Ex Parte Guan et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 30, 201914086433 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/086,433 11/21/2013 77212 7590 06/03/2019 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM Endicott 20 Church Street 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Xiao Feng Guan 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. CN920120132US 1 1801 EXAMINER AQUINO, WYNUEL S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2199 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2019 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): usptopatentmail @cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte XIAO FENG GUAN, JIU FU GUO, JIAN JIANG, and HONG WEI ZHU Appeal2018-007635 Application 14/086,433 1 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the Applicant, International Business Machines Corporation, as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-007635 Application 14/086,433 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' application relates to function calling conventions. Spec. ,r 4. In particular, Appellants' application discloses a library of compiled candidate code modules included in a compiled program, allowing the user to call a function by specifying a function to be called and a source library without needing to know the calling convention for that function. Id. ,r 5. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method for function calling, comprising: generating a plurality of candidate code modules, each of the plurality of candidate code modules enabling a function call according to a respective calling convention of a plurality of calling conventions; inserting the plurality of candidate code modules into a program, wherein the plurality of candidate code modules are generated and inserted at least partially concurrently with compilation of the program; in response to detection of a function call in the program, obtaining the plurality of candidate code modules for executing the function call; obtaining a specific calling convention used by a called function associated with the function call, the specific calling convention indicating an order in which one or more function parameters of the called function are pushed into a memory stack and whether a function caller or a function callee is responsible for removing the one or more function parameters from the memory; according to the specific calling convention obtained, selecting from the plurality of candidate code modules a code module which enables executing the function call according to the specific calling convention; and executing the function call according to the specific calling convention using the selected code module. 2 Appeal2018-007635 Application 14/086,433 The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen (US 2007 /0006202 Al; Jan. 4, 2007), Daniel Adler & Tassilo Philipp, dyncall Library, Sept. 25, 2010 ("Adler"), and Ansari (US 2011/0252409 Al; Oct. 13, 2011). Final Act. 2-8. Claims 3, 11, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen, Adler, Ansari, and Soeder (US 2012/0304160 Al; Nov. 29, 2012). Final Act. 8-9. Claims 4, 7, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen, Adler, Ansari, and Lai (US 2009/0089764 Al; Apr. 2, 2009). Final Act. 9-13. Claims 5, 6, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Mikkelsen, Adler, Ansari, Lai, and Gupta (US 2007/0283338 Al; Dec. 6, 2007). Final Act. 13-17. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (see Final Act. 2-17) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (see Ans. 18-20). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mikkelsen, Adler, and Ansari teaches or suggests "inserting the plurality of 3 Appeal2018-007635 Application 14/086,433 candidate code modules into a program, wherein the plurality of candidate code modules are generated and inserted at least partially concurrently with compilation of the program," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular, Appellants argue Ansari teaches separately compiled code modules can be linked to permit a caller routine or one compiled code module to pass a parameter to a callee routine of the separately compiled code module. App. Br. 11-12 ( citing Ansari ,i,i 23-25, 30). Appellants argue Ansari does not teach the compilation occurs "at least partially concurrently," as claimed, and that even if the compilation were concurrent, the linking of compiled modules does not involve insertion of anything into the compiled modules themselves. Id. at 12. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Ansari teaches compiling caller routines and callee routines involves generating stubs that are inserted into the code modules. Ans. 18 ( citing Ansari Fig. 4, ,i,i 56-66). The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Ansari teaches compiling the caller routine and callee routine can be performed in parallel, which indicates that the compilations occur "at least partially concurrently," as claimed. Ans. 18 ( citing Ansari ,i 56). Appellants' argument that the linking of compiled modules does not involve insertion of anything into the modules is unpersuasive because Ansari teaches the inserted stub routines include "interface" code that specifies how parameters are passed to a linked function. Ans. 20 ( citing Ansari ,i 27). Appellants also argue Ansari does not teach or suggest the claimed "plurality of candidate code modules," as recited in claim 1. See Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. The 4 Appeal2018-007635 Application 14/086,433 Examiner relies on Mikkelsen, not Ansari, for teaching a plurality of candidate code modules. See Final Act. 2 ( citing Mikkelsen ,r,r 30, 32). The Examiner relies on Ansari for teaching compiling code modules at least partially concurrently, as discussed above. Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it focuses on the disclosure of Ansari while ignoring the disclosure of Mikkelsen. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., 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 ). For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Mikkelsen, Adler, and Ansari. We also sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See App. Br. 12. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments. See id. at 12-13. DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation