Ex Parte Wolczko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 18, 2013

11648135 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/648,135 12/28/2006 INV001Mario Wolczko SUN070003-US-NP 9895
51344 7590 03/18/2013
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. /Oracle America/ SUN / STK
1000 TOWN CENTER, TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, KIM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARIO WOLCZKO, GREGORY WRIGHT, and
MATTHEW SEIDL1
____________________

Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Real Party in Interest is Sun Microsystems, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods and apparatus for
marking objects for garbage collection in an object-based memory system.
Spec. p. 1, Title.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is an exemplary claim representing an aspect of the invention
which is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A method for garbage collection in an object-based
memory system, the object-based memory system associated
with a processing environment that executes at least one
mutator program, each mutator program having at least one
corresponding mutator thread, the method comprising:
receiving, at a first garbage collection unit, root data from
a processor associated with the first garbage collection unit;
processing, at the first garbage collection unit, object
references derived from the root data received from the
processor associated with the first garbage collection unit;
determining which object references derived from the
root data are associated with a second garbage collection unit;
and
upon determining that an object reference is associated
with a second garbage collection unit, communicating
information representative of the object reference to the

2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
Dec. 28, 2009); Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr. 1, 2010); Final
Office Action (“FOA,” mailed June 25, 2009); and the original Specification
(“Spec.,” filed Dec. 28, 2006).
Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135

3
second garbage collection unit associated with the object
reference.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Grarup US 6,308,185 Oct. 23, 2001
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Grarup. Ans. 3.
ISSUE
Appellants argue (App. Br. 5-7) that the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Grarup is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Grarup discloses
Appellants’ claimed method for garbage collection in an object-
based memory system, the object-based memory system
associated with a processing environment that executes at least
one mutator program, each mutator program having at least one
corresponding mutator thread that includes the steps of, inter
alia, “determining which object references derived from the
root data are associated with a second garbage collection unit
. . . and communicating information representative of the object
reference to the second garbage collection unit associated with
the object reference,” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135

4
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions with respect to claim 1, and we adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Arguments. However,
we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1
for emphasis as follows.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Grarup discloses
Appellants’ claimed method, particularly the steps of “determining which
object references derived from the root data are associated with a second
garbage collection unit . . . and communicating information representative of
the object reference to the second garbage collection unit associated with the
object reference,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 3-9 and 14-15.
Appellants correctly contend that “Grarup does describe separating a
managed memory area into smaller sections to enable garbage collection to
be performed locally in one area at a time.” App. Br. 5. However,
Appellants go on to contend, and we disagree, that Grarup does not describe
communicating information representative of the object reference to a
second garbage collection unit, “but only describes adding a location to a
remembered set when a reference into the area is stored by a mutator (and
not upon the derivation of a reference from root data during garbage
collection, which is entirely different).” App. Br. 6.
Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135

5
Finally, Appellants contend that Grarup “describes a fixed root
referencing objects within either or both an old generation and a new
generation . . . [and] root 114 includes pointers 116 to objects 120 in new
generation 110a . . . [such that t]here is no teaching of the claimed
communication of the derived object reference to a second garbage
collection unit as claimed.” App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted) (citing Grarup
col. 2:35-43).
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that Grarup
discloses that Figure 2 provides a representation of an interface between a
root and memory which is partitioned into a new generation and an old
generation. Memory 110, i.e., a heap that is associated with a computer
system, includes a new generation 110a and an old generation 110b. A fixed
root 114 or a global object which references objects within either or both
new generation 110a and old generation 110b includes pointers 116 to
objects 120 in new generation 110a. Ans. 14-15 (citing Grarup Fig. 2, col.
2:35-43, and col. 3:44-56).
Similarly, Figure 3 of Grarup discloses a representation of pointers
between objects in a new generation and objects in an old generation which
are tracked using a remembered set. Memory 302 is divided into a new
generation 302a and an old generation 302b, i.e., the recited “first garbage
collection unit” and “second garbage collection unit.” A remembered set
304 is used to track pointers 314 which point from old generation objects
310 to new generation objects 312, i.e., the recited “communicating
information representative of the object reference to the second garbage
collection unit associated with the object reference.” The address of old
Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135

6
generation object 310a is stored in remembered set 304, as old generation
object 310a includes pointer 314a to new generation object 312b. Similarly,
the address of old generation object 310b, which includes pointers 314b and
314c to new generation objects 312b and 312a, respectively, is also stored in
remembered set 304. Ans. 14-15 (citing Grarup Fig. 3, col. 2:35-43, and col.
3:44-56).
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions, and find that the above
disclosure of Grarup and findings cited by the Examiner meet the limitations
of independent claim 1 at issue.
In addition, we note that Grarup generally discloses a computer-
implemented method that dynamically manages memory and which includes
a first memory section and a second memory section divided into a plurality
of blocks each having an associated marker, and which includes performing
a first garbage collection on the first memory section. The method also
performs a second garbage collection on a selected one of the blocks in the
second memory section. See Grarup, Abstract.
Finally, Grarup discloses that an additional garbage collection is
performed on the selected block in the second memory section which
includes determining whether the selected block includes a first object which
references a second object which is not included in the selected block, based
at least in part on a status indicated by the marker associated with the
selected block. The status includes an indication of whether the reference to
the second object was stored after the second garbage collection was
performed. Grarup further discloses that, if the reference to the second
Appeal 2010-009699
Application 11/648,135

7
object was stored after the second garbage collection was performed, a new
root array is created using the selected marker. Id.
Accordingly, Appellants have not provided evidence or arguments
sufficient to convince us of any error in the Examiner’s characterization of
the cited art and related claim construction. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1. As Appellants have not
provided separate, substantive arguments with respect to independent claims
15 and 19, or with respect to any of dependent claims 2-14, 16-18, and 20,
we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b).
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the anticipation rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Grarup, and the rejection is
sustained.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED

msc