Ex Parte Bates

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

12943581 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/943,581 11/10/2010
47478 7590 03/02/2016
IBM (ROC-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
8601 Ranch Road 2222
Ste. 1-225
AUSTIN, TX 78730
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cary L. Bates
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.
ROC920100238US1 3953
EXAMINER
WU,DAXIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARYL. BATES
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581 1
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-18. Claims 19 and 20 have been cancelled. (Appeal
Br. 26.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(l).
We affirm-in-part.
Invention
Appellant's invention relates to collaborative software debugging in a
distributed system. A user may, through a debug client, provide input
specifying a location in the debugee source code and an event, establishing
an event notification which is sent to debug clients including the user's
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation ("IBM")
as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581
debug client at the occurrence of the specified event. A client-specific event
alert may be established which is triggered for the specified debug client
upon receipt of an event notification invoking an alert such as a visual and/or
audible notification to the user of the debug client. (Abstract; Spec. p. 1 11.
10-11, p. 7 1. 10 - 8 1. 5)
Illustrative Claims
Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is
iUustrntive:
1. A method of collaborative software debugging in a
distributed system, the distributed system comprising a
debug server, a plurality of debug clients, and a data
communications network, the debug server coupled for
data communications to the plurality of debug clients
through the data communications network, the debug
server comprising a debug administrator, a message
router, a back-end debugger, and a debuggee, the method
compnsmg:
presenting, by each debug client to a user of the debug
client, a client-specific graphical user interface ('GUI'),
the client-specific GUI comprising a client-specific
display of a debug session of the debuggee;
detecting, by each debug client, user input through the
client-specific GUI, including detecting, by a requesting
debug client, user input specifying a location in source
code to establish an event notification for an event;
establishing, by the requesting debug client, a client-
specific event alert to be invoked upon receipt of the
event notification;
2
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581
generating, by each debug client in dependence upon the
detected user input, one or more application-level
messages, including generating, by the requesting debug
client, a request to establish the event notification;
sending, by each debug client, the application-level
messages to the debug server, including sending, by the
requesting debug client, the request to establish the
event notification;
receiving, by each debug client responsive to the
application-level messages, client-specific debug results,
including receiving, by the requesting debug client and at
least one other debug client, the event notification
responsive to the backend debugger encountering the
event; and
displaying, by each debug client in the client-specific
GUI, the client-specific debug results, including
invoking, by the requesting debug client, the client-
specific event alert responsive to the event notification,
without invoking an alert by at least one of the other
debug clients receiving the event notification.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, and 13 on the grounds of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1,
7, and 13 of Bates (US 2012/0117543 Al; published May 10, 2012),
Manolescu et al. (US 2008/0244418 Al; published Oct. 2, 2008)
("Manolescu"), and Stairs et al. (US 8, 171,346 B2; issued May 1, 2012)
("Stairs"). (Final Action 3-17.)
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Manolescu and Stairs. (Final Action 17-27.)
3
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Manolescu, Stairs, and Hernandez et al. (US 8,041,553
Bl; issued Oct. 18, 2011) ("Hernandez"). (Final Action 27-28.)
Issues
Did the Examiner err in rejecting the claims on the grounds of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Manolescu
and Stairs teaches or suggests "receiving, by the requesting debug client and
at least one other debug client, the event notification responsive to the
backend debugger encountering the event" and "displaying ... including
invoking, by the requesting debug client, the client-specific event alert
responsive to the event notification, without invoking an alert by at least one
of the other debug clients receiving the event notification" as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 7, and 13 on the ground of non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting (Final Action 3-17). Appellant
declines to file a terminal disclaimer and does not otherwise present
arguments regarding this rejection. (Appeal Br. 7.) Therefore, we
summarily affirm the Examiner's double patenting rejection of claims 1, 7,
and 13.
4
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581
Obviousness
Although Appellant contends that Manolescu does not concern
debugging and that it "does not describe a debug server, a back-end
debugger, or a debugee" as claimed in Claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8), we agree
with the Examiner that Manolescu does disclose a distributed integrated
development environment (IDE) used in debugging and that, Manolescu
combined with Stairs, which explicitly discloses debugging functionality
(Stairs col. 4, 11. 24-39), would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art a debugging functionality. (Answer 29-31.) Thus, we are not convinced
by Appellant's arguments regarding these alleged deficiencies in the
combined teachings of Manolescu and Stairs.
Appellant also argues that Manolescu does not show that one or more
debug clients, in addition to the debug client which established a client-
specific alert, receives the client-specific event alert but does not invoke an
alert in response to the receipt thereof. (Appeal Br. 17 .) In the Final Action,
the Examiner finds that the receiving, by the requesting debug client and at
least one other debug client, the event notification responsive to the backend
debugger encountering the event is taught in Manolescu, when two user
systems 302 and 304 are each collaborating. (Final Action 19-20.) The
Examiner further finds that because two or more client sessions may be
debugged simultaneously in Manolescu without interference, Manolescu
teaches invoking, by the requesting debug client, the client-specific event
alert responsive to the event notification, without invoking an alert by at
least one of the other debug clients receiving the event notification. (Final
Action 21.) The Examiner cites additional support for non-interference of
two sessions in Manolescu and Stairs, noting that in Manolsecu when a
5
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581
number of users are linked together for debugging the code, and User A
decides to work with User B, User B will get the alerts but "[t]he alert is not
invoked for the other users linked together for debugging the code."
(Answer 40-41.)
We disagree that the combination of the cited portions of Manolescu
and Stairs teaches or suggests debug clients linked together for debugging
code and each receiving an event notification, but where an alert is invoked
for some but not all linked debug clients. For example, Manolescu
discloses that "[t]he code view is locked (convergence) so that both users are
looking at the same code." (Manolescu i-f 79; see also Manolescu i-f 36, when
converged one user "is restricted to perceiving exactly the same activity and
content" as the other.) The cited portions of Manolescu teach or suggest that
when clients are converged (viewing/debugging code together) each of the
debug clients would receive an event notification responsive to a request
from one of the converged clients and each would display an invoked alert.
Additionally, the cited portions of Manolescu and Stairs teach that non-
collaborative but simultaneous activities will not interfere with each other,
such as in the case of a session of debugging performed simultaneously with
other debugging sessions without interrupting. (Answer 40-41.) The
combination of the cited portions, however, do not teach or suggest that in
the case in which two or more simultaneous debugging clients are not
converged an event notification would be received by two or more clients,
with no alert triggered in at least one of the clients that received the
notification.
The Examiner has not shown that the combination of Manolescu and
Stairs teaches or suggests that a client would receive an event notification
6
Appeal2014-004359
Application 12/943,581
responsive to the request of another client, but not invoke the same alert as
the requesting client. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner that the
combination of Manolescu and Stairs teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations. The Examiner also has not shown that Hernandez teaches this
feature of the disputed limitations. Since we agree with at least one of the
arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of
Appellant's other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-11, 13, 15-17, and 19 as obvious
in view of Manolescu and Stairs; and the Examiner's rejection of claims 6,
12, and 18 as obvious in view ofManolescu, Stairs, and Hernandez.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner' double patenting rejection of
claims 1, 7, and 13.
We reverse the Examiner; s decision rejecting claims 1-18 under
§ 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7