Ex Parte Steiner

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 20, 2003

09019137 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 20, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT C. STEINER
____________
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, RUGGIERO, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 11, all the claims pending in the instant
application.
The invention relates to an address generation and
modification in computer programs. See page 1 of Appellant's
specification. In particular, the invention is a method of
defining a pointer to a location by determining an offset of the
location of the pointer from a location that the pointer is to
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
1 Appellant filed an appeal brief on November 24, 2000.
Appellant filed a reply brief on March 12, 2001. The Examiner
mailed an Office communication on January 10, 2002, stating that
the reply brief has been considered and entered.
2
point to, and storing the offset as a value of the pointer in the
location of the pointer. See page 2 of Appellant's
specification.
Independent claim 1 present in the application is reproduced
as follows:
1. A method of defining a pointer to a location, comprising the
steps of:
determining an offset of a location of the pointer from a
location that the pointer is to point to; and
storing the offset as a value of the pointer in the location
of the pointer.
References
The reference relied on by the Examiner is as follows:
Gray et al. (Gray) 5,432,936 Jul. 11, 1995
Rejections at Issue
Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Gray.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant or Examiner,
we make reference to the briefs1 and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
3
OPINION
With full consideration being given the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner's rejection and arguments of the Appellant
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
In the appeal brief, Appellant argues that Gray discloses a
base-relative offset pointer and not an auto-relative pointer as
claimed by the Appellant. Appellant points out that the claim
sets forth that the pointed-to location is a location offset by
the value of the pointer from the pointer's own location. See
page 4 of the appeal brief. Appellant argues that, in contrast,
Gray teaches pointers of a data structure and point into the data
structure such that the pointed-to location is offset by the
value of the pointer from a base address/location of the data
structure.
The Examiner's responds to Appellant's argument by stating
that Gray does not disclose a base-relative offset pointer and
instead does disclose an auto/self relative pointer. See page 7
of the Examiner's answer. The Examiner directs us to column 14,
line 41, wherein Gray states "when the pointer is dereferenced,
the address of the data member is effectively formed by the
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
4
address of the object plus the value in field mdisp." Examiner
argues that this offsets the value of the pointer. See page 8 of
the Examiner's answer.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first
determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he name of the game is the
claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523,
1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
We note that independent claim 1 recites
determining an offset of a location of the pointer from
the location that the pointer is to point to; and
storing the offset as the value of the pointer in the
location of the pointer.
We also note that independent claim 5 recites
using the retrieved value as an offset from the
location of the pointer to identify the location
pointed by the pointer.
Similarly, independent claim 10 recites
an effector of determining an offset of a location of
the pointer from a location that the pointer is to
point to; and an effector of storing the offset as a
value of the pointer in the location of the pointer.
Finally, independent claim 11 recites
an effector of retrieving from a location of the
pointer a value of the pointer; and an effector of
using the retrieved value as an offset from the
location of the pointer to identify the location
pointed to by the pointer.
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
5
Therefore, we find that all the claims before us require a self-
relative pointer whose value is an offset from the location of
the pointer itself.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102 can
be found only if the prior art reference discloses every element
of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326, 231 USPQ 136,
138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481,
485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Upon our review of Gray, we find that Gray teaches pointers
of a data structure and point into the data structure such that
the point-to location is offset by a value of the pointer from a
base address/location of the data structure and does not teach
Appellant's claimed invention that the pointer uses the
address/location of the pointer. In particular, we note that the
three elements "mdisp", "pdisp" and "vdisp" of the pointer are
defined in column 13, lines 31 through 41. As taught by Gray,
the dereferencing of the pointer means determining which location
the pointer points to. The sentence at column 15, lines 6
through 9, is essentially saying that the pointer to the data
member of an introducing class points to a location within the
data structure of the introducing class that is offset by the
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
6
value of "mdisp" from the beginning of the data structure of the
introducing class. Thus, the pointer of Gray references the data
structure and points into the data structure such that the
point-to location is offset by the value of the pointer from a
base address/location of the data structure and not the
address/location of the pointer. Therefore, we find that Gray
does not teach all the limitations claimed by the Appellant.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1 through 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Gray.
REVERSED

MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2001-1197
Application No. 09/019,137
7
AVAYA INC.
P.O. BOX 629
HOLMDEL, NJ 07733