Ex Parte Moir et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 8, 201411939372 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MARK S. MOIR, YOSEF LEV, VICTOR M. LUCHANGCO, and DAVID DICE ____________________ Appeal 2011-012734 Application 11/939,372 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-012734 Application 11/939,372 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). STATEMENT OF THE DECISION We REVERSE.1 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention “relates generally to concurrent access to shared objects, and more particularly to a system and method for implementing shared scalable nonzero indicators” (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method, comprising: performing by a computer: writing a value to a shared data object in memory, wherein the shared data object comprises a plurality of data elements whose values collectively represent the value written to the shared data object; determining whether said writing changed a summary value associated with the shared data object, wherein the summary value is dependent on a mathematical or logical combination of the values of the plurality of data elements; and in response to determining that said writing changed the summary value associated with the shared data object, modifying a value of a shared indicator 1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed March 11, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 27, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 27, 2011). Appeal 2011-012734 Application 11/939,372 3 object such that the modified value reflects the changed summary value. THE REJECTION The following rejection is before us for review: Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Petrank (US 7,716,192 B2, iss. May 11, 2010). ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-13 We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Petrank does not disclose “determining whether said writing changed a summary value associated with the shared data object, wherein the summary value is dependent on a mathematical or logical combination of the values of the plurality of data elements,” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 11-12 and Reply Br. 3-4). In the Final Office Action, the Examiner cited column 12, lines 42-46 of Petrank as disclosing this feature (see Ans. 5). However, in the Response to Argument, the Examiner conceded that the previously cited passage “does not clearly teach the determining step of claim 1,” and asserted that “other paragraphs” of Petrank, i.e., at column 5, lines 29-34, disclose this step (Ans. 12-13). We have carefully reviewed the cited portion of Petrank, on which the Examiner now relies, and we can find nothing in that portion of Petrank that discloses the “determining” step, as set forth in claim 1. Petrank is directed to a real-time data relocation mechanism for multiprocessing environments, including supporting lock-free programs that Appeal 2011-012734 Application 11/939,372 4 run in parallel (Petrank, Abstract). Petrank describes that the relocating mechanism moves an object, by using a status field related to each data field, to an interim wide object space, which is then copied to a to-space object (id.). The status information for each data field of the original object contains information indicating where a current version of the data for that field is present, i.e., in the original object, the interim wide object, or the to- space object, which is the object to which the original object is copied (id.). Petrank sets forth a hypothetical at column 5, lines 29-34 in which two threads attempt to modify the value of a field in a data object at the same time, i.e., by first writing the new field value to the original object and subsequently writes the new field value to an object copy. Petrank describes that the modifications may interfere with each other and lead to inconsistent or inaccurate data. However, we agree with Appellants that there is nothing in this portion of Petrank that discloses the step of determining whether a summary value (which the Examiner has interpreted as the status field in Petrank) associated with the data object has been changed, where the summary value is dependent on a mathematical or logical combination of the values of the plurality of elements of the data object (Reply Br. 4). Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). For the same reasons, we also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-13, which depend from claim 1. Independent claims 14 and 19 and dependent claims 15-18 and 20 Independent claims 14 and 19 include language substantially similar to the language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. For the same reasons, we also Appeal 2011-012734 Application 11/939,372 5 will not sustain the rejection of claims 15-18 and claim 20, which depend from claims 14 and 19, respectively. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation