Ex Parte Arnold et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 12, 2009

09997990 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 12, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JEREMY ALAN ARNOLD and
JOHN MATTHEW SANTOSUOSSO
______________

Appeal 2007-003437
Application 09/997,990
Technology Center 2100
______________

Decided:1 June 12, 2009
_______________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO,
and JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2007-003437
Application 09/997,990

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 6, 8 to 27, and 29 to 40. In an Amendment After
Final, Appellants canceled claims 1 to 6, 8 to 13, 23 to 27, 29 to 33, 38, and
39. Accordingly, claims 14 to 22, 34 to 37, and 40 remain before us on
appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a method and apparatus for tracking
a number of object creations resulting from multiple creators for a class
defined in an object-oriented computer program during debugging of the
object-oriented computer program, and halting execution of the object-
oriented computer program in response to the number of object creations
meeting a condition (Fig. 7; Spec. 5, 8, 9, and 15; Abstract).
Claim 14 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
14. A computer-implemented method of debugging an
object-oriented computer program, the method comprising:
(a) tracking a number of object creations of a class
defined in the object-oriented computer program during
debugging, wherein the tracked number of object
creations includes object creations resulting from
multiple creators for the class; and
(b) halting execution of the object-oriented
computer program in response to the number of object
creations meeting a condition.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Phillips US 5,321,828 Jun. 14, 1994
Lenkov US 5,560,009 Sep. 24, 1996
Pardo US 5,754,839 May 19, 1998
Appeal 2007-003437
Application 09/997,990

3
The Examiner rejected claims 14, 15, 17 to 22, 34, 35, and 40 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Lenkov and Phillips.
The Examiner rejected claims 16, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Lenkov, Phillips, and Pardo.
The Examiner acknowledges (Final Rej. 9), and Appellants agree (Br.
6), that Lenkov is silent as to tracking a number of object creations and
halting execution of the object-oriented computer program in response to the
number of object creations meeting a condition. The Examiner states (Final
Rej. 9) that Phillips discloses “tracking a number of hits for a breakpoint . . .
and halting execution of the computer program in response to the number of
hits meeting a condition . . . .” In view of the teachings of Phillips, the
Examiner is of the opinion (Final Rej. 9 and 10) that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to incorporate the teaching of
Phillips et al. into that of Lenkov et al. for the inclusion of tracking a number
of object creations and halting execution in response to the number meeting
a condition.”
Appellants argue (Br. 8) that
[w]hile Phillips discloses the concept of setting a
condition on a breakpoint that triggers the breakpoint only after
N hits, this disclosure falls short of disclosing or suggesting the
concept of tracking the number of object creations for a class
that result from multiple creators, as required by each of claims
14, 34 and 40.
Based upon the teachings of Phillips, Appellants conclude (Br. 8) that “the
combined teachings of Lenkov and Phillips simply fail to disclose or suggest
that a number representative of object creations from multiple creators for a
class be tracked, or that a condition for halting execution of a program can
be tested against such a tracked number.”
Appeal 2007-003437
Application 09/997,990

4
Lenkov describes a debugger 320 that allows a user 1118 to set
several types of breakpoints, including an instance breakpoint (i.e., a
breakpoint that is recognized only if a member function is invoked with a
particular object), a trigger breakpoint (e.g., a point in the object code where
execution will leave the scope of the object), and a class breakpoint (i.e., a
breakpoint that suspends execution of the object code whenever any of the
class’s member functions is invoked) (Figs. 3 and 11; col. 29, ll. 16 to 44).
Phillips describes a source level debugger 22 that is used by a system
user to set breakpoints and other conditions for stopping a program (Fig. 1;
col. 26, l. 39 to col. 28, l. 64). Phillips explains that a special kind of
condition is a positive ignore count that permits the system to ignore a
breakpoint until a set count value is decremented to zero (col. 28, l. 65 to
col. 29, l. 30.
Although the debugger in Phillips halts execution of the program in
response to a conditional count, it is not a count of the “number of object
creations” including “object creations resulting from multiple creators for
the class” as set forth in claims 14, 34, and 40 on appeal. Thus, we agree
with Appellants’ argument (Br. 8) that the combined teachings of the
references “fail to disclose or suggest that a number representative of object
creations from multiple creators for a class be tracked, or that a condition for
halting execution of a program can be tested against such a tracked number.”
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 14, 15, 17 to 22, 34,
35, and 40 is reversed because the Examiner’s articulated reasons for
combining the teachings of the references to Lenkov and Phillips do not
support a legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appeal 2007-003437
Application 09/997,990

5
The obviousness rejection of claims 16, 36, and 37 is reversed
because the breakpoint counter teachings of Pardo (col. 5, ll. 37 to 50) fail to
cure the noted shortcomings in the teachings of Lenkov and Phillips.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED

babc

Scott A. Stinebruner
Wood, Herron & Evans, L.L.P.
2700 Carew Tower
441 Vine St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202-2917