Ex Parte Castellanos et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2011

10865464 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MARIA GUADALUPE CASTELLANOS, FABIO CASATI, and
MING-CHIEN SHAN
____________________

Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2,
4-15, 17-22, and 24-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Claims 3, 16, and 23 have
been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to prediction of
generic, user-defined metrics at different points during a process (Spec. 3, ¶
[0009]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A processor-based method for analyzing a process,
comprising:

obtaining a process execution trace including at least one
subtrace, the process execution trace comprising at least one
loop repetition;

removing loop repetitions within the process execution
trace;

identifying the subtrace as a point for data collection in a
process;

collecting data related to the subtrace;

combining the process execution trace with other process
execution traces.

2
Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Afifi US 6,029,002 Feb. 22, 2000
Bumbulis US 2003/0204513 A1 Oct. 30, 2003
Chilimbi US 7,140,008 B2 Nov. 21, 2006
(filed on Nov. 25, 2002)
Wang US 7,228,528 B2 Jun. 05, 2007
(filed on Jun. 26, 2003)

Claims 1, 4, 5, 10-14, 18-21, and 25-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Chilimbi.
Claims 2, 15, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chilimbi in view of Afifi.
Claims 6, 7, 17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Chilimbi in view of Wang.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chilimbi in view of Wang and Afifi.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Chilimbi in view of Bumbulis.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that Chilimbi describes “removing
loop repetitions within the process execution trace” (claim 1)?

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence:
3
Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464

Appellants’ Specification
1. According to Appellants’ Specification, stages may be derived from
traces by pruning repetitions of consecutive nodes (i.e., loops) and
replacing them by a representative node or set of nodes (pp. 5-6,
¶ [0014]).
Chilimbi
2. Chilimbi discloses that it is well-known to apply the Arnold-Ryder
framework by placing checks at procedure entries and loop
back-edges that decrement a counter “nCheck,” wherein when the
nCheck counter reaches zero, a single intraprocedural acyclic path of
the instrumented code is executed (col. 3, ll. 6-12).
3. Because the Arnold-Ryder framework ends burst profiling at loop
back-edges (col. 3, ll. 27-29), Chilimbi discloses intelligently
eliminating checks from procedure entries and loop back-edges (col.
4, ll. 9-10).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 4, 5, 10-14, 18-21, and 25-28
Appellants argue that “Chilimbi does not disclose removing loop
repetitions, a loop removal module, or means for removing loop repetitions”
(App. Br. 9). In particular, Appellants argue that the Instrumentation tool
122 of Chilimbi “eliminates checks at loop back edges” and “does not
remove loop repetitions nor is it a loop removal module or a means for
removing loop repetitions” (id.). According to Appellants, “[c]hecks are not
loop repetitions” (id.).
4
Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464

The Examiner finds that in Chilimbi, “‘checks’ are being used to
describe how to loop back” and that “Chilimbi discloses ‘… the intelligent
check elimination eliminates (remove) checks at loop back-edges of tight
inner loops, and at ‘k-boring loops’” (Ans. 14). According to the Examiner,
“those loop back checks, which are loop recursions or repetitions, are
eliminated and/or removed” in Chilimibi (id.).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with the Appellants
that the portions of Chilimbi cited by the Examiner fail to disclose such
removal of “loop repetitions” as required by claim 1.
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). According to Appellants’ Specification, a “loop” is a repetition of
consecutive nodes (FF 1). Appellants describe the “same executed nodes” as
equivalent to the “same portion of execution.” (Spec. 5, para. [0013]). Thus,
we give the claim term “loop repetitions” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as a repetition of any consecutive portions of execution.
Chilimbi discloses that it is well-known to apply the Arnold-Ryder
framework by placing checks at procedure entries and back-edges of a loop
(FF 2). Chilimbi then discloses intelligently eliminating checks from
procedure entries and back-edges of the loop (FF 3). Thus, we find that
these portions of Chilimbi disclose eliminating the checks from certain
locations in the loop but do not eliminate the loops themselves. That is, in
view of our claim interpretation above, we agree with Appellants that
“[c]hecks are not loop repetitions” (App. Br. 9). Thus, though we agree with
the Examiner that checks are repeated, in view of our claim interpretation
above, we find that eliminating or removing Chilimbi’s checks at procedure
5
Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464

entry points and loop back-edges is not equivalent to eliminating or
removing “loop repetitions” as required by the commensurate language of
each independent claim before us on appeal. (claims 1, 14, 21, and 28).
Accordingly, we do not find any description of removal of loop
repetitions in the portions of Chilimibi cited by the Examiner. As such, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in finding that the portions
cited by the Examiner disclose the disputed limitation. Therefore, we
reverse the anticipation rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 4, 5,
10-14, 18-21, and 25-28 standing therewith.
Claims 2, 6-9, 15, 17, 22, and 24
We find that Afifi, Wang and Bumbulis do not cure the deficiencies of
Chilimbi. As such, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in
finding that the portions cited by the Examiner teach or suggest the claimed
limitations. Accordingly, we also reverse a) the rejection of claims 2, 15,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chilimbi in view of Afifi, b) the
rejection of claims 6, 7, 17, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chilimbi
in view of Wang, c) the rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Chilimbi in view of Wang and Afifi, and d) the rejection of claim 9 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Chilimbi in view of Bumbulis.

6
Appeal 2009-007588
Application 10/865,464

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 4,
5, 10-14, 18-21, and 25-28 anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and claims
2, 6-9, 15, 17, 22, and 24 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Therefore,
the Examiner’s decision rejecting all claims is reversed.

REVERSED

peb

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528

7