Ex parte CLAES

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 8, 2000

08118773 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 8, 2000)

Application for patent filed September 10, 1993,1
entitled "Method For Observing The Execution Of A Program
Loaded Into An Information Processing System And Apparatus For
Performing the Method," which is a continuation of Application
07/545,960, filed July 2, 1990, now abandoned, which claims
the foreign filing priority benefit under 35 U.S.C. § 119 of
French Application 89.09158, filed July 7, 1989.
- 1 -
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today (1) was not written for publication in a law
journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
_______________
Paper No. 38
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES

Ex parte GERARD CLAES

Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,7731

HEARD: February 22, 2000

Before THOMAS, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 2 -
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9-17, 20-24, and
26.
We affirm-in-part.
BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention is directed to a method and
apparatus for tracking the execution of a program.
Information relating to the execution of the program is
stored and an external service program can access the stored
information to provide assistance to the user of the
program.
Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method of observation of the execution of a
program loaded into an information processing system of
the type including the following minimal configuration:
a central processing unit, a central memory, one or
more input and/or output peripherals exchanging data
with the central processing unit, an operating system,
optionally one or more application programs, and a
service program external to the application program for
accessing an observation memory particularly in a
reading mode comprising:
- recording instantaneous information units
relating to program being executed and/or the
information processing operation context of said
program at predetermined points of the information
processing system;
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
The Examiner and Appellant refer to this reference by2
the author's first name. To avoid confusion we do the same.
- 3 -
- optionally processing certain of said
information units processed by pre-established analysis
procedures;
- memorizing in a status table (TE) and in
accordance with a pre-established grid, a selection of,
processed and/or unprocessed, information units
corresponding to the observed program being executed;
- authorizing access to the status table (TE),
particularly in the reading mode, for service programs
(SER) external to the observed program being executed,
- retaining all or part of the status tables (TE)
corresponding to observation cycles preceding the
current cycle in memory in accordance with a structure
of previous chronologically arranged status tables
(TANT1-TANTN), and
- beginning with the observed application program,
automatically loading an address table directly
accessible from outside the application program,
including the instantaneous addresses of blocks of
information relating to the execution of the observed
program, in particular an address of a code of a
function being executed and an address of the contents
of an instantaneous context associated with the
function.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Wade 5,067,107 November 19,
1991
(filed November 5, 1988)
Dieter Wybranietz et al. (Dieter ), Monitoring and2
performance measuring distributed systems during
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
It is noted that claim 9 depends from canceled3
claim 8.
- 4 -
operation, 1988 ACM Sigmetrics Conference,
May 24-27, 1988, pp. 197-206.
Claims 1, 2, 10, 16, 23, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Dieter.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9 -17, 20-24, and 26 stand rejected3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Wade and
Dieter.
We refer to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 24) and the
Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 31) (pages referred to as
"EA__") for a statement of the Examiner's position and to
the Appeal Brief (Paper No. 30) (pages referred to as
"Br__") for a statement of Appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
Anticipation
The Examiner provides claim charts for independent
claims 1 and 10. These charts could be more detailed and
responsive to Appellant's arguments. We will supplement the
claim charts with our own findings. It is noted that while
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 5 -
Dieter and the claimed subject matter measure different
things and have different intended users, as argued by
Appellant (Br10-11), this argument is persuasive only to the
extent that the differences are found in the claim language.
Claims 1, 2, and 16
In claim 1, the step of "recording instantaneous
information units relating to [the] program being executed"
is read on recording an "event" and a time stamp of the
event in Dieter. An "event" is defined as "a special
condition that occurs during normal system activity and that
can be made visible to the TMP [test and measurement
processor]" (page 199, left col.) and broadly "relates" to
the program being executed. Thus, we find the recording
limitation to be taught by Dieter.
The step of "recording ... and/or the information
processing operation context" is optional as indicated by
the term "and/or" and need not be addressed.
The step of "optionally processing certain of said
information units processed by pre-established analysis
procedures" is optional and need not be addressed. However,
we agree with the Examiner that this limitation broadly
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 6 -
reads on the steps of reducing incoming information and
filtering done by the local monitoring software (page 198,
left col.)
The Examiner reads the step of "memorizing in a status
table (TE) and in accordance with a pre-established grid, a
selection of, processed and/or unprocessed, information
units corresponding to the observed program being executed"
onto the disclosure in Dieter that "events are categorized,
processed" (page 198, right col.) and "[d]etailed
measurement and monitoring information are evaluated and
stored locally in the compiler information data base"
(page 200, right col.). This is too general and unspecific
to anticipate. However, Dieter discloses that 256 event
classes are stored at 256 addresses in EPU (event processing
unit) memory (page 199, right col.). Each event entry in
EPU memory is 80 bits long and consists of 8 bits
representing the event class, 32 bit data specifying a
single event, 36 bit time stamp, and a 4 bit control field
such as CPU mode or overflow marker (page 199, right col.).
This set of addresses is a "status table" and contains
"information units corresponding to the observed program
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 7 -
being executed," which we have interpreted to be the events.
Thus, we find the status table limitation taught by Dieter.
The Examiner states that the step of "authorizing
access to the status table (TE), particularly in the reading
mode, for service programs (SER) external to the observed
program being executed" is "apparent from page 199 fig.2 and
page 200 fig.3" (EA4). More instructive is the discussion
about the monitoring software (page 200, right col.) which
has access to the stored events. We find this limitation
taught by Dieter.
The Examiner finds the step of "retaining all or part
of the status tables (TE) corresponding to observation
cycles preceding the current cycle in memory in accordance
with a structure of previous chronologically arranged status
tables (TANT1-TANTN)" to be "an apparent process in
collecting and storing information" (EA4). Appellant argues
that this step is not taught by Dieter (Br13-14). The
Examiner responds that Dieter teaches storing information
with time stamps (EA12).
We do not find anything in Dieter than can be
interpreted to anticipate this "retaining" step. A time
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 8 -
stamp does not disclose retaining status tables
corresponding to previous observation cycles. For this
reason, the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, and 16
must be reversed. Nevertheless, we go on to consider the
rest of claim 1.
The Examiner reads the step of "beginning with the
observed application program, automatically loading an
address table directly accessible from outside the
application program, including the instantaneous addresses
of blocks of information relating to the execution of the
observed program, in particular an address of a code of a
function being executed and an address of the contents of an
instantaneous context associated with the function" on
Figure 2, page 199, and on the statement that "[t]he local
monitoring software is loaded together with information
gathered during the compilation of program units . . ."
(page 200, col. 2). Appellant argues that this
interpretation is untenable (Br11).
The sentences following the one relied on by the
Examiner in the paragraph on page 200 of Dieter state:
"This compiler information, as we call it, contains all
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 9 -
necessary semantic, structural and static type information
about the distributed system loaded on the network. . . .
With the aid of these tables of information the monitoring
software is able to interpret the incoming events and
display useful information about distribution units,
connections, process objects, measurement data, etc." It
seems that the "tables of information" in Dieter broadly
correspond to the "blocks of information relating to the
execution of the observed program." Since information in
computers is accessed by its address, we think there must
inherently be an "address table" to access the "tables of
information" in Dieter.
Appellant further argues, however, that "the Examiner
has failed to identify any teaching in Dieter, of a program
observation method which loads an address table with an
address of a code of a function being executed and the
address of the context of the function." This refers to the
last phrase of claim 1 beginning with "in particular
. . . ." The Examiner's response (EA12) does not address
this particular information.
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 10 -
We do not find anything in Dieter that can be
interpreted as "an address of a code of a function being
executed and an address of the contents of an instantaneous
context associated with the function" as recited in claim 1.
For this additional reason, the anticipation rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 16 is reversed.
Claim 10
The Examiner reads the claimed "first pickups means
(32) for picking up instantaneous information, said first
means being operatively associated with the central memory
(12) and input and/or output peripherals (22)" on the
"hardware and software monitor tools" in Dieter (EA5).
Appellant argues (Br14-15) that Dieter does not disclose
pickups as claimed. It is argued that this limitation must
be construed in light of the specification under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, sixth paragraph, and that "[t]he instant
specification states, at page 6 [sic, 8], lines 2-6, . . .
that the pickups 32 are in the form of programs and/or
circuits capable of performing the functions of central
memory reader, keyboard filter, screen memory reader, mouse
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 11 -
reader and buffer memory reader of a printer or modem"
(Br15).
Dieter discusses hardware and software monitor tools in
the discussion of "The Problem" (pages 197-98), but this is
Dieter's description of the prior art. The pickup in the
system described in Dieter includes a hardware component
which attaches to the system bus (page 199, right col.,
"4.2 Structure of the TMP"). The TMP has a comparator which
checks addresses on the system bus for addresses within the
range representing event classes and, if they match, "the
matched address and the next data on the bus are stored with
the timer contents in an event memory" (page 199, right
col.); thus, there is also software associated with the
pickup. We find that the TMP monitor performs the function
of picking up instantaneous information. The structure of
the pickups disclosed in the specification is "programs
and/or circuits" (page 8, line 3). We find that the TMP
monitor in Dieter is equivalent to the disclosed structure
because it contains both circuits (hardware) and programs
(software) for picking up information on the system bus.
Claim 10 does not recite the functions of reading from
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 12 -
central memory, a keyboard filter, etc., as mentioned on
page 8, lines 4-6, of the specification.
The processor under test in Dieter has a central (main)
memory and the TMP monitor is "operatively associated with"
the central memory because it is attached to the system bus
which functions to communicate with memory (Figure 3; note
that the TMP can communicate with main memory, page 200,
left col., last para.). One of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the processor under test in
Dieter is connected to peripherals via the system bus
because peripherals are conventional and necessary in
computer systems to do anything useful, such as to display,
enter, or print data. The TMP monitor is also "operatively
associated with" the peripherals via the system bus.
For these reasons, we find the "first pickups means" is
taught by Dieter.
The Examiner reads (EA5) the "second means . . . for
processing the instantaneous information" on the 68000 CPU
of the TMP shown in Figure 3, page 200. We agree.
Appellant does not challenge this finding. Thus, the
"second means" is taught by Dieter.
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 13 -
The Examiner reads (EA5) the "third means comprising a
monitor circuit (36) and an observation memory (38) . . .
for memorizing the instantaneous information" on the EPU
(event processing unit) (which stores the 256 event classes
described at page 199, right column) and the local memory.
We agree. Appellant does not challenge this finding. Thus,
the "third means" is taught by Dieter.
The Examiner reads (EA5-6) the "fourth means" on page
197, right column to page 198, left column, and the
following statement (page 200, left column): "For test and
debug purposes the test software running of DTM phase 1-3 on
the TMP can access any data in the memory of the main
processor to read and modify variables of the tested
system."
Appellant argues that, when claim 10 is properly
construed under § 112, sixth paragraph, "Dieter does not
disclose the fourth means (40) which includes a monitoring
module in the observation memory (38) connected to the third
means for reading the stored information which is accessible
from outside the observed program, as clearly required by
Claim 10" (Br15). Appellant does not identify what
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 14 -
structure in the specification corresponds to the fourth
means.
The EPU is part of the TMP, which is external to (i.e.,
outside) the measured and monitored system (Figures 2 and
3). The events stored in the EPU (the "memorized
information") are "accessible from outside the application
program" by the event processing software on the TMP. The
program in the local memory of the TMP for reading the
events stored in the EPU is a "fourth means (40) constituted
by a monitoring module in said observation memory (38)."
The program in the TMP is equivalent to the "structure"
disclosed in Appellant's specification, which is also a
program. The TMP program must communicate bidirectionally
with a "service program" which we read on the monitoring
program at the central station (e.g., page 201). Because
the program in the TMP can read and modify variables in the
memory of the main processor being tested (page 200, left
col., last para.), we find that the program in the TMP
communicates "bidirectionally" with the operating system as
well as the application program. Thus, the "fourth means"
is taught by Dieter.
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 15 -
Because we find all the limitations taught by Dieter,
the anticipation rejection of claim 10 is sustained.
Claim 23
Claim 23 contains the same "retaining" step as claim 1,
which we found is not taught by Dieter. Therefore, the
anticipation rejection of claim 23 is reversed.
Appellant also argues that "the Examiner has failed to
identify in Dieter. [sic] and Dieter does not disclose, the
execution speed information, transfer speed information, and
synchronicity analysis or combination thereof, as required
by Claim 23" (Br16-17). The Examiner finds the limitation
taught by the following statement in Dieter (page 200, right
col., last para.): "monitoring software counts and stores
summaries about individual events in the local database:
number of messages sent and received, elapsed and blocked
times, idle time, procedure running times. etc."
We do not find that the information referred to by the
Examiner is stored in a field of what we find to be the
status table. Nor does the information referred to by the
Examiner appear to be the same as what is claimed.
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 16 -
Therefore, we find that Dieter does not anticipate claim 23.
The rejection of claim 23 is reversed.
Claim 26
Claim 26 is similar to claim 10 except that it omits
the limitation about "means for communicating
bidirectionally with the operating system (OS) and the
service program" and adds a "writing means." We have
addressed the limitations of claim 26 in the discussion of
claim 10 except for the "writing means."
Appellant argues that "the Examiner has not identified
any identical teaching in Dieter of the writing means of
Claim 26, which enables the monitoring module to send
information directly to the application programs, or the
feature of collected [sic] information on the observed
application program for use by a service program" (Br17).
The Examiner points to (EA5-6) the following statement
(page 200, left column): "For test and debug purposes the
test software running of DTM phase 1-3 on the TMP can access
any data in the memory of the main processor to read and
modify variables of the tested system."
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 17 -
We agree with the Examiner that modifying variables in
the memory of the main processor constitutes sending
information directly to the application programs running on
the system to be tested because the application programs are
stored in and run from the memory.
As to the limitation that "information is collected on
the application program which is observed for use by a
service program," the whole point of Dieter is to collect
information about the system under test.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claim 26.
Obviousness
Wade discloses a performance and measurement system for
a computing system. Performance data produced by the
operating system of the computing system is collected and
reduced before being logged. This reduces the data volume.
Once the data is logged, the data may be transported to a
workstation and accessed by a user.
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, and 13-17
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 18 -
The Examiner finds that Wade disclose everything in
claim 1 except for loading an address table and that this
feature is taught by Dieter (EA7-8).
Appellant argues (Br18-19) that Dieter does not
disclose the claimed step of loading "an address of a code
of a function being executed and an address of the contents
of an instantaneous context associated with the function."
We agree with Appellant that Dieter does not teach this
step for the reasons stated in the analysis of the
anticipation rejection of claim 1.
Appellant further argues that neither Wade nor Dieter
discloses retaining a structure of previously arranged
status tables (Br21).
We agree with Appellant that Dieter does not teach this
step for the reasons stated in the analysis of the
anticipation rejection of claim 1. We further agree that
Wade does not teach this limitation. The Examiner does not
explain how the specific claim limitations are met by Wade.
For these two reasons, the rejection of claims 1, 2,
4-7, 9, and 13-17 is reversed.
Claims 10-12
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 19 -
We have sustained the rejection of claim 10 over
Dieter. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 10
over the combination of Wade and Dieter. In our opinion,
Wade adds nothing to the teachings of Dieter and is less
useful than Dieter. The obviousness rejection of claim 10
is sustained. Claims 11 and 12 are not separately argued
and, therefore, fall with claim 10. The rejection of claims
11 and 12 is sustained.
Claims 20-24 and 26
Claims 20-24 and 26 are stated to stand or fall
together as a group with claims 10-17. Since the scopes of
the claims differ, we cannot accept this grouping. As noted
above, the rejection of claims 10-12 is sustained while the
rejection of claims 13-17 is reversed.
We have sustained the rejection of claim 26 over
Dieter. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 26
over the combination of Wade and Dieter.
We have reversed the rejection of claim 23 over Dieter.
Wade does not make up for the deficiency in Dieter as to
claim 23. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 23
over the combination of Wade and Dieter.
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 20 -
Claims 20-22 and 24 all contain the limitation of
"retaining . . . chronologically arranged status tables,"
which limitation we found is not taught by Dieter as
discussed in connection with claim 1. Wade does not make up
for this deficiency in Dieter. Therefore, we reverse the
rejection of claims 20-22 and 24.
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 21 -
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 10 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) is sustained and the rejection of claims 1, 2, 16,
and 23 under § 102(a) is reversed.
The rejection of claims 10-12 and 26 under § 103 is
sustained and the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 9, 13-17,
and 20-24 under § 103 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF
PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 22 -
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1996-3076
Application 08/118,773
- 23 -
KERKAM, STOWELL, KONDRACKI & CLARKE
Two Skyline Plaza
5203 Leesburg Pike
Suite 600
Falls Church, VA 22041