Ex Parte Birenheide et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 23, 201411221667 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICHARD BIRENHEIDE, ECKART LANGHUTH, and MATTHIAS THORSTEN METZLER ____________ Appeal 2012-005706 Application 11/221,667 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. EVANS, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 25, 27–30, and 32–493 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 The Real Party in Interest is SAP AG. 2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 App. Br. 9. Appeal 2012-005706 Application 11/221,667 2 We AFFIRM.4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to systems and methods for a remote debugging proxy. See Abstract. Claims 25, 33, 42, and 48 are independent. The claims have not been argued separately and, therefore, stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 25, which is reproduced below: 25. A method for debugging a target system application comprising: receiving notification of an event issued by the target system at a first proxy component associated with a debugging component via a second proxy component associated with the target system; receiving data regarding the event at the first proxy component via the second proxy component, the data regarding the event being collected from the target system by the second proxy component after the target system issues the notification of the event, wherein the data regarding the event is decompressed at the first proxy component associated with the debugging component; storing the data regarding the event of the target system in a cache memory coupled to the first proxy component; and forwarding the notification of the event from the first proxy component to the debugging component. 4 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed October 28, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed February 8, 2012 (“Reply Br.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 8, 2011 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2012-005706 Application 11/221,667 3 References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Kim US 6,026,362 Feb. 15, 2000 Brodeur US 2002/0087950 A1 July 4, 2002 Johnson US 6,637,024 B1 Oct. 21, 2003 Shankar US 7,412,625 B2 Aug. 12, 2008 The claims stand rejected as follows:5 1. Claims 25, 27–30, 33–40, 42–45, 48, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brodeur, Kim, and Shankar. Ans. 5– 13. 2. Claims 32, 41, 46, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Brodeur, Kim, Shankar, and Johnson. Ans. 13–14. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. 5 Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-005706 Application 11/221,667 4 CLAIMS 25, 27–30, 33–40, 42–45, 48, AND 49 The Examiner finds that the combination of Brodeur and Kim teaches each claimed limitation, except the combination fails to teach the data is decompressed at a first proxy component associated with the debugging component. The Examiner finds that Shankar teaches this limitation. Ans. 6. Appellants contend that Shankar does not disclose that the data is decompressed by a proxy associated with a debugger. Appellants contend that Shankar discloses a redirection device 12 associated with both a computer program 8 (debuggee) and a debugger application 10 (debugger). Redirection device 12 compresses video output for transmission to plug-in 7. Appellants contend that plug-in 7 decompresses the video output, but that plug-in 7 is not related to either debugger 10 or debuggee 8. Thus, the plug- in 7 is not a proxy component associated with a debugging component. App. Br. 11. The Examiner’s response finds that each of Brodeur and Kim discloses a first proxy component (i.e. “Model” and “Debugging Framework Layer,” respectively) which receives debugging data transmitted across the network boundary and performs operations on the received data, including caching the data to serve future requests. As such, the Examiner finds it is inherent that the data would be decompressed at the first proxy component because data cannot be operated on in compressed form as is well understood in the art. Ans. 15. The Examiner presents Figure 2 of Brodeur Appeal 2012-005706 Application 11/221,667 5 and Figure 47 of Kim side-by-side with Appellants’ Figure 1 to show that each reference teaches a first proxy component, as claimed. Ans. 16. Shankar is cited as teaching remote compressing of debug data prior to its transmission and local decompression. Appellants contend that Shankar relates to compression of video data, but does not teach compression of debug data. Reply Br. 3. We disagree. The Examiner finds that neither Brodeur or Kim disclose that the debug data is compressed prior to transmission, or as such is decompressed upon receipt at the “Model”/“Debugging Framework Layer” (i.e. first proxy component). However, the Examiner finds that Shankar teaches a system for remotely debugging a target application across a network boundary analogous to the remote debuggers of Brodeur and Kim. Shankar further teaches compressing video data related to the debugging process at the remote end of the system prior to transmission and decompressing the debug data upon receipt at the local end. Ans. 15 (citing Shankar, col. 4, ll. 21–34). To emphasize the Examiner’s point, we find that Shankar teaches that the compressed video data “may include screen displays generated by the debugger application.” Shankar, col. 4, ll. 32–34. We are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting Claim 25. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Claim 25, as well as the rejection of Claims 27–30, 33–40, 42–45, 48, and 49 for the same reasons as they are argued as a group with Claim 1. CLAIMS 32, 41, 46, AND 47 Appeal 2012-005706 Application 11/221,667 6 Appellants argue that Johnson fails to supply the teachings missing from the combination of Brodeur, Kim, and Shankar. App. Br. 14. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of Claims 32, 41, 46, and 47. DECISION The rejection of Claims 25, 27–30, and 32–49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is AFFIRMED. 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). AFFIRMED6 lv 6 Judge Homere concurs in the result only. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation