Ex Parte Knowles et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 13, 201611810050 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111810,050 0610412007 48916 7590 Greg Goshorn, P,C, 9600 Escarpment Blvd. Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 09/14/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Paul Thomas Knowles 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. GB920095025US 1 1106 EXAMINER HUISMAN, DAVID J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2183 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/14/2016 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 PAUL THOMAS KNOWLES and KIT MAN WAN 1 Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 Technology Center 2100 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 30, 32, and 34--36. Claims 1-29, 31, 33, 37, and 38 have been canceled. App. Br. 10-13. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to "the handling of exception signals in the context of program code conversion" such as "the dynamic conversion of binary code executable by a[] computing platform into binary code executable instead by another computing platform." Spec. i-f 1. According to the Specification, an exception signal indicates a condition has occurred that changes the normal flow of control in a program. Spec. i-f 5. In a disclosed embodiment, when an exception signal occurs, a signal handler (i.e., special code) is called to address the circumstances that resulted in an exception and, if possible, continue with program execution. Spec. i-f 7. Claim 30 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 30. A method of handling an exception signal in a computing system having a processor, the method comprising: converting subject code into target code executable by the processor; executing the target code on the processor; generating an exception signal in relation to execution of the target code; determining an exception signal delivery path with respect to the exception signal where the exception signal delivery path specifies a group of signal handling. sub-units selected from amongst a plurality of signal handling sub-units; delivering the exception signal to a first of the signal handling sub-units in the group according to the signal delivery path; determining whether to process the exception signal in the first of the signal handling sub-units and, if so, then processing the exception signal in the first of the signal handling sub-units; 2 Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 deciding whether or not to return to execution and, if so, returning to execution, otherwise passing the exception signal to a next signal handling sub-unit of the group according to the exception signal delivery path and repeating the determining whether to process the exception signal and deciding in relation to the next signal handling sub-unit until a decision to return to execution is made; and in response to the decision to return to execution: providing a target state data structure containing information relating to a state of execution of the computing system at a point in time when the exception signal is generated; processing the exception signal with reference to the target state data structure; selectively modifying the target state data structure to produce a modified data structure that represents the target state data structure; and returning to execution according to the modified data structure. The Examiner's Rejection Claims 30, 32, and 34--36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Le (US 6,631,514 Bl; Oct. 7, 2003). Final Act. 8-11. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding Le discloses "providing a target state data structure containing information relating to a state of execution of the computing system at a point in time when the exception signal is generated," as recited in claim 30? 3 Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 Claims 30, 32, 35, and 36 ANALYSIS 2 Appellants contend Le does not disclose "providing a target state data structure containing information relating to a state of execution of the computing system at a point in time when the exception signal is generated." App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants assert Le discloses rolling back to a "checkpoint" at the time an exception is generated and that "a 'rolled back' state is not the state 'at the time the exception is generated.' Although, this rolled back state may eventually become the 'current' state for the purpose of handling the exception, it is certainly not the current state at the time the exception is generated." App. Br. 8; see Le, Abstract. Appellants further contend the checkpointed state of Le is used "later on" and "is not a snapshot of the 'state of execution at a point in time when the exception is generated." Reply Br. 2. As an initial matter, we note claim 30 does not recite a "current state." Thus, to the extent Appellants argue the Examiner's findings do not demonstrate Le discloses a "current state," we determine Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 30 and, thus, do not persuade of error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). 2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed January 23, 2014 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed September 11, 2014 ("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed on May 23, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed on May 22, 2013, from which this Appeal is taken. 4 Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 In addition, the Examiner determined the disputed limitation may be interpreted two different ways-namely, (i) "when the exception is generated, a checkpoint state (target data structure) is provided" or (ii) "providing the state at a time X when an exception is generated at time X." Ans. 7. In other words, the claim language may be directed to when a target state data structure is provided that relates to a state of execution of the computing system (i.e., the structure is provided when an exception signal is generated) or the claim language may be directed to when a target state data structure is generated (i.e., the structure is generated and comprises state of execution information of the computing system when the exception signal occurs). 3 The Examiner finds, under either interpretation, Le discloses the disputed limitation. Ans. 7-8. Under the first interpretation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Le discloses that a checkpoint state is provided at the time of the exception. Ans. 7. "[I]f a trap or exception occurs, then the state is rest back to the checkpoint." Le, col. 6, 11. 14--16. Additionally, Le discloses "the checkpoint represents a point in time at or before the exception." Le, col. 6, 11. 38-39 (emphasis added). As the Examiner explains, in Le, "when an exception occurs, a checkpoint state is provided for the handling of the exception." Ans. 6. Thus, at the time an exception 3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should determine whether the language of claim 30 comports with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. If a claim is amenable to two or more plausible claim constructions, the USPTO is justified in requiring an applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as indefinite. Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207, 1211-12 (BPAI 2008) (precedential). 5 Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 signal is generated, the checkpoint state (i.e., target state data structure) is provided to handle the exception. Ans. 7. Under the second interpretation, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Le also discloses that a current state (i.e., target state data structure) is "being provided simply by existing and being available for use by the processor." Ans. 7. In other words, the "source and destination registers, at any given moment in time, are provided for reading writing as necessary." Ans. 7-8. The Examiner explains, thus, at the point when an exception signal is generated, the register state is available and provided (at least to the processor). 4 The Examiner notes that, subsequent to the exception, the state is modified to become the checkpoint state (but at the time of the exception, the state provided reflects the current state of the computing system). For the reasons discussed supra, Appellants have not unpersuaded us of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 30 and, for similar reasons, the rejection of independent claim 35, which recites a similar limitation and was not argued separately. See App. Br. 9. Further, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 32 and 36, which were not argued separately. See App. Br. 9. Claim 34 Appellants included claim 34 with the arguments directed to the Examiner's rejection of claim 30. App. Br. 7-8. The Examiner notes, as do we, "the argument for claim 30 does not apply to claim 34 because claim 34 does not include the 'providing ... at a point in time ... ' limitation in 4 The Examiner notes, as do we, the claim language does not indicate "what the state is provided to, just that it is provided." Ans. 8. 6 Appeal2015-005332 Application 11/810,050 question." Ans. 8; cf claim 30 with claim 34. Thus, Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner error because, at least, they are not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 34. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 30, 32, and 34--36. 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(f). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation