Ex Parte Ghosh et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

12837974 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/837,974 07/16/2010
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
07/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Indradeep Ghosh
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
073338.0797 5301
EXAMINER
LOUIE, JUE WANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte INDRADEEP GHOSH and DARYL R. SHANNON
Appeal2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-28, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method comprising, by one or more computing devices:
analyzing one or more first numeric constraints and one or more first
string constraints associated with a software module, wherein:
and
the software module comprises:
one or more numeric variables;
one or more string variables;
one or more first operations that apply to specific ones of
the numeric variables and produce numeric or string results;
one or more second operations that apply to specific ones
of the string variables and produce numeric or string results;
the first numeric constraints apply to specific ones of the
numeric variables; and
the first string constraints apply to specific ones of the string
variables;
inferring one or more second numeric constraints applying to specific
ones of the string variables;
inferring one or more second string constraints applying to specific
ones of the numeric variables;
combining the one or more first numeric constraints, the one or more
first string constraints, the one or more second numeric constraints, and the
one or more second string constraints into an interactive hybrid set of
constraints;
representing each one of the first and second numeric constraints with
an equation;
1 This appeal is related to Appeal No. 2014-009455; 12/838,061.
2
Appeal 2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
representing each one of the first and second string constraints with a
finite state machine;
grouping each of the first and second string constraints represented by
a finite station machine in a string domain and each of the first and second
numeric constraints into a numeric domain;
in a plurality of iterations, testing the software module for one or more
possible errors by attempting to solve for a solution in the string domain and
the numeric domain, and
during the plurality of iterations, feeding a solution derived from a
previous iteration in the string domain to the numeric domain and feeding a
solution derived from a previous iteration in the numeric domain to the
string domain.
Wassermann
Ghosh
Prior Art
US 2009/0125976 Al
US 8,572,574 B2
May 14, 2009
Oct. 29, 2013
Peter van der Linden "Just Javaâ„¢ 2 SIXTH EDITION" June 21, 2004 pgs.
61---62. ("van der Linden").
Helene Collavizza et al.," CPBPV: A Constraint-Programming Frame work
for Bounded Program Verification," Lecture Notes in Computer Science,
Volume 5202/2008, pages 327-341 (2008). ("Collavizza").
Prateek Saxena et al. "A Symbolic Execution Framework for JavaScript"
March 8, 2010, University of California at Berkeley, Electrical Engineering
and Computer Science Technical Report No. UCB/EECS-2010-26.
("Saxena").
Daryl Shannon et al. "Abstracting Symbolic Execution with String
Analysis" Testing: Academic and Industrial Conference - Practice and
Research Techniques IEEE Computer Society (2007). ("Shannon").
3
Appeal 2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1---6, 10-15, 19-24, and 28 stand as provisionally rejected2 on
the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1---6, 12-17, 23-28, and 34 of copending
Application No. 12/838,061.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 19, 21, 23, 24, and 28 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shannon, van der Linden, and
Saxena.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Shannon, van der Linden, Saxena, and Collavizza.
Claims 4, 7-9, 13, 16-18, 22, and 25-27 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Shannon, van der Linden, Saxena, and
Wassermann.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
Section 103 rejection of claim 1
Appellants contend Saxena teaches solving both string constraints and
numeric constraints in the numeric domain. App. Br. 19-21; Reply Br. 2-5.
In particular, Appellants contend Saxena does not teach "representing each
one of the first and second string constraints with a finite state machine" as
2 Appellants do not contest the double patenting rejection (App. Br. 16, fn.
1 ), which we summarily affirm.
4
Appeal 2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
recited in claim 1 and, therefore, does not teach the testing and feeding steps
of claim 1. App. Br. 19. However, the Examiner relies on Shannon, not
Saxena, to teach representing string constraints with a finite state machine,
solving numeric constraints represented as an equation, and solving string
constraints represented as a finite state machine. Ans. 30-36. The Examiner
relies on Saxena, not Shannon, to teach separately solving in the string and
numeric domains, and providing feedback between the two domains until a
solution is reached. Id. Appellants' contention against Saxena alone does
not show error in the Examiner's finding that the combination of Shannon
and Saxena teaches the disputed limitations.
Appellants also contend that combining Saxena with Shannon renders
Saxena unsatisfactory for its intended purpose of eliminating the need for a
solver in the string domain. App. Br. 21, 22; Reply Br. 5, 6. Appellants
have not persuasively explained why the intended purpose of Saxena should
be so narrowly defined, when the Abstract of Saxena teaches the purpose of
providing a program analysis tool. Further, Appellants' contention does not
address the Examiner's combination, which is modifying Shannon to
incorporate the teaching of Saxena. Ans. 37-39.
Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation,
but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). Appellants have not persuasively shown that modifying Shannon to
incorporate the teaching of Saxena would render Shannon unsatisfactory for
5
Appeal 2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
the intended purpose of program analysis as taught in the Abstract of
Shannon. In particular, Appellants have not persuasively explained why
modifying Shannon to separately solve in the numeric and string domains as
taught by Saxena, for the numeric constraints represented as equations and
the string constraints represented as finite state machines as taught by
Shannon, would render Shannon unsatisfactory for the intended purpose of
program analysis.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claims 5, 16, and 27
Appellants contend Shannon teaches a constraint solver that accepts
strings as inputs that do not conflict with the constraint, rather than
"iterati[ vely] trying different possible values for the numeric and string
variables and testing whether the possible values together produce a
solution" as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 7, 8. However, the
Examiner relies on the combination of Shannon and Saxena to teach the
limitations of claim 5. Ans. 44, 45. Appellants' contention against Shannon
alone does not show error in the Examiner's combination.
We sustain the rejection of claims 5, 16, and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
Section 103 rejections of claims 2--4, 6--15, 17-26, and 28
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 2--4, 6-15, 17-26, and 28 which fall with claim 1.
6
Appeal 2014-009568
Application 12/837,974
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-28 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
7