Ex Parte Dageville et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 25, 2007

09969334 (B.P.A.I. May. 25, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BENOIT DAGEVILLE and MOHAMED ZAIT
____________

Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: May 25, 2007
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
MAHSHID D. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal involves claims 23 and 31. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. §§ 6(b), 134(a).
Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334

INTRODUCTION
The claims are directed to management of electronic memory for
computer data processing.
23. A computer-readable storage medium comprising:
a first storage location encoded with an estimate of size of data to be
input;
a second storage location encoded with current size of a portion of
data input so far;
a third storage location encoded with an instruction to increase the
estimate when the current size has a predetermined relation to the estimate;
and
a plurality of additional storage locations encoded with a
corresponding plurality of instructions to be applied to the portion of data.
31. A computer comprising:
a database containing data;
means for applying an operator, to partially process a portion of data
from the database, using a first amount of memory; and
means for applying the operator, to process an additional portion of
data which remains to be processed, using a second amount of memory.

The Examiner relies on the following prior art reference to show
unpatentability:
Trainin US 6,757,802 B2 Jun. 29, 2004

2
Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334

The rejection as presented by the Examiner is as follows:

1. Claims 23 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Trainin.

Claims 1-22 and 39-45 have been allowed. Claims 24-26, 28-30, and
32-38 have been indicated as allowable if rewritten in independent form.
Claim 27 has been canceled.

OPINION
Anticipation requires the presence in a single prior art reference
disclosure of each and every element of the claimed invention, arranged as
in the claim. Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist &
Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Instant claim 23 requires, inter alia, a first storage location encoded
with an estimate of size of data to be input, a second storage location
encoded with current size of a portion of data input so far, and a third
storage location encoded with an instruction to increase the estimate when
the current size has a predetermined relation to the estimate. The statement
of the rejection (Answer 3) contends that the first, second, and third storage
locations are described by Trainin at column 2, lines 21 through 23.
Trainin describes a prior art memory allocation (Fig. 2).
In order to address the issue of the growth of memory
needs for additional tasks over time, for both the data and stack
portions, the prior art system 200 illustrated in FIG. 2 has been
used. FIG. 2 illustrates memory allocation for both data and
stack growth. A task may have several different portions to it.
The first is the actual program 220, or the code that is executed
3
Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334

by task A, which is usually of a fixed size. Both the data
portion 230 and the stack portion 250 are likely to change
memory sizes over the duration of the execution of their
respective program 220. Therefore, in this method, certain
additional memory space is allocated so that stack portion 250
and data portion 230 can grow into it. For efficiency purposes
it would be advisable to have them grow into the same growth
area 240, as shown in FIG. 2.

Trainin col. 2, ll. 21-34.
Trainin thus describes memory allocation for a program 220, usually
of a fixed size. The memory allocation may include a data portion and a
stack portion, which are allowed to grow in size as needed, taking up a
portion of growth area 240 (Fig. 2).
Trainin depicts several storage locations in Figure 2. However, the
rejection does not specify which of the locations are deemed to correspond,
respectively, to the first, second, and third storage locations that are claimed.
We have a problem, as do Appellants, in understanding how the reference is
believed to anticipate the subject matter of claim 23. Nor is it apparent how
all the requirements of the first, second, and third storage locations may be
met by Trainin’s description of the prior art memory allocation.
We conclude that the Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case for anticipation of claim 23. We cannot sustain the rejection of the
claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Trainin.
Instant claim 31 is also rejected for anticipation over Trainin, with
reliance on the above-quoted section that addresses prior art memory
allocation.
Appellants argue in response that Trainin makes no mention of a
database in the text. According to Appellants, the term “database” is well
4
Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334

understood in the art. Appellants proffer a definition, in view of provided
evidence, that “[d]atabases are computerized information storage and
retrieval systems.” (Br. 10.)
By Appellants’ definition, we find that Trainin describes a database
containing data, as required by claim 31. Code that is executed by task A
(program 220; Fig. 2) writes and retrieves data from the data portion and the
stack portion of the memory. Trainin thus discloses a computerized
information storage and retrieval system. With respect to Appellants’
further argument (Br. 10) that claim 31 recites both a “database” and
“memory,” we do not see where the claim requires that the database and the
memories be mutually exclusive. Even if read as mutually exclusive, the
“database” as claimed could be in a third “amount” of memory, distinct from
the first and second “amounts” of memories that are recited.
Appellants also suggest that claim 31 distinguishes over the reference
because the term “operator” should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
sixth paragraph, and is thereby limited to “databases.” (Br. 12; Reply Br. 9.)
The argument is unconvincing because, first, Appellants have not shown that
Trainin fails to disclose a database. Second, claim 31 does not recite an
“operator” in means plus function terms, but recites “means for applying” an
operator. The “means for applying an operator” is, according to Appellants,
a computer that contains appropriate code and data to achieve “database
functionality.” (Br. 3; Specification 27: 5-8.)
Trainin describes code and data that achieve “database functionality,”
to the extent claimed. The claim 31 required functions are to “partially
process a portion of data from the database, using a first amount of memory”
and “to process an additional portion of data which remains to be processed,
5
Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334

using a second amount of memory.” The language of claim 31 fails to
distinguish over, for example, the computer that uses an operator (code 220;
Trainin Fig. 2) to process an amount (less than the total amount) of data that
resides in a first part of data memory 230, and then process additional data
that resides in a second part of data memory 230.
We are thus not persuaded that the Examiner’s finding of anticipation
is in error with respect to claim 31. We sustain the rejection of claim 31
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) over Trainin.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 23 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Trainin is: (1) reversed for claim 23; and (2) affirmed for
claim 31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
6
Appeal 2007-1048
Application 09/969,334

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

eld

SILICON VALLEY PATENT GROUP LLP
2350 MISSION COLLEGE BLVD.
SUITE 360
SANTA CLARA CA 95054
7