11654456 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

Ex Parte Dice et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 2013

11654456 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte DAVID DICE and ANTONIOS PRINTEZIS _____________ Appeal 2011-005730 Application 11/654,456 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, DENISE M. POTHIER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005730 Application 11/654,456 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium, and system of protecting a page in a memory using access barrier traps. Spec. 5-7. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method of providing page-protection based memory access barrier traps, the method comprising: computing a value for a user-mode bit (u-bit) for each extant virtual page in an address space, said u-bit indicative that an object on said virtual page is being moved by a Garbage Collector process; executing an instruction which causes an access protection fault; determining the state of said u-bit for the virtual page associated with the access protection fault when said access protection fault is encountered; and when said u-bit is set, translating the access protection fault into a user-trap (utrap) and servicing said utrap. REFERENCE Johnson U.S. 5,463,778 Oct. 31, 1995 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Johnson. Ans. 3-7. Appeal 2011-005730 Application 11/654,456 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that Johnson discloses “when said u- bit is set, translating the access protection fault into a user-trap (utrap) and servicing said utrap,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19?1 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Final Rejection of the claims and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions (Ans. 3-4 and 7-9) reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Appellants argue that Johnson does not disclose translating “an access protection fault into a user trap,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants contend that Johnson’s user-trap bit enables user traps but does not determine “when to translate a kernel mode trap to a user mode trap.” App. Br. 6. First, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1. Ans. 8. The claim does not require translating a kernel mode. Second, we agree with the Examiner that Johnson discloses the disputed limitation since Johnson’s user trap bit indicates that a user trap has occurred and requires trap registers to 1 We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-20 as Appellants have not addressed any of the other claims with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2011-005730 Application 11/654,456 4 be changed. Ans. 7-8. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. CONCLUSION2 The Examiner did not err in finding that Johnson discloses “when said u-bit is set, translating the access protection fault into a user-trap (utrap) and servicing said utrap,” as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc 2 We have decided the Appeal before us. However, in the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should evaluate claims 10-18 in light of In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007), Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010), and Ex parte Mewherter, 2012-007692 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential), available at http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/prec/fd2012_007692_preced ential.pdf. We note that Appellants’ Specification does not preclude a computer readable medium from including a transitory propagating signal. Spec. 7:4-7.