Ex Parte Ji et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 25, 2016

14028753 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/028,753 09/17/2013 Jin Song Ji CN920120100USl_8150-0407 6079
73109 7590 11/29/2016
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, EL 33498
EXAMINER
NAM, HYUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2016 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIN SONG JI, JIAN JIANG,
SI YUAN ZHANG, and HONG WEI ZHU
Appeal 2016-003602
Application 14/028,753
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is IBM Corporation
(App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2016-003602
Application 14/028,753
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to optimizing a parallel build of an
application (Spec. 1 6). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for optimizing a parallel build of an application,
comprising:
in parallel execution of commands, recording command
sequence numbers and access information of the commands;
detecting an execution conflict based on the command
sequence numbers and the access information of the commands
using a processor; and
re-executing commands involved in the execution conflict
serially.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 17—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter (Final Act. 3).
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Melski et al. (US 2010/0262948 Al; publ. Oct. 14, 2010) (Final Act. 4-8).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief.
2
Appeal 2016-003602
Application 14/028,753
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 17—
20 on the basis of representative claim 17. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend the Specification clearly distinguishes a signal
medium from a storage medium, and thus, one having ordinary skill in the
art would not construe the claimed “storage medium” as consisting of a
transitory, propagating signal (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 2—5). However,
Appellants’ Specification does not explicitly define storage media to exclude
transitory media. Consequently, the claimed “computer readable storage
medium” encompasses transitory media, which is not patent eligible. See Ex
parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857 (PTAB 2013) (precedential).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Claim 1
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 1, 3—
10, 12—17, 19, and 20 on the basis of representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend Melski’s job number “N” is not tracked or
recorded, and does not specify an execution sequence of commands in serial
execution, as the sequence of execution for each job shown in Figures 10a
and 10b does not follow the job numbers (e.g., job 7 starts after job 8 and
ends after job 8 ends) (App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 5—7). Appellants further
argue the Examiner has not identified a portion of Melski that discloses
“recording access information of the commands” (App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 7—
3
Appeal 2016-003602
Application 14/028,753
9). Thus, Appellants contend that, although Melski detects conflicts using
sequential order (App. Br. 18 (citing Melski H 93—95)), Melski does not
disclose detecting execution conflicts based on recorded command sequence
numbers and access information of the commands (App Br. 17—18; Reply
Br. 8-9).
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error by Appellants’ contentions.
Appellants’ Specification describes “command sequence numbers” as
“represent[ing] a sequence of commands” (Spec. 153). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ disclosure, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Melski’s job numbers represent a sequence
of commands in a parallel build that are evaluated for conflict by the
terminator module (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4—6 (citing Melski Fig. 3b; see also
93—95 for the description of Fig. 3b)). See In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech.
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[T]he PTO is obligated to give
claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during examination.”).
Melski discloses recording of the job numbers, or command sequence
numbers, is reflected in the file version numbers that are updated each time a
particular job (i.e., Job N) is executed (see Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 5—7 (citing
Melski Fig. 4a; see also H 95—97 for the description of the modules of Fig.
4a)), therefore the file version number also “represents a sequence of
commands.”
We further agree with the Examiner’s finding that Melski discloses
recording access information of commands, as a “last modified” timestamp
and a registry entry version are recorded during command execution (id.),
and such information is consistent with Appellants’ description of “access
information” (see Spec. 1 54 (“Access information of commands includes an
4
Appeal 2016-003602
Application 14/028,753
access timestamp, an accessed file ID, and an access type.”)). Melski’s
terminator modules uses this recorded command sequence number and
access information to determine and resolve conflicts in a parallel build (see
Final Act. 4—5; Ans. 5—7 (citing Melski Fig. 4a; see also 95—97 for the
description of the modules of Fig. 4a)), thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
finding that Melski discloses detecting an execution conflict “based on” the
claimed recorded information, and re-executing commands involved in the
conflict serially (Final Act. 4 (citing Melski Fig. 3b, step 322; see also 1118
for the description of step 322: job with conflict is re-executed while all
other jobs are placed on hold)).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—10,
12—17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Melski.
Claim 2
Based on Appellants’ arguments, we decide the appeal of claims 2,
11, and 18 on the basis of representative claim 2. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend that, although Melski discloses the use of a
makefile, Melski does not disclose the command sequence numbers are
allocated according to a makefile in a shared filed system (App. Br. 18;
Reply Br. 9). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “allocating the command sequence numbers
according to a makefile” does not preclude detecting command conflicts and
correcting the file dependencies in the makefile, which is disclosed as using
a shared filed system, the makefile then facilitating (i.e., allocating) the
correct sequence number of the commands when accessed by the build
5
Appeal 2016-003602
Application 14/028,753
module (Final Act. 5 (citing Melski Fig. 4a and 1 88; see also 92—95 for
the description of Fig 4a, makefile dependency errors and correction)). See
In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d at 1369. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Melski.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§101.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b).
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).
AFFIRMED
6