INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATIONDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 20212020002027 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/694,782 09/02/2017 Piotr Godowski DE820160487US01 5955 106324 7590 05/28/2021 IBM Corporation - Patent Center 1701 North Street B256/3 Endicott, NY 13760 EXAMINER MACKALL, LARRY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2139 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2021 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): fdciplaw@us.ibm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PIOTR GODOWSKI, GRZEGORZ MAJKA, ARTUR OBRZUT, and LUIGI PICHETTI ____________________ Appeal 2020 -002027 Application 15/694,7821 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before: JOHN A. JEFFREY, MARC S. HOFF, and JASON J. CHUNG Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appellant’s invention is a method of identifying software components in a computer system. Pending events are saved from a volatile memory to a non-volatile memory of the computing system in response to an interruption 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 2 of operation of the computing system being initiated. The method further includes restoring the pending events from the non-volatile memory to the volatile memory for processing in response to a restarting of the operation of the computing system. Spec. ¶ 4. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for identifying software components in a computing system, the method comprising: monitoring events relating to [execution of]one or more software components of the computing system; processing the events in order to identify the software components; receiving an interruption signal indicative of an interruption of operation of the computing system being initiated; saving pending events from a volatile memory to a non- volatile memory of the computing system in response to the interruption signal, wherein the pending events comprise the events having said processing thereof being not completed; and restoring the pending events from the non-volatile memory to the volatile memory for said processing thereof in response to a restarting of the operation of the computing system following the interruption thereof. Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 3 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Koohgoli et al. (“Koohgoli”) US 2017/0032117 A1 Feb. 2, 2017 Muddu et al. (“Muddu”) US 9,516,053 B1 Dec. 6, 2016 Campanotti et al. (“Campanotti”) US 2016/0042024 A1 Feb. 11, 2016 Talagala et al. (“Talagala”) US 9,218,278 B2 Dec. 22, 2015 Habouzit et al. (“Habouzit”) US 2015/0347440 Dec. 3, 2015 Clingenpeel et al. (“Clingenpeel”) US 8,122,122 B1 Feb. 21, 2012 Turbin US 2011/0191850 A1 Aug. 4, 2011 Kusko et al. (“Kusko”) US 2010/0211950 A1 Aug. 19, 2010 Logston et al. (“Logston”) US 2002/0032754 A1 Mar. 14, 2002 Valvano et al. (“Valvano”) Chapter 12: Interrupts, Embedded Systems – Shape the World, Introduction to Interrupts, Video 12.0 Dec. 2013 Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, and Clingenpeel. Final Act. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, and Turbin. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, and Kusko. Claims 5 and 7–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, and Logston. Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 4 Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston, and Koohgoli. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston, and Valvano. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Habouzit, and Campanotti. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed June 25, 2019 (“App. Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed January 28, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 3, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed September 2, 2017 (“Spec.”) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Muddu, Talagala, and Clingenpeel teach or suggest saving pending events from a volatile memory to a non-volatile memory of the computing system in response to a signal indicating interruption of operation of the computing system, the pending events comprising the events having processing thereof being not completed? ANALYSIS Appellant argues for the patentability of all claims as a single group, represented by the independent claims (1, 13, and 14). Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues that Clingenpeel does not disclose “saving pending events . . . wherein the pending events comprise the events having said processing thereof being not completed,” as recited in each of the independent claims. Appeal Br. 13. Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 5 Appellant further argues that Clingenpeel “is entirely silent as to whether the monitored events are pending or completed. Appellant has found no support for Examiner’s position that these events can include pending events.” Appeal Br. 16. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. First, the Examiner relies on Talagala, rather than Clingenpeel, for a teaching of saving data from a volatile memory to a non-volatile memory in response to an interruption signal, and restoring data from non-volatile memory to volatile memory in response to a restarting of the operation of the computer system. Final Act. 5. Second, the Examiner relies on Clingenpeel for a teaching that the data-to-be-saved constitute “pending events.” Ans. 4-6; Clingenpeel col. 3:9- 14. The Examiner finds that Clingenpeel is concerned with a system for monitoring events on a monitored computer system so as to, for example, prevent unauthorized access to and/or use of information. Clingenpeel col. 1:53–64. Clingenpeel teaches collecting events related to preventing such unauthorized access and/or use, and places those collected events in a queue “by storing a representation of each collected event in an event cache.” Clingenpeel col. 3:9–11. Clingenpeel further teaches that “[w]hen connectivity with a monitoring computer is available, a connection with the monitoring computer may [be] established, and/or the queued events may be transmitted to the monitoring computer.” Clingenpeel col. 3:12–15. In Clingenpeel, the monitoring computer includes a set of instructions “to receive a set of one or more representations of events occurring on the monitored computer, and/or instructions to analyze any received representations of events. In this way, for example, the monitoring computer Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 6 can determine whether the events are associated with any improper activities by a user of the monitored computer.” Clingenpeel col. 6:48–53. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the events cached on the monitored computer, and not yet transmitted to the monitoring computer, correspond to the claimed “pending events.” We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “the events in the local event cache are analogous to the claimed ‘events having said processing thereof being not completed’ because they are pending processing by the monitoring computer.” Ans. 6. Appellant contends that “Clingenpeel does not disclose a rule by which Appellant’s claimed ‘pending events’ comprising ‘events having said processing thereof being not completed’ are saved.” Appeal Br. 13. We are not persuaded by this argument. As noted supra, the Examiner relies on Talagala, rather than Clingenpeel, for a teaching of saving data upon reception of a signal indicating an interruption. As further noted supra, we agree with the Examiner that Clingenpeel teaches queueing pertinent events for transmission to a monitoring computer. Appellant asserts that “functions of saving and restoring such events upon receipt of an interruption signal, and upon restarting, therefore, are not disclosed at all.” Appeal Br. 14. We do not agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Talagala, rather than Clingenpeel, teaches the claim limitations of saving data upon receipt of an interruption signal, and restoring data upon restart. Final Act. 6. Because we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Muddu, Talagala, and Clingenpeel suggests all the limitations of independent claims 1, 13 and 14, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 13, and 14. Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 7 Appellant does not argue for the separate patentability of any dependent claim. Therefore, we also sustain, for the reasons given supra with respect to the rejection of independent claims 1, 13, and 14: the § 103 rejection of claim 3 over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, and Turbin; the § 103 rejection of claim 4 over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, and Kusko; the § 103 rejection of claims 5 and 7-10 over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, and Logston; the § 103 rejection of claim 6 over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston, and Koohgoli; the § 103 rejection of claim 11 over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston, and Valvano; and the § 103 rejection of claim 12 over Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Habouzit, and Campanotti. CONCLUSION The combination of Muddu, Talagala, and Clingenpeel teaches saving pending events from a volatile memory to a non-volatile memory of the computing system in response to a signal indicating interruption of operation of the computing system, the pending events comprising the events having processing thereof being not completed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 is affirmed. Appeal 2020-002027 Application 15/694,782 8 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 13, 14 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel 1, 2, 13, 14 3 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Turbin 3 4 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Kusko 4 5, 7–10 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston 5, 7–10 6 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston, Koohgoli 6 11 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Logston, Valvano 11 12 103 Muddu, Talagala, Clingenpeel, Habouzit, Campanotti 12 Overall Outcome 1–14 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation