Ex Parte CUI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 18, 2016

13545649 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 18, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/545,649 07/10/2012 SHIMINCUI
52023 7590 11/22/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, FL 33498
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.
CA920 l 10046US 1
8152-0193
CONFIRMATION NO.
1038
EXAMINER
WU, TIJNCHUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/22/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHIMIN CUI and RAUL E. SIL VERA
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649 1
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649
INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed inventions relate to managing
aliasing constraints. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented process for managing aliasing
constraints, the computer-implemented process comprising:
identifying an object to form an identified object;
identifying a scope of the identified object to form an
identified scope;
assigning a unique value to the identified object within the
identified scope;
demarcating an entrance to the identified scope;
demarcating an exit to the identified scope;
optimizing the identified object using a property of the
identified scope and associated aliasing information;
tracking the identified object state to form tracked state
information; and
using the tracked state information to update the identified
object.
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14, 15, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Robison (US
2003/0074655 Al; published Apr. 17, 2003) and Bustelo et al. (US
2006/0080639 Al; published Apr. 13, 2006) ("Bustelo").
Claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Robison, Bustelo, and Lee
et al. (US 8,181,168 Bl; issued May 15, 2012) ("Lee").
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 8-14 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
2
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649
Claim 6, 13, and 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Robison, Bustelo, and Stoodley et al.
(US 2009/0235240 Al; published Sept. 17, 2009) ("Stoodley").
ANALYSIS
We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them
persuasive of error. We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's
findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action
from which this appeal was taken, to the extent consistent with our analysis
below. We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner found that Robison teaches or
suggests all of the recited limitations, except "tracking the identified object
state to form tracked state information; and using the tracked state
information to update the identified object," for which the Examiner relied
on Bustelo. Final Act. 3-5 (citing Robison i-fi-131, 35, 36, 63; Bustelo
,-r,-r 34, 35).
Appellants contend the cited portions of Robison do not disclose the
limitation "identifying an object to form an identified object," recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue that "[a]n object is a location in
memory having a value and referenced by an identifier" and differs from
object code. Id.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found that Robison's program unit teaches or suggests the recited
"object to form an identified object," where the "identified object" is the
executable version of the program unit. Final Act. 3 (citing Robison i131 );
Ans. 10. The Examiner further found that Robison illustrates in Figure 2
that "program unit 202 includes a program, module, subroutine, or function
3
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649
considered as an object, because Robison's disclosure describes object-
oriented programming (i.e. C++ or Java)." Ans. 10 (citing Robison i-f 31).
Appellants present no persuasive explanation or evidence in the Reply Brief
to rebut the Examiner's findings. See Reply Br. 2-3. Nor do Appellants
provide persuasive support for their proposed interpretation of "object." See
App. Br. 14. Moreover, Appellants acknowledge that, in the context of
object-oriented programming, such as that disclosed in Robison, "a program,
module, subroutine or function of a given program could be considered an
object." Id.
Appellants next contend the Examiner erred in finding that Robison
teaches the limitation "identifying a scope of the identified object to form an
identified scope," recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue
Robison fails to teach that the scope of a particular identified object is
identified. Id. at 15.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the Examiner erred. The
Examiner found that Robison teaches that "scope" is the portion of the
program to which a declaration applies. Final Act. 3; Ans. 10-11. In
particular, the Examiner found that Robison teaches "outer scope beginning
with open brace on line 410 and ending with closed brace on line 494 as an
identified a scope of the identified object (i.e. executing program 400)."
Ans. 11 (citing Robison Fig. 4, i-f 35). Thus, the Examiner made a specific
finding that Robison teaches the scope of the identified object, contrary to
Appellants' assertions. Moreover, Appellants present no persuasive
explanation or evidence to rebut the Examiner's findings. See Reply
Br. 3--4.
4
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649
Appellants next contend the Examiner erred in finding that Robison
teaches the limitation "assigning a unique value to the identified object
within the identified scope," recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16-17. Appellants
argue that "float b=a-k," taught in Robison, is not a "value," and, even if it
were, there is no evidence that "float b=a-k" is a "unique value," as claim 1
requires. Id. at 17.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error. The
Examiner found Robison teaches that float* restrict b=a-k in Figure 4 of
Robison contains a unique value to restricted pointer b within the identified
scope beginning with the open brace on line 420 and ending with the closed
brace on line 445. Ans. 11-12. The Examiner further find that
float* restrict b=a-k is a declaration in C programming that means the value
pointed to by restrict pointer b will be a float, and that the value a-k is
unique value within the identified scope. Id. at 12. Appellants present no
persuasive explanation or evidence in the Reply Brief to rebut the
Examiner's findings. See Reply Br. 4. Appellants argue that the Examiner
relies on "unique line 420," which is merely a line number within program
code, but Appellants have misstated the Examiner's explanation in the
Answer. See id. The Examiner stated that "float* restrict b=a-k is a unique
value to restricted pointer b with the scope of identified scope beginning
with the open brace on line 420 and ending with the closed brace on line
445." Ans. 11-12. Thus, the Examiner does not rely on a program code line
number as the recited "unique value," as Appellants contend.
Appellants next contend the Examiner erred in finding that Robison
teaches the limitation "optimizing the identified object using a property of
the identified scope and associated aliasing information," recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649
App. Br. 17. Appellants argue the Examiner relies on what Robison
considers to be prior art and not what is described in the Detailed
Description of Robison. Id. at 17. Appellants further argue the Examiner
failed to specifically identify what portion of Robison teaches the limitations
"a property of the identified scope" and "associated aliasing information,"
recited in claim 1.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive. The Examiner found that, in
the Detailed Description of the Invention section, Robison teaches "restrict"
pointers within the identified scope as properties of the identified scope. Id.
at 13 (citing Robison i-fi-162, 63). The Examiner also found that Robison
teaches alias analysis. Id. Appellants do not address the Examiner's
findings in the Reply Brief, and present no persuasive explanation or
evidence to rebut them.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding that Robison teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 8 and 15, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 13. We also affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, for which Appellants
offer no additional arguments. See id. at 18, 19.
6
Appeal2015-005405
Application 13/545,649
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7