Ex Parte DYCK et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 30, 2003

09133878 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 30, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 14
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte GREG A. DYCK and BRIAN B. MOORE
____________
Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, GROSS, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final
rejection of claims 1 through 29, which are all of the claims
pending in this application.
Appellants' invention relates to a method for runtime
remediation of object-code instructions in a computer program by
executing the instructions in accordance with remediation
parameters stored with the instructions. Claim 1 is illustrative
of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A method for runtime remediation of object-code instructions
in a computer program, comprising the steps of:
Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
2
storing a table containing a table entry for each program
instruction that is to be remediated, each table entry containing
one or more remediation parameters;
detecting a program location corresponding to an instruction
to be remediated while executing the program; and
upon detecting a program location corresponding to an
instruction to be remediated, executing the instruction to be
remediated in accordance with the remediation parameters in the
table entry corresponding to the instruction to be remediated.
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Roth et al. (Roth) 5,878,422 Mar. 02, 1999
(filed Apr. 09, 1997)
Claims 1 through 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Roth.
Reference is made to the Final Rejection (Paper No. 9,
mailed January 4, 2001) and the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 13,
mailed August 22, 2001) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellants' Brief (Paper
No. 12, filed June 15, 2001) for appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied prior
art references, and the respective positions articulated by
Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
3
appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our review, we
will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 29.
The examiner asserts (Final Rejection, page 2) that Roth
shows in Figures 2-4 and describes in column 6 storing a table of
instructions to be remediated and associated remediation
parameters. The examiner further reads Roth, column 7, lines 34-
47, as remediating an instruction and executing the instruction
in accordance with the corresponding remediation parameters. The
only limitation the examiner finds lacking from Roth is the
explicit detection of a program location corresponding to an
instruction to be remediated. However, the examiner asserts that
detection of a program location would have been obvious for the
data adapter to be able to convert the program.
Appellants argue (Brief, page 5-6) that Roth does not teach
remediating instructions. Roth instead supplies data in a format
expected by the instruction. As such, Roth does not store a
table containing a table entry for each program instruction that
is to be remediated. The examiner responds (Answer, page 3) that
appellants' "remediation of instructions is equivalent to
remediation of data as shown on pages 8-10 of the specification."
We agree with appellants. We first note that "equivalence"
is not the same as being the same. Equivalence suggests an
Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
4
alternate way of doing the same thing. Further, Roth
specifically states (column 5, line 64-column 6, line 2) that the
programs have been converted already, and that the format of the
data is being changed for use in the converted program. In
column 8, lines 15-17, Roth states that the data is virtualized
and the application program is unaware that the data originally
had the old formatting. Thus, only the format of the data is
being changed or remediated, not the instructions. Furthermore,
we find no disclosure of storing the instructions with
remediation parameters. The programs that have been converted
are stored such that data adapter intercepts the I/O calls from
those programs and performs a virtual change of data format. It
is unclear to us what the examiner believes to be the table of
stored instructions to be remediated with corresponding
remediation parameters. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claims 1 through 29 over Roth.
Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
5
CONCLUSION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 2002-0382
Application No. 09/133,878
6
WILLIAM A. KINNAMAN JR.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
2455 SOUTH ROAD, MAIL STATION P386
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601