Ex Parte KhanDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201711809429 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 11/809,429 05/31/2007 Kabir Khan 05220.210 (P189) 9620 14400 7590 02/22/2017 Patent Dneket AHminisitratnr EXAMINER LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP 65 Livingston Avenue BROPHY, MATTHEW J Roseland, NJ 07068 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KABIR KHAN Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 Technology Center 2100 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, AMBER L. HAGY, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—7, 9—11, and 18—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Red Hat Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 Introduction Appellant’s claimed invention relates to object-oriented programming language functionality and concerns “implementation methods for per- instance and per-class aspects.” Spec. 11. Appellant describes that “[ejmbodiments of the invention manipulate an input object-oriented code to produce an output code that includes extra instructions to implement cross- cutting^1 concerns.” Id. at 7. Claim 1 is representative: 1. A method comprising: modifying, by a processing device, a system property to include a modified class loader to perform per-sub-domain class loading; obtaining, by the processing device, an aspect selector by retrieving the aspect selector from the modified classloader, wherein the modified classloader to load2 [3] a plurality of libraries divided into sub-domains of libraries comprising at least one common class, wherein the aspect selector applies to the common class associated with one of the subdomains while the common class associated with other subdomains is unaffected by the aspect selector; matching, by the processing device, a subsequence of a sequence of JAVA™ bytecodes compiled from source code, the 2 The Specification explains that while “[object-oriented] languages are good for expressing and manipulating information related to the ultimate disposition of a real-world problem, there often arise tasks that are related to the application as a computer program, without regard to any particular type of object or method.” Spec. 4. Such tasks are “a ‘cross-cutting concern: ’ functionality that is orthogonal to a principal purpose of an object or method.” Id. at 6. 3 We interpret “wherein the modified classloader to load” as “wherein the modified classloader is to load.” See App. Br. 12 (same construction). 2 Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 subsequence matched to the aspect selector retrieved from the modified classloader; and replacing, by the processing device, the subsequence with a modified subsequence of JAVA TM bytecodes, the modified subsequence used to define a class within a JAVA TM virtual machine, wherein the class of the modified subsequence invokes an interceptor associated with the aspect selector retrieved from the modified classloader. App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x). References and Rejections Claims 1—7, 9—11, and 18—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over JBoss.org, JBoss AOP - Aspect-Oriented Framework for Java, JBoss AOP Reference Documentation, Ver. 7.5 (available at http://does.iboss.Org/ibossaop/docs/l.5.0.GA/docs/aspeet-framework/ referenee/eo/htmL single/, available as of May 9, 2006) (“JBoss Ref 1.5”), JBoss.org, JBoss AOP - Aspect-Oriented Framework for Java, JBoss AOP Reference Documentation, Ver. JO (http:/7docs.jboss.com/aop/1.0/aspect- ifariiework/reference/en/litmi single/, available as of Oct 21, 2004) (“JBoss Ref 1.0”), and Smits (US 2006/0074997 Al; Apr. 6, 2006). Final Act. 2-34. ISSUES Appellant argues the patentability of all claims based on claim 1. See App. Br. 7—16. Appellant contends the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 by finding: (1) the cited prior art teaches or suggests “obtaining an aspect selector ... by retrieving the aspect selector from a modified classloader,” as recited (App. Br. 8—9); (2) the cited prior art teaches or suggests claim l’s recited requirement “wherein the modified classloader to load a plurality of libraries divided into sub-domains of libraries comprising at least one common class, wherein the aspect 3 Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 selector applies to the common class associated with one of the subdomains while the common class associated with other subdomains is unaffected by the aspect selector,” as recited {id. at 10-14); and (3) there would have been motivation for one of ordinary skill to have combined the cited prior art as proposed by the Examiner {id. at 14—15). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Rejection (pp. 3—10) from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer (pp. 3—10, 35 44). We highlight the following for emphasis. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding JBoss Ref 1.5 teaches “obtaining an aspect selector by retrieving the aspect selector from a modified classloader,” contending “neither pointing to XML files containing pointcuts, nor modifying java.lang.ClassLoader.class to add hooks” as taught by JBoss Ref 1.5 teaches or suggests the recited requirement. App. Br. 9. The Examiner responds by finding that “aspect weaving” in JBoss Ref 1.5 “provides a technique for modifying the classloader (i.e. using a ‘modified classloader’) to retrieve the aspect information from an XML file” teaches this requirement. Ans. 36 (citing § 10.1). The Examiner further finds that JBoss Ref 1.5 teaches modified classloading consistent with Appellant’s Specification. We agree. Appellant’s Specification states “[mjany Java runtime systems even provide a standard way to replace a default ClassLoader with a modified ClassLoader that implements an embodiment of the invention. For example, the java.system.class.loader system property can be set to refer to modified 4 Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 class loader, or the ‘-javaagent’ command-line option can be used to similar effect.” Spec. 153. JBoss Ref 1.5 teaches that in one version of the Java Development Kit, “to do load[-]time weaving of aspects,” the “[c]lass Loader is modified to add hooks for class transformation before class loading” (§ 10.2.2.1), and in another version, “to weave aspects at class load time” can be done by using the Java command line with a “-javaagent” option (§ 10.2.2.2), the modified classloader options taught by JBoss Ref 1.5 are consistent with the embodiments of Appellant’s Specification. See Ans. 37. Appellant replies that “[t]he modification of a classloader (as in JBoss Ref 1.5) still does not teach or suggest anything with respect to the retrieval of an aspect selector from such a modified class loader and that the Examiner’s answer provides no further citation or rationale with respect to this feature.” Reply Br. 9. This does not persuade us. A pointcut is a type of aspect selector. See Spec 143. JBoss Ref 1.5 teaches placing pointcuts in XML files and using the above-described modified classloading techniques to then load the XML files. See Chapters 3, 4. The pointcuts (or aspect selectors) loaded by the “modified classloader” techniques as found by the Examiner are used for running the “aspectized applications” as described in Chapter 10 of JBoss Ref 1.5. Appellant does not persuasively explain why one of ordinary skill would not understand that “obtaining ... an aspect selector by retrieving [it] from the modified classloader,” as recited, does not encompass using aspect selectors from XML files, loaded as described by JBoss Ref 1.5. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding the cited art teaches either of the two wherein clauses of claim 1 ’s obtaining step. App. 5 Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 Br. 10—14. The first wherein clause requires the modified classloader to load “libraries divided into sub-domains” that comprise “at least one common class.” The second wherein clause requires the aspect selector to apply to the common class associated with one sub-domain without affecting the common class associated with other sub-domains. In response, the Examiner finds that JBoss Ref 1.5, while it does not specifically use the words “domain” or “sub-domain,” teaches or suggests these two wherein requirements through its disclosure of loading archives that “are sets (or ‘libraries’) of classes to be loaded, where one archive (i.e. a ‘scoped archive’) is affected by pointcuts (the [claim 1] ‘aspect selectors’) and a second archive is unaffected,” thereby teaching or suggesting both of the obtaining step’s wherein clauses. Ans. 40 (citing § 10.4) (further finding Appellant “provides no limiting definition of the terms domain or library” in the Specification). Appellant replies that the Specification’s statement that “[e]ach class is represented by a domain, and every instance of the class occupies a dub- domain” implicitly defines the terms domain and sub-domain, and the Examiner errs by not using this definition. Reply Br. 12. This does not persuade us. Presuming domain means “a representation of a class” and sub-domain means “an instance of the class of a domain,” Appellant still does not persuasively explain how or why the Examiner errs in finding a teaching or suggestion of the disputed requirement based on JBoss Ref 1.5’s disclosure of loading Java™ archives. Appellant does not persuade us that one of ordinary skill would not understand the first wherein clause to encompass loading classes from multiple archive files, some of which may be “scoped” and affected by pointcuts and others of which may be 6 Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 unaffected by pointcuts, as the Examiner finds JBoss Ref 1.5 teaches. We agree with the Examiner that JBoss Ref 1.5’s disclosure at least suggests loading of instances of the same class from different archive files, with some scoped and some not scoped, thus teaching (in combination with Smits4) both of the obtaining step’s wherein clauses. Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in finding the combination of JBoss Ref 1.5 and Smits teaches or suggests the first wherein clause, stating the Examiner concedes JBoss Ref 1.5 does not teach “comprising at least one common class” and that Smits does not teach or suggest “wherein the modified classloader to load a plurality of libraries divided into sub- domains of libraries comprising at least one common class.” App. Br. 12— 13. The Examiner responds by explaining that Smits is relied upon “only for the recognition of something well-known in the art, that an application server may have common classes between different sub-domains within the application server.” Ans. 41—42 (referring to this as “overlapping classes”). Appellant in reply reiterates that Smits does not teach the entire wherein clause, without contesting the Examiner’s finding that Smits teaches “overlapping classes.” Reply. Br. 13. Appellant does not persuade us. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 4 As discussed infra, the Examiner relies on Smits for the “comprising at least one common class” requirement. An ordinarily skilled artisan’s understanding of the teachings of JBoss Ref 1.5 includes consideration in view of Smits’ teachings. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 (“[T]he test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). 7 Appeal 2016-002651 Application 11/809,429 Appellant also argues there would have been “no motivation to combine Smits with JBoss References 1.5 and 1.0” because “Smits does not teach or suggest a common class as in the present claims” and, accordingly, the Examiner engages in impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 15. This does not persuade us. We agree with the Examiner that “any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning,” Ans. 43 (see In re McLaughlin, 433 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971)), and that the Examiner’s combination is “the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions,” id. at 44 (quoting KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)). The Examiner gives sufficient “reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness,” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006), to which Appellant provides no persuasive rebuttal. See Final Act. 8, 10; Ans. 44. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—7, 9-11, and 18—23. 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 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation