Ex parte DEVANBU

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 9, 1998

07781564 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 9, 1998)

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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_______________
Ex parte PREMKUMAR DEVANBU
_______________
Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,5641
_______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, KRASS, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 13, all of the claims pending in the
application.
The invention pertains to a method and apparatus for
analyzing source code. More particularly, the invention employs
an independent parse tree, derived from a dependent parse tree
representing the source code. While the dependent parse tree is
dependent on either the source code’s language or on the

1 Application for patent filed October 22, 1991.
Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,564
2
environment in which the executable code is produced from the
source code, or both, the independent parse tree is independent
of both the language and the environment. Information about the
source code is then discovered by analyzing the independent parse
tree.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. A method of discovering information useful to a programmer
about a specific aspect of the source code of a computer program,
the source code being written and compiled in one of a plurality
of language-environment combinations and the method comprising
the steps of:
receiving a dependent parse tree for the program which is
generated as required by the language-environment combination
used to write and compile the source code;
translating the dependent parse tree into an independent
parse tree which is independent of the language-environment
combination; and
analyzing the independent parse tree as required to obtain
the information.
The examiner relies on the following reference:
Chan et al. (Chan) 5,276,881 Jan. 4, 1994
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 10 through 13 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) as anticipated by Chan. Claims 3 and 9
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as unpatentable over Chan.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,564
3
OPINION
We reverse.
Turning first to the examiner’s application of Chan to
independent claims 1 and 7, the examiner basically relies on
Chan’s Figure 12, equating the abstract syntax tree 1204 to
appellant’s claimed dependent parse tree, equating Chan’s
semantic analyzer 1128 to the claimed translator and equating
Chan’s decorated abstract syntax tree 1210 to the claimed
independent parse tree.
We are in agreement with appellant that the examiner’s
reasoning is faulty. As explained by appellant, at page 6 of the
brief, the problem with Chan is that it is directed to “only a
single language-environment combination, and neither tree 1204
nor tree 1210 is independent of that language-environment
combination.” As seen in Chan’s Figure 12, the decorated
abstract syntax tree 1210 of Chan is used to generate object
code. In this sense, it can be seen that Chan’s tree 1210 is
more akin to appellant’s dependent parse tree. That being the
case, Chan discloses nothing regarding an independent parse tree,
or the translator for translating the dependent parse tree into
an independent parse tree, as claimed. Accordingly, Chan cannot
anticipate the instant claimed invention as set forth in instant
claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 10 through 12 nor does it make
obvious the subject matter of dependent claims 3 and 9.
Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,564
4
Turning now to independent claim 13, this claim calls for an
“analyzer generator” for performing recited functions as well as
“the specification has the property that any method indicated
thereby can be completed in a length of time which is a
polynomial function of the size of the parse tree.”
With regard to the “polynomial function” limitation, the
examiner takes the position that “the required time will always
be proportional to the size of the tree. Therefore, such a
property is inherent to the applied reference” [answer, page 6].
This is clearly inaccurate. As recited at page 10 of the instant
specification, some lists may be constructed which are
“exponential in the size of a parse tree.” Since it is possible
to write queries whose execution time can be exponential in the
size of the parse tree, clearly the examiner’s reasoning that
completing a method in a length of time which is a polynomial
function of the size of the parse tree is “inherent” is in error.
That being the case, the examiner has not shown that Chan
discloses each and every element of the claim as well as the
claimed functions, i.e., that the length of time is a polynomial
function of the size of the parse tree. Accordingly, Chan cannot
anticipate the subject matter of claim 13.
Moreover, claim 13 calls for a specification which is
received by an analyzer generator and indicates a method whereby
information may be obtained from the parse tree. Again, we agree
with appellant, at page 8 of the brief, that “there is absolutely
Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,564
5
nothing corresponding to the claimed ‘method specification’ in
Chan.” Accordingly, Chan is not an anticipating reference with
regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 through 8
and 10 through 13 under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(e) and claims 3 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
James D. Thomas )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
Errol A. Krass ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
Lee E. Barrett )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-4026
Application 07/781,564
6
P.V.D. Wilde
AT&T Bell Laboratories
600 Mountain Ave.
P.O. Box 636
Murray Hill, NJ 07974-0636