Ex Parte Camber et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 24, 2012

10210450 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2012)

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.
10/210,450 07/31/2002 August A. Camber ITL.0750US (P14323) 7670
21906 7590 01/24/2012
TROP, PRUNER & HU, P.C.
1616 S. VOSS ROAD, SUITE 750
HOUSTON, TX 77057-2631
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/24/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte AUGUST A. CAMBER and SHAWN C. SACKMAN
____________
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before GREGORY J. GONSALVES, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 21-23, and 25-29. Claims
10, 18, 20, and 24 have been cancelled. App. Br. 5.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2008).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method, machine-readable medium, and
apparatus for dynamically creating and storing statically compiled native
code from platform independent bytecodes, such as those found in Java
multi-media applications. According to Appellants, the claimed invention
receives a compressed multi-media application, decompresses the multi-
media application into bytecode, compiles the bytecode into optimized
native code, and saves the optimized native code for future invocation.
Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising:

receiving compressed bytecode;

decompressing the received compressed bytecode; and

compiling the decompressed bytecode into native code
using dynamically linked optimized native code at the
application level, and storing in nonvolatile memory the native
code.

1 All references to the Appeal Brief are to the Appeal Brief entered January
16, 2007, which replaced the Appeal Brief entered November 13, 2006.
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

3
Prior Art Relied Upon
Wanchoo US 2004/0015960 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
(filed Mar. 16, 2001)

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 21-23, and 25-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wanchoo. Ans. 3-8.
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants contend that Wanchoo’s dedicated memory space or play
area, where portable code resides until removed by a user upon action of an
application manager, does not teach or suggest, “compiling the
decompressed bytecode into native code using dynamically linked optimized
native code at the application level,” as recited in independent claim 1.
Further, Appellants argue that Wanchoo’s disclosure of managing installed
programs does not teach or suggest using the claimed “dynamically linked
optimized native code.” Appellants allege that art-recognized equivalence
between Wanchoo and the claimed invention has not been established
because Wanchoo fails to disclose that the application manager can perform
compilation. App. Br. 10.
In response to the Answer, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
position with respect to the claimed “native code” is both improper and
unsupportable because the Examiner’s claim construction is not consistent
with a reasonable definition of “native code.” In particular, Appellants
reference the Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, to
describe “native code” as code specific to a particular machine or processor.
Additionally, Appellants reiterate that Wanchoo only pertains to application
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

4
software, whereas the claimed invention is directed to compiling
decompressed byte code into native code. Reply Br. 1.
The Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Wanchoo’s application byte code loaded into
designated memory teaches or suggests the claimed “native code” because
such code does not require pointers, and does not need to be installed after
the device is turned off. Further, the Examiner finds that Wanchoo’s
disclosure of a user/manager selecting a program to install or delete in or
from memory space, respectively, teaches or suggests the claimed
“optimized … code.” Moreover, the Examiner finds that Wanchoo’s
application code is obviously “dynamically linked” because the java archive
(“JAR”) file that contains the application code may remain idle until the user
decides to install it or some other code calls the application. Ans. 8.

II. ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in concluding that Wanchoo renders
independent claim 1 unpatentable? In particular, the issue turns on whether
the Wanchoo teaches or suggests “compiling the decompressed bytecode
into native code using dynamically linked optimized native code at the
application level,” as recited in independent claim 1.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT (“FF”)
Wanchoo
FF 1. Wanchoo discloses a growing number of small, resource-
limited computing devices available in the marketplace, such as cellular
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

5
communication devices, personal digital assistants, palm-top computers, and
so on. ¶ [0002].
FF 2. Wanchoo’s figure 2 illustrates a memory diagram (200) of a
data structure organization. ¶ [0009].
FF 3. Wanchoo’s figure 3 illustrates a method of loading and
executing an application in an embedded system. ¶ [0011]. In particular,
Wanchoo discloses that the process of downloading an archive file may
comprise authenticating the file for security purposes. That is, if the archive
file is a JAR file, Wanchoo discloses typically performing authentication.
¶ [0012].
FF 4. According to Wanchoo, the use of non-volatile storage media
along with the use of physical addresses eliminates the need to maintain
pointers in the conventional fashion because the byte code is never moved
once installed in the non-volatile memory. Moreover, Wanchoo discloses
that installing an application in non-volatile memory allows the instantiation
of the application to persist after the device is turned off. ¶ [0013].
FF 5. Wanchoo discloses that a user can use a portable
communication device to browse the Internet to find a suitable application,
and begin downloading a JAR file. In particular, Wanchoo discloses that the
JAR file typically contains a compressed byte code version of the
application and an authentication file. When the user decides to install the
application on the portable communication device, Wanchoo discloses
decompressing the compressed version of the application to obtain
application byte code. Prior to writing the byte code into a play area (i.e.,
memory space where applications such as java applets and other portable
code are installed), Wanchoo discloses that the portable communication
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

6
device determines the physical addresses used by the application once it is
installed in the play area, and writes the application byte code with the
corresponding physical addresses into the play area. ¶ [0015].

IV. ANALYSIS
Claim 1
We do not find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “compiling the
decompressed bytecode into native code using dynamically linked optimized
native code at the application level.”
At the outset, we accept Appellants’ claim construction with respect
to the disputed claim term “native code.” See Reply Br. 1. That is, after
reviewing Appellants’ Specification for context, we fail to find an explicit
definition for “native code,” and, therefore, resort to its ordinary and
customary meaning. See Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) (en banc) (stating that claim terms are “generally given their
ordinary and customary meaning”). Since the claim term “native code” is a
commonly understood word in the art of computer processing, we therefore
rely on a computer dictionary in ascertaining its meaning. See Agfa Corp. v.
Creo Products, Inc., 451 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (noting that
dictionaries may be helpful when claim construction involves “little more
than the application of widely accepted meaning of commonly understood
words”). Referring to such a dictionary, the claim term “native code” can
be defined as “code specific to a particular machine or processor.”2

2 Microsoft Press Computer Dictionary, Third Edition, Microsoft Press,
1997, p. 324.
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

7
In light of our claim construction supra, we agree with the Examiner
that Wanchoo’s disclosure of application byte code loaded into designated
memory teaches or suggests the claimed “native code.” Ans. 8. Put another
way, we find that Wanchoo’s application byte code and corresponding
physical addresses stored in the play area memory space of a portable
communication device (FF 5) amounts to code that is specific to the portable
communication device. Further, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood that Wanchoo’s disclosure of decompressing the
application byte code, in conjunction with determining the physical
addresses used by the application once installed in the play area memory
space (id), teaches or suggests transforming or compiling the decompressed
byte code into code specific to the portable communication device by
dynamically linking the physical addresses invoked by the installed
application. Thus, we find that Wanchoo teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding
that Wanchoo renders independent claim 1 unpatentable.
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 23, 25, and 26
Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to independent claim 23, and dependent claims 2-
5, 7-9, 25, and 26. See App. Br. 10-11. Therefore, we select independent
claim 1 as representative of these aforementioned claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Consequently, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
independent claim 23, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 25, and 26, for the
same reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 1.
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

8
Claim 6
Appellants contend that Wanchoo’s disclosure of authenticating code
does not teach or suggest “not compiling the decompressed bytecode if the
security code is not verified,” as recited dependent claim 6. In particular,
Appellants argue that Wanchoo only teaches or suggests performing
authentication without notifying a user if the authentication should fail.
App. Br. 11. We do not agree with Appellants.
We agree with the Examiner that Wanchoo’s JAR file not only
contains a compressed byte code version of an application, but also contains
an authentication file. Ans. 9; FF 4. Moreover, we find that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would have understood that Wanchoo’s disclosure of
authenticating the JAR file for security purposes (FF 3) necessarily
encompasses using the authenticate file to determine if a prospective user is
authorized to compile the compressed application byte code. Consequently,
we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have readily appreciated not
compiling the decompressed application bytecode if the corresponding
authentication file does not verify that the user is authorized to install the
application. Thus, we find that Wanchoo teaches or suggests the disputed
claim limitation. It follows that the Examiner has not erred in concluding
that Wanchoo renders dependent claim 6 unpatentable.
Claim 11
Appellants offer the same argument set forth in response to the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of independent claim 11. See App. Br. 12. We have already
addressed this argument in our discussion of independent claim 1, and we
found it unpersuasive. Further, Appellants contend that Wanchoo’s
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

9
disclosure of managed non-volatile memory does not teach or suggest a
“library,” as recited in independent claim 11. In particular, Appellants argue
that while the claimed “library” may be stored in non-volatile memory,
Wanchoo fails to teach or suggest “using decompressed bytecode to
dynamically link optimized native code in the library into native code,” as
claimed. Instead, Appellants allege that Wanchoo’s disclosure only teaches
or suggests installing the Java code by parsing it prior to installing it into a
play area memory space. App. Br. 12. We do not agree with Appellants.
We agree with the Examiner that Wanchoo’s disclosure of managed
memory in an organized storage system amounts to the claimed “library.”
Ans. 6 and 10; FF 2. Therefore, similar to our analysis with respect to
independent claim 1, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood that Wanchoo’s disclosure of decompressing the application byte
code, in conjunction with determining the physical addresses used by the
application once installed in the play area memory space (FF 5), teaches or
suggests using the decompressed byte code to dynamically link the physical
addresses in the managed memory of the organized storage system into code
specific to the portable communication device. Thus we find that Wanchoo
teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. It follows that the
Examiner has not erred in concluding that the Wanchoo renders independent
claim 11 unpatentable.
Claims 12-15 and 17
Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claims 12-15 and 17. See App. Br.
12. Therefore, we select independent claim 11 as representative of these
aforementioned claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Consequently, the
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

10
Examiner has not erred in rejecting dependent claims 12-15 and 17 for the
same reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 11.
Claim 16
Appellants offer the same argument set forth in response to the
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 6 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of dependent claim 16. See App. Br. 13. We have already
addressed this argument in our discussion of dependent claim 6, and we
found it unpersuasive. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in concluding
that Wanchoo renders dependent claim 16 unpatentable.
Claim 19
Appellants offer the same argument set forth in response to the
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of independent claim 19. See App. Br. 14. We have already
addressed this argument in our discussion of independent claim 1, and we
found it unpersuasive. Further, Appellants contend that while Wanchoo
discloses a computing device that may be a cellular communication device,
personal digital assistant, and so forth, Wanchoo fails to explicitly teach or
suggest the presence of “a dipole antenna,” as recited in independent claim
19. App. Br. 14. We do not agree with Appellants.
Upon reviewing Appellants’ Specification for context, the Examiner
finds that the claimed “dipole antenna” performs the sole function of
receiving bytecode. Ans. 10; see also Spec. 4:23-5:4. Moreover, we agree
with the Examiner that Wanchoo’s disclosure is directed to invoking and
executing applications in cellular communication devices, personal digital
assistants, palm-top computers, and so on. Ans. 6-7 and 10; FFs 1 and 5. In
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

11
particular, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood
that Wanchoo’s cellular or portable communication device includes an
antenna that receives data (e.g., bytecode). Consequently, we find that the
antenna on Wanchoo’s cellular or portable communication device is
tantamount to an equivalent structure that performs the same function of
receiving data bytecode as the claimed “dipole antenna.”
Alternatively, we find that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized that replacing the antenna on Wanchoo’s cellular or portable
communication device with a dipole antenna involves only the simple
substitution of one known antenna for another. A prima facie conclusion of
obviousness may be supported by a showing that the claims are directed to a
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter already known in
the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for
another known in the field, and such modification yields a predictable result.
See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007) (citing United
States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)). Based on the record before us,
Appellants do not provide any evidence or sufficient technical reasoning that
would have suggested why an ordinarily skilled artisan would not consider a
dipole antenna as an obvious substitute for the antenna on Wanchoo’s
cellular or portable communication device, especially given that Appellants’
Specification indicates that the dipole antenna performs no other function
other than to receive bytecode. Accordingly, we determine the weight of the
evidence supports the Examiner’s position that the antenna on Wanchoo’s
cellular or portable communication device teaches or suggests the claimed
“dipole antenna.” Ans. 6-7 and 10. It follows that that the Examiner has not
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

12
erred in concluding that Wanchoo renders independent claim 19
unpatentable.
Claims 21 and 22
Appellants do not provide separate and distinct arguments for
patentability with respect to dependent claims 21 and 22. See App. Br. 14.
Therefore, we select independent claim 19 as representative of these
aforementioned claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Consequently, the
Examiner has not erred in rejecting dependent claims 21 and 22 for the same
reasons set forth in our discussion of independent claim 19.
Claim 27
Appellants contend that Wanchoo’s disclosure of selecting an
application to delete does not teach or suggest “optimizing native code,” as
recited in dependent claim 27. That is, Appellants argue that Wanchoo fails
to disclose a teaching or suggestion that would motivate an ordinarily skilled
artisan to modify Wanchoo to optimize the native code. Instead, Appellants
argue that Wanchoo merely teaches or suggests an embedded system that
may receive bytecodes, decompress and parse the same, and store the results
in non-volatile memory. App. Br. 12. We do not agree with Appellants.
We agree with the Examiner that Wanchoo’s disclosure of installing
an application in non-volatile memory results in eliminating the need to
maintain pointers and re-install the application when the device is turned off.
Ans. 7 and 9-10; FF 4. Consequently, we find that an ordinarily skilled
artisan would have recognizing that such benefits amount to optimizing the
application byte code loaded into designated memory, otherwise known as
code specific to the portable communication device. Thus, we find that
Wanchoo teaches or suggests the disputed claim limitation. It follows that
Appeal 2009-013811
Application 10/210,450

13
the Examiner has not erred in concluding that Wanchoo renders dependent
claim 27 unpatentable.
Claims 28 and 29
Appellants offer the same argument set forth in response to the
obviousness rejection of dependent claim 27 to rebut the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 28 and 29. See App. Br. 13 and 14. We have
already addressed this argument in our discussion of dependent claim 27,
and we found it unpersuasive. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in
concluding that Wanchoo renders dependent claims 28 and 29 unpatentable.

V. CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 21-23,
and 25-29 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

VI. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-9, 11-17, 19, 21-
23, and 25-29.
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

msc