Ex Parte LAIN

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 2, 2016

12823041 (P.T.A.B. May. 2, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/823,041 06/24/2010 Antonio LAIN
56436 7590 05/04/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82264784 7004
EXAMINER
VU, TUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTONIO LAIN
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and NORMAN H. BEAMER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-12, 15-18, and 20-23. Claims 13, 14, and 19
have been previously canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to "an Compaction-
[Ready Copy Update] method ... that allows for the compaction of
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
versioned objects that include partial objects, a base object, and a reference
to the most recently added partial object ... " (Spec. i-f 15).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method comprising:
identifying, in a computer, a current object that is part of
a versioned object, the versioned object including at least one
partial object and an initial base object, the partial object
including a modification of a characteristic of the initial base
object, wherein a referent is associated with the current object
and is used to access the versioned object, and wherein the
current object initially points to the partial object;
marking, in the computer, the at least one partial object
as a candidate for compaction;
compacting, in the computer, the at least one partial
object, where the at least one partial object is marked, by
replacing the characteristic of the initial base object with a
characteristic of the at least one partial object to form a new
base object;
scheduling, in the computer, a transaction for each thread
in a transaction pool so as to de-allocate memory associated
with the at least one partial object and the initial base object, the
transaction to be executed in a non-preemptable manner; and
modifying, in the computer, the current object to point to
the new base object such that the current object no longer points
to the partial object.
2
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thatte
Engelstad
Hudson
Barabash
McKenney ("2006")
Wright
Petrank
Inoue
McKenney ("2011 ")
Ylonen
us 4,985,829
us 5,485,613
US 6,671,707 Bl
us 2005/0021576
US 2006/0112121 Al
us 2007/0162527
US 2008/0281886 Al
US 2009/0271460 Al
US 2011/0137962 Al
US 2011/0264870 Al
Jan. 15, 1991
Jan. 16, 1996
Dec. 30, 2003
Jan.27,2005
May 25, 2006
July 12, 2007
Nov. 13, 2008
Oct. 29, 2009
June 9, 2011
Oct. 27, 2011
Claims 1-12, 15-18, and 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the teachings of McKenney (2006) and
Ylonen and/or Petrank, in view of Hudson and/or Engelstad, in further view
of Barabash and/or Wright and/or Inoue and/or Thatte, and in yet further
viev,r of l\1cKenney (2011 ).
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of McKenney (2006) and Ylonen and/or Petrank and
Hudson and/or Engelstad and Barabash and/or Wright and/or Inoue and/or
Thatte and McKenney (2011) teaches or suggests identifying a current
object that is part of a "versioned object" that includes "at least one partial
object and an initial base object," the partial object including "a modification
of a characteristic of the initial base object . .. ;""compacting, in the
computer, the at least one partial object" by "replacing the characteristic of
the initial base object with a characteristic of the at least one partial object to
3
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
form a new base object;" and "modifying, in the computer, the current object
to point to the new base object ... " (claim 1) (emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
McKenney (2006)
1. McKenney discloses a read-copy update method applied to a situation
where one list element is moved to another list (i-f 44). Figures 6A-F
show two linked lists L 1 and L2, each comprising a list header and a
plurality of data elements. Figure 6C is reproduced below as exemplary.
FIG .. 6(:
4
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
2. At the start, the list header includes pointers to the first and last data
elements (see, e.g., Fig. 6A), and each data element includes pointers to
the elements preceding and succeeding it (id.). Each list element also
includes a pointer to the list header element (i-f 46) and contains some
attribute(s) (i-f 44).
3. Before moving element B from LI to L2, a "birthstone," or placeholder,
is inserted into the desired location in L2, and includes a copy of the
attributes of the element (see, e.g., Fig. 6B, i144). Once element Bis
removed from L 1, the element preceding B is linked to the element
succeeding B (i.e., A to C in the example) (i-f 45).
4. Element B is renamed element N and inserted into L2 at the location of
the birthstone placeholder and the birthstone is removed (i-fi-f 45--47). On
doing so, pointer links between element N and the elements preceding
and succeeding it are created (id.).
Petrank
5. A relocating mechanism working as a compaction mechanism of a
garbage collection mechanism is disclosed (i-f 7). A forwarding pointer
located in the header section of the original object is modified to point to
the new copy of an object upon compaction (i-f 43).
IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant argues that claim 1 requires that the partial object include a
modification of a characteristic of the initial base object, which is a part of
the versioned object (App. Br. 6-7). "The next pointer contained in an
element of a list of McKenney merely points to a next element in the list;
5
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
this next pointer clearly does not include a modification of a characteristic of
the initial base object" (App. Br. 7). Further, the "step of unlinking an
element that has been moved from list L 1 to list L2 ... clearly does not
provide any teaching or hint of a partial object that includes a modification
of a characteristic of the initial base object" (id.).
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has erred in finding that
the "compacting" limitation of claim 1 is taught by McKenney (App. Br. 8-
9, 11). Specifically, in Figures. 6A-F of McKenney, "the list header remains
unchanged ... McKenney clearly does not provide any teaching or hint of
forming a new base object by replacing the characteristic of an initial base
object ... with a characteristic of the at least one partial object" (App. Br.
9). Other references cited by the Examiner fail to cure this deficiency (App.
Br. 9-13). Importantly, Petrank's "[u]pdating a pointer to point to a wide
object ... does not provide any teaching or hint of the subject matter of
claim 1 discussed above as being missing from McKenney" (App. Br. 9-10).
We have considered all of Appellant's arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant's contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejection of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combined teachings.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we give the claims their
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. See
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly but reasonably in light of the specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the specification into the claims. See
6
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane)
(citations omitted).
We note that claim 1 does not define "characteristic" but merely
recites "modification" of a characteristic "of the initial base object" and
"replacing" the characteristic of the initial base object with a characteristic
of the at least one partial object "to form a new base object" (claim 1 ). A
review of the Specification reveals discussion of relevant subject matter, but
no explicit definition. In particular, "characteristic" is noted as including an
attribute or a method (Spec. i-f 17), but this is exemplary, and not construed
as a limitation on the scope of the term characteristic as found in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find the Examiner's
interpretation of this claim language (see, e.g., Ans. 17-22) to be overly
broad or unreasonable. Specifically, we find no error with the Examiner's
broad but reasonable interpretation that a "characteristic of an initial object
at a given time can be its content ... or its location or a memory location
implementing such a characteristic" (Ans. 21 ).
We find that the Examiner's reliance on McKenney is not misplaced
(Ans. 17-21 ). Specifically, given the broadest, reasonable interpretation of
the claims, we agree with the Examiner's reliance on the linked list of
McKenney, including a list header and one or more elements (FF 1 ), for
teaching and suggesting an object list "including at least one partial object
and an initial base object" (Ans. 2-3). We further agree with the Examiner's
finding that McKenney discloses that "the partial object includ[ es] a
modification of a characteristic of the initial base object" (Ans. 21-22).
In particular, each list in McKenney includes one or more pointers to
elements in the list and each list element includes one or more attributes (FF
7
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
2). Among these attributes are pointers to preceding and succeeding list
elements and, optionally, to the list header (id.). The birthstone of
McKenney is a temporary partial object including characteristics of the base
object, such as attributes (FF 3) and pointers to other elements in L2 (id.).
These characteristics include modifications to the characteristics of the
initial base object, such as updated pointers to different elements during and
subsequent to the move (FF 3--4). Even if assuming arguendo, as Appellant
argues, the initial base object is the header, and the partial object is one of
the elements (App. Br. 6-7), we find no error with the Examiner's finding
the contents of the list as well as the pointers to the elements in the list
before and after the move can be considered "modification( s )" of a
"characteristic of the initial base object" (Ans. 17-22).
Finally, we agree with the Examiner's reliance on the combination of
McKenney and Petrank to disclose and suggest the compacting limitation.
Specifically, Petrank discloses that upon compaction, a forwarding pointer in
the header section of an object is modified to point to an updated version of
a partial object (FF 5). In this case, the header does not remain unchanged,
and is modified based on a characteristic, i.e., a location, of the updated
version of the partial object (id.).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 over the combination of McKenney (2006) and Ylonen
and/or Petrank and Hudson and/or Engelstad and Barabash and/or Wright
and/or Inoue and/or Thatte and McKenney (2011).
Appellant has not provided additional substantive argument regarding
independent claims 8 and 15, other than that the rejections are erroneous
based on the similarity of claim 1 (App. Br. 13, 15). For the reasons
8
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
discussed above, we also affirm the rejections of claims 8 and 15, and claims
2-7, 9-12, 16-18, and 20 depending respectively from claims 1, 8, and 15,
over the combination of McKenney (2006) and Ylonen and/or Petrank and
Hudson and/or Engelstad and Barabash and/or Wright and/or Inoue and/or
Thatte and McKenney (2011).
As for claim 21 (as well as similar claims 22 and 23, see App. Br. 15),
Appellant argues that the teachings of Barabash, Thatte, Wright and
McKenney (2011) "ha[ ve] nothing to do with the subject matter of claim 21,
which relates to replacing characteristics of the initial base object with
characteristics of the plurality of partial objects to form the new base
object" (App. Br. 13-15). We note that McKenney (2006) is relied upon to
disclose that the characteristics of the initial base object are replaced with
characteristics of the partial object, and that Barabash, Thatte, Wright, and
McKenney (2011) are merely used to disclose that the initial base object
may include a plurality of partial objects (Ans. 16). We find no error with
the Examiner's reliance on, at least, Barabash to show that a partial object
may include a plurality of partial objects, wherein a root object may be
traceable to a plurality of reachable objects (id.).
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
claims 21-23 over the combination of McKenney (2006) and Ylonen and/or
Petrank and Hudson and/or Engelstad and Barabash and/or Wright and/or
Inoue and/or Thatte and McKenney (2011).
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12, 15-18, and 20-
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal2014-004274
Application 12/823,041
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
10