Ex Parte Liu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 24, 2007

10255748 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 24, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is
not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHIN-MING LIU, DMITRY MIKULIN,
MURALITHARAN VIJAYASUNDARAM and DAVID XINLIANG LI
____________

Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: September 24, 2007
____________

Before JAMES D. THOMAS, KENNETH W. HAIRSTON,
and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3 to 8, 10 to 13, and 15 to 28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We will reverse.

Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants have invented a method and system for analyzing portions
of a program that are inaccessible to the compiler to optimize the compiling
of the program (Figure 5; Specification 3 to 5).
Claim 1 is representative of the claims on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method performed by a translator/optimizer, the method
comprising:

analyzing the program to gather information regarding global
variables used in the program including portions of the program to which a
compiler has no access;

providing the information gathered about the global variables to the
compiler that is to compile the program; and

compiling the program with the compiler in view of the gathered
information so as optimize the program.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Peyton US 5,920,723 Jul. 6, 1999
Kolodner US 6,675,379 B1 Jan. 6, 2004
(filed Jun. 30, 2000)
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 27
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Peyton. The
Examiner rejected claims 3 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the
teachings of Peyton. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, 17, 19 to 26,
2
Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748

and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Peyton and
Kolodner.
Appellants contend that inter alia that Peyton does not perform any
analysis of the portions of the program to which the compiler lacks access
prior to the compiling operation (Br. 9, 10, 12, and 15 to 19).
ISSUE
Does Peyton perform the claimed operations on portions of the
program to which the compiler lacks access prior to compiling the program?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Peyton describes a source code compiler that breaks up a single
computer source code listing into separate code modules, operates upon the
separate code modules, and converts the modules into executable object
code in a language translator (col. 1, ll. 6 to 27). The separate code modules
are referred to in Peyton as compilation units (CUs) (col. 1, ll. 29 to 31).
During the source code to object code conversion, cross-CU optimization is
performed in the compiler (col. 2, ll. 40 to 43). The compiler method
includes the step of analyzing each CU, and deriving: a global CU table 40
which includes a reference to each analyzed CU; a program symbol table 42
which indicates in which CU each program routine is defined and/or referred
to; a global call graph 44 which notes the routine in each CU, indicates
references therebetween, and further indicates where the routine exists in the
program symbol table; and a CU symbol table 54 which includes
information that includes a reference for each routine defined in a CU to the
intermediate representation for that routine (Figures 2 and 2a; col. 2, ll. 43 to
55). The CU symbol table 54 includes listings of variables in each of the
3
Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748

CUs (col. 5, ll. 28 to 32). Each of the CUs passes through a front end linker
22 and a back end linker 27 (figures 2 and 2a; col. 3, ll. 43 to 51).
Kolodner was cited by the Examiner for a teaching of a plug-in
provided “to comprise a software package or interface with a compiler”
(Answer 26).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1946 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475,
1478-79, 31 USPQ2d 1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Appellants that Peyton does not perform any
analysis of any portion of the program to which the compiler lacks access
prior to the compiling operation.
Claims 1, 4, and 5 require analysis of portions of the program to
which the compiler lacks access to gather information regarding global
variables used in the program. As indicated supra, the compiler method
described by Peyton does not perform any pre-compiling operation on any
portion of the source code. As indicated in Figures 2 and 2a, all of the
operations on the source code occur in the compiler per se, and the only
information gathered regarding variables is in the optimizer procedure 24
portion of the compiler. As indicated supra, the variable information is
gathered in each individual source code module/CU as the module is
undergoing a compiling operation.
4
Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748

Claims 8, 11, 12, and 15 require “analyzing the program to gather
information regarding a call to a function of the program including portions
of the program to which a compiler has no access.” As indicated supra, the
compiler in Peyton has access to all of the portions of the source code
modules.
Claim 16 requires “analyzing portions of the program about which the
compiler has no access using the linker.” The linkers 22 and 27 are in the
compiler in Peyton, and, therefore, can not perform this step of the claim.
Claim 18 requires “linking means for analyzing portions of the
program inaccessible to compiling means to determine information.” As
indicated supra, the linkers described by Peyton are incapable of performing
the claimed operation.
Claim 27 requires “linking logic configured to receive intermediate
objects from the translator logic and to analyze portions of the program to
which the translator logic has no access to obtain information.” Peyton is
silent as to “linking logic” that can “analyze portions of the program to
which the translator logic has no access.”
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Anticipation has not been established by the Examiner for claims 1, 4,
7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 27. The Examiner’s obviousness rationale for
claims 3 and 10 does not overcome the deficiencies noted in the anticipation
rejection of claims 1 and 8. Accordingly, obviousness has not been
established by the Examiner for claims 3 and 10. Obviousness has not been
established by the Examiner for claims 5, 6, 13, 17, 19 to 26, and 28 because
5
Appeal 2007-1599
Application 10/255,748

the teachings of Kolodner fail to cure the noted deficiencies in the teachings
of Peyton.
ORDER
The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and
27 is reversed. The obviousness rejections of claims 3, 5, 6, 10, 13, 17, 19 to
26, and 28 are reversed.
REVERSED

pgc
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins CO 80527-2400
6