Ex Parte Rajan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12835994 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/835,994 07/14/2010
5073 7590
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 600
DALLAS, TX 75201-2980
06/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sreeranga P. Rajan
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.
073338.0781 1288
EXAMINER
VU, TUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
ptomaill@bakerbotts.com
ptomail2@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SREERANGA P. RAJAN and INDRADEEP GHOSH
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,9941
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by, Administrative Patent Judge PENICK
Opinion dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge THOMAS
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b)(l).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest Fujitsu Limited. (Appeal
Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to testing software on software
frameworks by symbolically executing the same application code on each of
a first and second framework to create models based on each symbolic
execution. The comparison of one or more parameters of each model allows
one of the first framework and the second framework to be selected as a
desired framework for execution of the application code. (Spec. i-fi-f l, 5, 6,
Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced be1ow, is representative:
1. A method comprising:
symbolically executing application code on a first
framework, a framework comprising an abstraction in
which common code providing generic functionality can
be specialized by user code providing specific
functionality;
creating a first model based on the symbolic
execution of the first framework;
symbolically executing the application code on a
second framework;
creating a second model based on the symbolic
execution of the second framework;
based on the first model, determining one or more
parameters associated with the first framework;
based on the second model, determining one or
more parameters associated with the second framework;
and
based on a comparison of the one or more
parameters associated with the first framework and the
one or more parameters associated with the second
framework, selecting one of the first framework and the
second framework as a desired framework for execution
of the application code.
2
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21under35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Yibo Chen et al. (!LP-based Scheme
for Timing Variation-aware Scheduling and Resource Binding, 2008 IEEE
INTERNATIONAL SOC CONFERENCE 27-30 (2008)) (hereinafter
"Chen"), Guang-Ming Wu et al. (Generic !LP-Based Approaches for Time-
Multiplexed FPGA Partitioning, 20 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON
COMPUTER-AIDED DESIGN OF INTEGRATED CIRCUITS AND
SYSTEMS 10, 1266-74 (2001)) (hereinafter "Wu"), and DeGreefet al. (US
6,078,745; June 20, 2000) (hereinafter "DeGreef').
The Examiner rejects claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Wu, DeGreef, Franssen et al. (US
6,064,819; May 16, 2000) (hereinafter "Franssen") and Cook et al. (US
7,475,000 B2; Jan. 6, 2009) (hereinafter "Cook").
Issue
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chen, Wu,
and DeGreef teaches or suggests the claim limitation of "symbolically
executing application code on a first framework, a framework comprising an
abstraction in which common code providing generic functionality can be
3
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
specialized by user code providing specific functionality," as recited in claim
1?
This issue is dispositive. Consequently, we do not reach additional
issues raised by Appellants' arguments.
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that Chen's integer linear programming (ILP)
does not teach or suggest the claimed framework, arguing that Chen does not
show a framework with specialization of common code by user code or the
symbolic execution of application code as in the disputed limitation.
(Appeal Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2--4.)
Chen, relied on in combination with Wu and DeGreef in the rejection
of claim 1, relates to the creation of circuit designs given certain constraints,
focusing on an experiment conducted to determine whether a better result (in
terms of average latency in a circuit design) can be achieved with a timing
constraint different from what Chen describes as the "traditional worst-case
based approach." (Chen, Abstract, 27.) In the traditional worst-case
approach, the design is created so it will always finish within a given time
period. (Id. at 28.) However, Chen proposes a different constraint in which
the design has an overall timing yield of a control/data flow graph (CDFG)
defined as a probability of finishing within a given time period. (Id.) In
order to determine a circuit design meeting each experimental constraint,
integer linear programming (ILP) is used. (Id. 28-29.) In Chen, a basic ILP
framework is used together with specified constants and variables which
define the requirements for the synthesized CDFG to be created, such as
user-supplied timing constraints, number of operations in the CDFG, and
4
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
number of instances of certain resources. (Id.) Different timing constraints
are used in order to produce different CDFGs. (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Chen's disclosure of an ILP framework
teaches or suggests the claimed first framework, with the "ILP formulation"
of Chen teaching the claimed application code. (Final Action 2.) The
Examiner further explains that the framework is executing the symbolic
representation of the user's timing scheme:
The claim language regarding framework being "abstraction in
which common code providing generic functionality can be
specialized by user code providing specific functionality"(***)
is deemed met by Chen's user-developed algorithms (circuit
synthesis code, HLS heuristics) specialized via use of common
tools such as generic library, register level conversion, control
graph analysis; that is, the specialized effect of user HLS
specifications being effected via common code provided by
Chen's framework such as the above tools and the likes of ILP
formulation tool and ILP solver, where abstracted form of
timing or symbolic representation thereof can express
user's timing design/scheme as intended for a particular ILP
run, i.e. the execution of such symbolic representation using
the framework provided ILP programming and solver code
(common code) so to yield timing/ scheduling metrics (resulting
from the ILP symbolic execution of user specialized code)
(Answer at 15-16.) Ifwe accept that Chen's symbolic representation of
timing is executed using the framework, then the Examiner's finding is that
the "application code" (which is claimed to be symbolically executed using
the framework) is taught or suggested by a representation of Chen user's
timing scheme.
However, the Examiner also explicitly finds that the user's timing
scheme in Chen teaches or suggests the claimed "user code" which can
specialize the common code in the framework in finding that Chen discloses
5
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
"user code construed as specialized instance (algorithms or timing
heuristics) of a more common code (that of framework environment and
tools)." (Answer at 15.)
In light of this contradiction, we disagree with the Examiner's
findings that, in Chen, the user's timing design/scheme teaches or suggests
both the claimed user code specializing common code in the framework and
the application code which is symbolically executed on the framework. As
these elements have very different functions in the claim, it is unclear how
the same teaching or suggestion in Chen can be used to teach or suggest both
claim limitations. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
findings do not show Chen, even in combination with the other cited
references, teaches or suggests "symbolically executing application code on
a first framework, a framework comprising an abstraction in which common
code providing generic functionality can be specialized by user code
providing specific functionality," as recited in claim 1.
We are constrained by the record before us and, accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1. For the
same reasons, we also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 8
and 15, which include substantially the same limitation, or the rejection of
dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4--8, 11-15,
and 18-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Wu, and
DeGreef.
6
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-3, 9-10, and
16-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Chen, Wu, DeGreef,
Franssen, and Cook.
REVERSED
7
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SREERANGA P. RAJAN and INDRADEEP GHOSH
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge, Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the ~vfajority' s decision to reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21.
Specifically, the Majority bases its reversal on the fact that the
Examiner is relying on Chen user's timing design/scheme for teaching both
the claimed user code specializing common code in the framework and the
application code which is symbolically executed using the framework
(Decision 6) (emphasis added), i.e., alleging that the claimed application
code and the claimed user code have very different functions in the claim.
However, claim 1 merely recites, inter alia, a framework comprising
an abstraction in which common code providing generic functionality can be
specialized by user code providing specific functionality (see claim 1)
(emphasis added). In other words, I believe the recited "user code" is not a
8
Appeal2014-006444
Application 12/835,994
positively recited element requiring steps to be performed. Claim 1 merely
states that the common code can be specialized by user code, not that it is
actually specialized by user code.
We have previously held that findings made by an Examiner need not
show a conditional/optional step (e.g., "can be") recited in a claim. See Ex
parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, *4 (BPAI 2011) (non-precedential) (citing In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Here,
I believe the recited "use code" does not further limit the scope of claim 1,
as the user code does not have to be introduced into the framework. As a
result, even if the Examiner has indicated that the claimed "application
code" and the recited "user code" as reading on the same feature in Chen,
when one of these limitations should not be given patentable weight, I see
this as harmless error. As long as the Examiner has at least shown that Chen
(or the combination of cited art) discloses symbolically executing
application code on a first framework, I believe the Examiner's findings are
sufficient.
Importantly, I believe the recited "user code" limitation is optional
and is not entitled to patentable weight. See In re Johnston, 435 F.3d. 1381,
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("[O]ptional elements do not narrow the claim
because they can always be omitted."); see also MPEP § 2111.04 (claim
scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but
does not require steps to be performed). Therefore, I decline to give
patentable weight to the aforementioned argued limitation.
I therefore, respectfully dissent from the Majority Decision reversing
the rejection of claims 1-2 l,
9