Ex Parte Krauss

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 7, 2015

11618214 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KIRK J. KRAUSS
____________

Appeal 2012-010159
Application 11/618,214
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention relates to a method of runtime analysis for a computer
program. (See Abstract of Appellant’s Specification.) Claim 1 is illustrative
of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of runtime analysis for a computer program
comprising:
Appeal 2012-010159
Application 11/618,214

2
automatically creating at least one list for tracking
memory regions used by an instrumented computer program;
generating runtime data relating to usage of memory in
the tracked memory regions;
from the runtime data, automatically creating a memory
map of at least one of the tracked memory regions contained in
the list, the memory map comprising a plurality of memory
ranges of different types according to the runtime data; and
presenting at least a portion of the memory map
indicating selected ones of the plurality of memory ranges.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10–12, 14–16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Begic1 and
Spadari.2 (Ans. 5, 10, 15.)
Claims 4, 8, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Begic, Spadari, and Campbell.3 (Ans.
11.)
Claims 5 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Begic, Spadari, and Karp.4 (Ans. 13.)

1 Goran Begic, An Introduction to Runtime Analysis with Rational
PurifyPlus, The Rational Edge (2002).
2 Spadari, US 2005/0102583 A1; published May 12, 2005.
3 Jeff Campbell, Memory profiling for C/C++ with IBM Rational Test
RealTime and IBM Rational PurifyPlus RealTime (Apr. 27, 2004),
http://www.ibm.comldeveloperworks/rational/library/4560.html
4 Karp et al., US 2005/0283770 A1; published Dec. 22, 2005.
Appeal 2012-010159
Application 11/618,214

3
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Begic, Spadari, and Flake.5 (Ans. 14.)
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Begic, Spadari, and Abrams.6 (Ans.
18.)7

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Begic and Spadari. On appeal,
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly determined the teachings of
those references.
First, Appellant argues that Begic does not teach “generating runtime
data relating to usage of memory in the tracked memory regions” as recited
in claim 1. (App. Br. 10–12.) The Examiner concludes that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the term “tracked memory regions”
encompasses “a whole memory.” (Ans. 20.) On the other hand, Appellant
argues that “tracked memory regions” should be construed to cover only a
portion of a memory, rather than the whole memory. (Reply 3–4.)
We give a disputed claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation
during patent prosecution. In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2000). When read in the context of claim 1, we conclude that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “tracked memory regions” is some or all of the

5 Flake et al., U.S. Patent No. 7,065,613 B1; June 20, 2006.
6 Abrams et al., US 2004/0261065 A1; published Dec. 23, 2004.
7 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–20. Instead, the
arguments directed to these claims merely reference the arguments for claim
1. Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2–20 are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2012-010159
Application 11/618,214

4
memory used by an instrumented computer program. To the extent that
Appellant argues that this interpretation renders “tracked” and “region”
superfluous (Reply 3–4), we disagree. We observe that nothing in claim 1
requires that any memory regions be listed or mapped individually. Instead,
in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1, these
regions can be tracked and mapped as the whole memory used by the
instrumented computer program.
Therefore, we find that Begic teaches the argued limitation.
Specifically, Begic teaches that runtime analysis can be used to measure
memory usage of a program. (Ans. 5 (citing Begic 3, 7, 10, 11).) Begic also
teaches generating runtime data related to that memory usage by taking
snapshots of memory in the program under test. (Begic 10.) Thus, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Begic teaches “generating runtime data
relating to usage of memory in the tracked memory regions” under the
broadest reasonable construction of that limitation.
Appellant argues that Begic does not teach “automatically creating at
least one list for tracking memory regions used by an instrumented computer
program” as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 12–15.) The Examiner finds that
Begic teaches generating a list that tracks the memory used by the program
under test. (Ans. 5 (citing Begic 11).) While we observe that the list in
Begic is further segmented into program methods, Begic nevertheless
teaches generating a list for tracking the memory usage of the program (i.e.,
the memory regions used by the instrumented computer program). In view
of the construction of “tracked memory regions” discussed above, we agree
with the Examiner’s finding that Begic teaches “automatically creating at
Appeal 2012-010159
Application 11/618,214

5
least one list for tracking memory regions used by an instrumented computer
program.”
Appellant argues that Spadari fails to disclose “from the runtime data,
automatically creating a memory map of at least one of the tracked memory
regions contained in the list.” Specifically, Appellant argues that Spadari
does not teach that (a) its memory map is automatically created because it is
“user defined” or (b) that its memory map is created from runtime data.
(App. Br. 15–17.) We disagree.
As to (a), Claim 1 does not preclude the user from being involved in
defining the memory map; rather, claim 1 recites that the memory map is
“automatically creat[ed].” The Examiner found that Spadari teaches that the
memory map is automatically generated by the processor and that the user
may later define the map. (Ans. 23–24 (citing Spadari ¶ 36).) We further
observe that Spadari teaches that “the user generally does not interact with
the simulator.” (Spadari ¶ 21.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Spadari
teaches automatically creating a memory map.
As to (b), the Examiner found that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood that the relevant data in Spadari is runtime data.
(Ans. 6 (citing Spadari ¶ 20).) Appellant acknowledges that “Spadari may
refer to runtime data” but argues that Spadari does not teach that the memory
map is generated from runtime data because the memory map is user
defined. (App. Br. 15.) We disagree that allowing the user to define the
memory map in some way means that the memory map is not created using
runtime data.
Appeal 2012-010159
Application 11/618,214

6
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.8
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj

8 The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a review body, rather than a place of
initial examination. Claims 14–20 recite “a computer-readable medium.” In
the event of further prosecution of claims 14–20, or claims in similar form,
we leave to the Examiner to ascertain whether such claims are directed to
statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d
1346, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 2013
WL 4477509 (PTAB 2013) (precedential); MPEP § 2106(1) (8th ed. 2001,
rev. 2012); David J. Kappos, Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer
Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010).