4746
121312 7590 02/02/2021
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
WEI, ZHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2192
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2021 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):
cmckenna@foley.com
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERHAN GIRAL and TOMAS KOLDA
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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 1–6, 8–18, and 20–22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CA, Inc. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “[d]etection of application topology
changes.” Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
determining a plurality of application topology states,
each of the plurality of application topology states
corresponding to application component calls within a different
time window;
determining changes between the plurality of application
topology states in chronological order, wherein determining the
changes between the plurality of application topology states
comprises:
for each application topology state of the plurality
of application topology states,
comparing application component calls
indicated in the application topology state to
application component calls indicated in an
application topology state corresponding to a
subsequent time window; and
discarding application component calls
which are indicated in both the application
topology state and the application topology state
corresponding to the subsequent time window;
indicating the changes between the plurality of
application topology states, wherein the changes are application
component calls which were not discarded; and
correlating the application component calls indicated in
the changes with events of the application based, at least in part,
on time instants associated with each of the application
components calls indicated in the changes.
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Krauss US 2011/0138368 A1 June 9, 2011
Jalan US 2012/0278793 A1 Nov. 1, 2012
Degioanni US 2015/0052441 A1 Feb. 19, 2015
Tran US 2016/0226736 A1 Aug. 4, 2016

REJECTION
Claims 1–6, 8–18, and 20–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Degioanni, Tran, Jalan, and Krauss. Final Act. 4–13.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1–6, 8–18, and 20–22 over Degioanni,
Tran, Jalan, and Krauss
The Examiner finds Degioanni, Tran, Jalan, and Krauss, collectively,
teach the key disputed limitation of claim 1. See Final Act. 5–9; see also
Ans. 3–8.
In particular, the Examiner finds Degioanni teaches “determining
changes between the plurality of application topology states in chronological
order” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5 (citing Degioanni Figs. 23–24); see
also Final Act 6–7 (finding Tran teaches application topology states
corresponding to application component calls).
In particular, the Examiner finds Krauss teaches “comparing
application component calls indicated in the application topology state to
application component calls indicated in an application topology state
corresponding to a subsequent time window” as recited in claim 1. Final
Act. 8–9 (Krauss ¶ 24).
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
4
In particular, the Examiner finds Jalan teaches “discarding application
component calls which are indicated in both the application topology state
and the application topology state corresponding to the subsequent time
window” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 7 (citing Jalan, Fig. 8 (step
803), Abstract).
Among other arguments, Appellant presents the following principal
arguments:
The cited art utilizes application topologies to display
performance metrics for an application and only compares
application topologies to determine differences in those
performance metrics. The cited art fails to disclose comparing
application topology states across different time windows to
identify changes in component calls as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10; see also Appeal Br. 11 (discussing each applied reference’s
“using [of] topologies as a medium for presenting or storing performance
metrics of an application.”).
To the extent that the cited art does compare topologies,
the comparison is for the purpose of analyzing performance
metrics, not for determining changes in application component
calls. Krauss, for example, states that “the embodiments of the
present invention can identify those functions that exhibit
irregular performance in some instances by comparing a call
graph of a current run of a computer program under test (CPUT)
to one or more call graphs from previous runs of the CPUT.”
Appeal Br. 12 (quoting Krauss ¶ 24); see also Appeal Br. 13 (discussing
Tran, Degioanni, and Jalan), 14–15 (“When paragraph [0024] of Krauss is
presented in its entirety, it is clear that the comparison of call graphs is
merely to identify performance differences between program runs and NOT
to identify changes in which functions or components were called, as
asserted by the Examiner.”).
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
5
This argument [by the Examiner] that a developer looking at call
graphs to compare the resource consumption counts of invoked
functions in different runs of a program under test in which the
developer was removing and adding functions across runs cannot
reasonably be considered similar to determining application
topology changes based on changes in application component
calls. The similarity of function calls to application component
calls does not carry over into transforming execution time of
functions in a call stack to topological differences in call stacks.
Reply Br. 4.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
We determine the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1.
Regarding the “comparing” step and Krauss, Krauss discloses the
following:
The embodiments disclosed herein relate to verifying the
performance of particular functions against expected
performance criteria for those functions. More particularly, the
embodiments of the present invention can identify those
functions that exhibit irregular performance in some instances by
comparing a call graph of a current run of a computer program
under test (CPUT) to one or more call graphs from previous runs
of the CPUT. When a particular function has changed from one
run to a next, for instance due changes in computer program code
or input data, the present invention can identify performance
differences between these various runs of the function.
Moreover, performances differences caused by the addition or
deletion of one or more functions to/from the CPUT also can be
identified.
Krauss ¶ 24; see also Krauss Figs. 8 (depicting a call graph representing
execution of the CPUT), 9 (depicting execution data for the CPUT).
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
6
We find Krauss’s consideration of execution time of functions in a
call stack (Krauss ¶ 24, Figs. 8, 9) is different than comparing application
component calls (topological states) as recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 4;
see also Appeal Br. 12, 14–15.
The differences between the applied art and claim 1 become more
apparent when we further consider the “discarding” step and Jalan. Jalan
discloses the following: “At step 803 [of Fig. 8], subroutines and/or
subroutine calls whose values fall below the threshold are deleted from the
data model.” Jalan ¶ 50.
We agree with Appellant that “Jalan wholly fails to disclose or
suggest comparing application topology states from different time
windows.” Appeal Br. 13. Thus, Jalan does not teach the “discarding” step
because discarding in Jalan does not consider more than one application
topology state.
Thus, Krauss and Jalan do not teach the “comparing” step and the
“discarding” step of the key disputed limitation.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–6 and 8–
11, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 12 recites “compare” and “discard” limitations that
are essentially the same as the “comparing” and “discarding” steps of claim
1.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 12.
Independent claim 13 recites “compare” and “discard” limitations that
are essentially the same as the “comparing” and “discarding” steps of claim
1.
Appeal 2019-004984
Application 14/755,179
7
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 13.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14–18 and
20–22, which depend from claim 13.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–18, and 20–22 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–18,
20–22
103 Degioanni, Tran,
Jalan, Krauss
1–6, 8–18,
20–22

REVERSED