Ex Parte Zhou

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 20, 2008

10445700 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 20, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHARLES J. ZHOU
____________

Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: October 20, 2008
____________

Before, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
STEPHEN C. SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention is to validate error-handling code of a
software module through use of fault injection. The software module
initiates a function call to a function provider. In response to the function
call, the function provider normally provides a designated function. A fault
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

injection layer may intercept the function call, thereby preventing the
designated function from being performed. Instead, the fault injection layer
returns an error condition to the software module. The software module has
an error handling block to respond to the error conditions (Spec. 2-3).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor,
wherein the at least one memory is configured to
store program instructions which are executable by
the at least one processor to implement:
a software module under verification, wherein said
software module comprises an error
handling block configured to respond to a
plurality of error conditions;
a function provider configured to provide
designated functions in response to calls
initiated by the software module; and
a fault injection layer operable to intercept a
function call to said function provider
generated by said software module, thereby
preventing a corresponding function from
being performed by said function provider,
wherein said fault injection layer is further
operable to return an error condition to said
software module in response to said function
call.

2
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence in
support of the obviousness rejection:
West US 5,475,624 Dec. 12, 1995
Singh US 6,484,276 B1 Nov. 19, 2002
Seungjae Han et al. "DOCTOR: An Integrated Software Fault
Injection Environment for Distributed Real-Time Systems",
International Computer Performance and Dependability Symposium
(IPDS '95), (Erlangen, Germany), IEEE Computer Society Press,
1995, pp. 204-13 (“Han”).

THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4-8, 11-13, 16-19, 22, 23, 26, and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Han in view of Singh.
2. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 14, 15, 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Han in view of Singh, and
further in view of West.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
OBVIOUSNESS
“What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends
to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
127 S. Ct. 1727, 1742 (2007). "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531
F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976)). Appellants have the burden on appeal to
3
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

the Board to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s position. See In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“On appeal to the Board, an
applicant can overcome a rejection [under § 103] by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
with evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.”) (quoting In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Therefore, we look to
Appellant's Briefs to show error in the proffered prima facie case.

ISSUE
Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have incorporated the Singh disclosure to
obtain “a fault injection layer operable to intercept a function call . . .
thereby preventing a corresponding function from being performed by said
function provider wherein said fault injection layer is further operable to
return an error condition to said software module” as required by claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Singh teaches a software module (fig. 5, Apache web servers 517,
518) under verification.
2. Singh teaches dynamically linked libraries (DLL) (Fig. 5) and “code
in the wrapper DLL 1202 to be executed whenever a function in the
original DLL 1203 is invoked” (col. 16, ll. 34-36).
3. Singh teaches a “fault injection mechanism . . . based on the
interception of system calls in the server program (col. 16, ll. 16-18).

4
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

4. Singh teaches that “[u]sually the wrapper DLL 1202 function will
eventually call the function in the original DLL 1203. However,
bypassing the function call altogether introduces another type of event
upset” (col. 17, ll. 59-62).
5. Singh teaches the fault injection mechanism returns a return value
(col. 17, ll. 54-55) in which “the return value will also be counterfeit”
(col. 17, l. 63).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 8, 12-13, 23, 26, and 27
We consider the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 8, 12-13, 23, 26,
and 27 as being unpatentable over Han in view of Singh1. Since Appellant’s
arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these claims as a single
group which stand or fall together (App. Br. 5-7), we select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellant argues that “the cited references . . . do not teach or suggest
‘a fault injection layer operable to intercept a function call to said function
provider generated by said software module, thereby preventing a
corresponding function from being performed by said function provider’”
(App. Br. 5-6). Appellant also argues that Singh “appears to teach away

1 The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 as unpatentable over Han,
Singh and West but finds claims 4-7, 11, 16-19, and 22, which depend from
claim 2, 3, 14, or 15, to be unpatentable over Han and Singh. Because
limitations of dependent claims include limitations of claims from which the
dependent claims depend thereon, we consider the rejection of claims 4-7,
11, 16-19, and 22 as being unpatentable over Han, Singh and West.
5
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

from this limitation” because “rather than preventing the corresponding
function from being performed, Singh requires the invocation of the
corresponding function” (App. Br. 6).
Singh discloses that “the fault injection mechanism has the capability
to alter execution of the DLL functions, and, therefore, also the execution of
associated system calls” (col. 16, ll. 21-24). The “interception of system
calls” (col. 16, l. 18) is normally through “code in the wrapper DLL 1202 to
be executed whenever a function in the original DLL 1203 is invoked” (FF
2; col. 16, ll. 34-36) and “the wrapper DLL 1202 calls the corresponding
function in the original DLL 1203” (col. 16, ll. 52-54). Singh further
discloses “the wrapper DLL 1202 function . . . bypassing the function call”
(FF 4; col. 17, ll. 59-61) to the original DLL 1203 altogether and returning a
value “without calling the original function” (col. 17, line 58) (Ans. 14).
Because Singh discloses the wrapper DLL 1202 function bypassing the
function call and that when a function call is bypassed the function call is
not executed, we find that the wrapper DLL 1202 function encompasses a
fault injector layer that intercepts and prevents (i.e., “bypasses”) the original
function call to the original DLL 1203.
Appellant further argues that “[t]he error conditions in Singh are not
returned to ‘said software module’” (App. Br. 7). Singh teaches that the
fault injection mechanism returns a return value (col. 17, ll. 54-55) in which
“the return value will also be counterfeit” (FF 5; col. 17, l. 63) and that
“types of parameter corruption . . . can be used to corrupt the return value”
(col. 17, ll. 55-57). In the absence of an explicit definition in the
Specification, we construe the term “error condition” using a plain and
6
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

ordinary interpretation of the term to include any condition of unusability,
undesirability, or unreliability because of the presence of faults or other
forms of inaccuracies. As noted above, Singh discloses that the return value
is counterfeit or corrupted. Because a corrupted or counterfeit return value
includes return values that are unusable or unreliable due to the presence of
errors, we agree with the Examiner that Singh discloses returning an error
condition to the software module.
Accordingly, we find that Appellant has not sustained the requisite
burden on appeal in providing arguments or evidence persuasive of error in
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 (and claims 8, 12-13, 23,
26, and 27, that fall therewith) as being unpatentable over Han and Singh.

Claims 2-7, 9-11, 14-22, 24, and 25
Rather than arguing the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-11, 14-22, 24, and
25 separately, the Appellant relies on the aforementioned arguments for
claims 1, 8, 12-13, 23, 26, and 27 (App. Br. 7). Claims 2-7, 9-11, 14-22, 24,
and 25, will likewise stand or fall with claims 1, 13, and 23 (App. Br. 7).
Unpersuaded by these arguments, we also affirm the rejections of these
claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellant has failed to show the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness.

7
Appeal 2008-0866
Application 10/445,700

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-27.
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).

AFFIRMED

pgc

Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin, Kowert and Goetzel, P.C.
P. O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767-0398
8