International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 18, 2020

2019001542 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2020)

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.
15/080,470 03/24/2016 Jinwoo Hwang RSW920140057US4 7358
58139 7590 05/18/2020
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
PATEL, JIGAR P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2020 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINWOO HWANG
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject Claims 1–12. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed towards identifying class loader problems
using the class search path sequence for each class loader in a set of class
loaders arranged hierarchically into parent-child relationships. Claim 7,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A system, comprising:
a memory unit for storing a computer program for
identifying potential class loader problems; and
a processor coupled to the memory unit, wherein the
processor is configured to execute the program instructions of
the computer program comprising:
loading a set of class loaders into memory;
arranging said set of class loaders hierarchically into
parent-child relationships;
generating a class search path sequence for each class
loader in said set of class loaders;
identifying one or more class loaders in said set of class
loaders with a duplicate class in its class search path sequence;
and
displaying a message identifying said identified one or
more class loaders as being potentially problematic.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Bosschaert et al. US 2003/0177484 A1 Sept. 18, 2003
Park et al. US 2004/0168162 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
Bates et al. US 2005/0235010 A1 Oct. 20, 2005
Chapman et al. US 2012/0174084 A1 July 05, 2012
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
3
REJECTIONS2
Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1–3 and 7–9 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bosschaert in view of Bates.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bosschaert in view of Bates in further view of Chapman.
Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12 stand rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bosschaert in view of Bates in further view of Park.
OPINION
1. 35 U.S.C. § 101
a. Legal Principles
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with

2 Responsive to the approved Terminal Disclaimer, filed on April 27, 2018,
the Examiner (Ans. 3) withdrew the three obviousness-type double patenting
rejections previously set forth in the Final Action (3–4).
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
4
that framework, under Step 2A, we first determine what concept the claim is
“directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before
us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a
third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If, under Step 2A, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, then,
under Step 2B, “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine
whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must
include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Id.
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
5
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised patent subject matter eligibility. See 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 2019
(“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, Step 2A of the Alice
two-step framework is divided into two prongs. For Step 2A, Prong 1, we
look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). For Step 2A, Prong 2, if the claim recites a judicial
exception, we look to whether the claim recites any additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B of the
Alice two-step framework, whether the claim adds a specific limitation
beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
b. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
For Step 2A of the Alice two-step framework, the Examiner concludes
that Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of collecting information and
analyzing it. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds that since claim 1 determines
if there are duplicate classes based on collected information of the class
loaders, claim 1 contains features that are akin to those of Electric Power
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
6
Group.3 Final Act. 10; see also Ans. 4. The Examiner further finds that
claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those concepts found to be
abstract in Electric Power Group, Classen, and FairWarning.4 Final Act. 4,
5.
For Step 2B of the Alice two-step framework, the Examiner finds that
claim 1 includes a processor as an additional element and, when viewed
individually and as combination, does not amount to significantly more than
the abstract idea. Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds that this additional
element merely implements the “abstract idea on a computer and require
[sic] no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer
functions.” Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4, 5. The Examiner also concludes
dependent claims 2–6 include the same abstract idea as claim 1 and do not
include any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea. Final Act. 5.
c. Appellant’s Arguments
For Steps 2A and 2B of the Alice two-step framework, Appellant
contends that Claim 1 is distinguished from the facts of Electric Power
Group, Classen, and FairWarning and that “[t]he claimed invention is
directed to an improvement in computer capabilities” by “improving
computer efficiency.” Appeal Br. 4, 7, 8, 11.
Regarding Electric Power Group, Appellant argues that the “claimed
invention is not simply directed to collecting information and analyzing it.”
Appeal Br. 3; see also Reply Br. 3. Appellant contends that “[l]oading a set

3 Elec. Power Grp, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
4 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir.
2011); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
7
of class loaders into memory is not collecting information, such as selecting
information available within the power-grid environment” of Electric Power
Group. Appeal Br. 6. Appellant further contends that “there is no analysis
being performed on the actual loading of the set of class loaders.” Appeal
Br. 6. Regarding Classen, Appellant argues that the “claimed invention is
not simply directed to collecting and comparing data and neither is
Appellant’s claimed invention simply directed to collecting and comparing
data without using or applying the data.” Appeal Br. 7 (emphasis omitted).
Regarding FairWarning, Appellant argues that the “claimed invention is not
directed to collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and
notifying a user when misuse is detected.” Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant also argues that the “claimed invention does not generate or apply
a rule” or “store any result.” Appeal Br. 9.
Regarding improvements in computer capabilities, Appellant contends
that the claimed invention provides a “technical solution” to a “technical
problem” and is thereby not abstract and provides significantly more than
just an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 11, 14. Appellant contends that the
claimed invention improves computer efficiency by providing a “means for
identifying or detecting potential class loader problems prior to or during the
deployment of the classes to the production environment by utilizing the
class search path sequence for each class loader in a set of class loaders.”
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends the claimed invention reduces memory
consumption by eliminating traces, logs, and/or memory dumps that occur
when producing software. Appeal Br. 12, 13. Appellant further contends
that the claimed invention “sav[es] programmers time from no longer having
to debug class loader problems.” Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
8
d. Discussion
Appellant argues Claims 1–12 as a group. We select Claim 7 to
represent the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of law that is
reviewable de novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
i. Step 2A, Prongs 1 and 2
For Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Revised Guidance, we find that the
emphasized portions of claim 7, reproduced above (see supra at 2), recites
elements that fall within the abstract idea category of mental processes. The
Revised Guidance requires us to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception (e.g., an abstract idea). According to the Revised Guidance, to
determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we must identify
limitations that fall within one or more of the designated subject matter
groupings of abstract ideas. The Revised Guidance lists mental processes as
one such grouping and characterizes mental processes as including, inter
alia, “concepts performed in the human mind (including observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion).” 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We find that claim 7 recites the elements that fall into this grouping.
Specifically, we find that claim 7 recites functions that could be performed
alternatively by a person, with the aid of pen and paper. 5 For example,
laim 7 recites, inter alia, “loading . . . class loaders . . .,” “arranging said . . .
class loaders hierarchically into parent-child relationships . . .,” “generating .

5 If a method can be performed by human thought alone, or by a human
using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible
under § 101. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
9
. . a class search path sequence for each class loader . . .,” and “identifying
one or more class loaders . . . with a duplicate class . . . .”
Claim 7 recites additional elements. For example, claim 7 specifies
“class loaders,” “a set of class-loaders,” and “a class.” However, these
additional elements do not preclude an alternative performance by a person
of the claimed functions as mental steps, or with the aid of pen and paper.
Nothing in claim 7 further defines or otherwise limits these additional
elements to any particular environment, such as a JAVA programming
environment, as described in the Specification (e.g., see ¶ 68), but not
claimed.6
Even if these additional elements were construed to correspond to a
software environment, a programmer, for example, could mentally walk
though different aspects of a software program, such as mentally sorting
through the loading and arrangement of a set of class hierarchies, so as to
identify potentially problematic aspects of the class loading environment,
such as by “identifying one or more class loaders in said set of class loaders
with a duplicate class in its class search path sequence.” Claim 7.
Thus, we find claim 7 recites functional elements that could be
performed alternatively as mental processes.
For Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance, we find that Claim 7,
as a whole, does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical
application of the abstract idea. The Revised Guidance states that “[a] claim

6 Our reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming
from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer “do[] not
materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
10
that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
The Revised Guidance further states that integration should be evaluated by
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and, based on certain considerations,
“evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into practical application.”
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. The Revised Guidance identifies considerations such
as whether additional elements yield an improvement to a particular
technology or a computer itself, correspond to the implementation of the
judicial exception with a particular machine, and/or apply the judicial
exception in some way beyond simply linking the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment.
Here, claim 7 is directed to a system that involves a memory for
storing a program, a processor for executing the program, and, presumably, a
display for displaying results produced during execution of the program.
Because Appellant’s claim limitations use generic computer
components as a tool to perform generic computer functions, we conclude
these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intern, 573 U.S. 208,
223–24 (2014).
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
11
Appellant has not identified any particular additional elements that
yield an improvement in the generic computer components or to the
particular technology of software debugging.7
Similarly, we do not find that the memory, processor, and/or display,
as claimed, to be any particular machine that is necessary for implementing
the abstract idea, or that apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way to a
particular technological environment.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding for Step 2B of the Alice two-
step framework, that these elements, as claimed, are nothing more than
generic computer components. See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 4, 5. Thus,
we find that Claim 7, as a whole, does not integrate the recited mental
process into a practical application of the abstract idea.
Additionally, we do not find Appellant’s argument that the claimed
invention yields improvements in computer efficiency persuasive.
Appellant’s invention discloses improving a software debugging process.
Spec. ¶ 5. According to Appellant, debugging software when the software
has been deployed into a large and complex product enterprise environments
is time consuming. Spec. ¶ 5.
However, providing an improved software debugging process has not
been shown by Appellant to improve the functioning of the computer itself.
We note an improved abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Mayo, 566
U.S. at 90 (holding that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely
abstract idea is, nonetheless patent-ineligible). See also Synopsys, 839 F.3d

7 See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with
no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
12
at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”)
(emphasis omitted);
Also, Appellant’s invention does not preclude programmers from
“having to debug class loader problems.” Appeal Br. 11. Rather,
Appellant’s invention improves the software development rocess. Spec. ¶
16. Moreover, and notably, claim 7 does not recite these argued features.
Therefore, based on our analysis under the Revised Guidance, we
agree with the Examiner that Claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Claim 7 is directed to the
abstract idea of mental processes. As result, we focus our attention on Step
2B of the Alice two-step framework.
ii. Step 2B
For Step 2B, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Claim 7 recites significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2B of
the Alice two-step framework requires us to determine whether any element,
or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at
221. As discussed in the previous section, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that the additional elements, namely the memory, processor, and
display, as claimed, are nothing more than generic computer components
used to implement the mental process. In other words, these components, as
claimed, are well-understood, routine, and conventional and “behave exactly
as expected according to their ordinary use.” See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant’s Specification
describes the computing environment in which the invention is performed.
Spec. 6, 7. However, Appellant’s Specification gives no indication that such
a computing environment is anything other than a well-understood, routine,
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
13
and conventional computing environment. Thus, implementing the abstract
idea with these generic computer components “fail[s] to transform that
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Claim 7 does not provide
significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
iii. Conclusion
Therefore, because Claim 7 is directed to the abstract idea of mental
processes and does not provide significantly more than the abstract idea
itself, we agree with the Examiner that representative Claim 7 is ineligible
for patenting.
2. 35 U.S.C. § 103
a. Claims 1–3 and 7–9
i. Claims 1 and 7
For these claims, Appellant argues that neither Bosschaert nor Bates
teach or suggest “identifying one or more class loaders in the set of class
loaders with a duplicate class in its class search path sequence.” Appeal Br.
18. Appellant contends that the Examiner relies on Bates to teach this
feature, but that “Bates focuses on simply identifying a file that is an older
version of another file” and issues “a warning simply because there are
multiple versions of a class in a classpath.” Appeal Br. 19; see also Reply
Br. 13.
Appellant further argues that neither Bosschaert nor Bates “teach or
suggest ‘generating, by a processor, a class search path sequence for each
class loader in said set of class loaders.’” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant
contends that the Examiner relies on Bosschaert to teach this feature, but that
the Examiner has failed to show “that Bosschaert generates a system class
path for each class loader in a set of class loaders.” Appeal Br. 23.
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
14
Appellant contends “Bosschaert simply teaches that the system class loader
(element 508 of Bosschaert) iterates through the entries in the system class
path until it finds an implementation of a class that it is searching for,” but
that “[s]uch a system class path is not being generated.” Reply Br. 18.
Appellant further argues that neither Bosschaert nor Bates “teach or
suggest ‘displaying a message identifying said identified one or more class
loaders as being potentially problematic.’” Appeal Br. 23. Appellant
contends that the Examiner relies on Bates to teach this feature, but that
since “Bates teaches issuing a warning which indicates that the file to be
used is an older version and includes an identification of the location of a
newer version of the file,” Bates does not teach or suggest displaying a
message regarding a duplicate class. Appeal Br. 24 (emphasis omitted); see
also Reply Br. 20. Appellant further contends, “[c]lass loaders are not
identified as being potentially problematic simply because old and new
versions of a class are found using a classpath.” Reply Br. 20, 21.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Bosschaert and Bates is insufficient. Appeal Br. 28. Appellant contends
that the Examiner’s rationale, namely that Bates avoids and detects incorrect
versions of files, “does not provide reason as to why one skilled in the art
would modify Bosschaert to include the missing claim limitations of
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 28. Appellant also contends that the “Examiner has
not explained the connection between providing a warning regarding using a
possible incorrect version of a file and the teachings of Bosschaert.” Appeal
Br. 29; see also Reply Br. 25.
In response, the Examiner finds “[i]t is clear that Bates is identifying
duplicate classes by using classpath [class search path sequence] to provide
correct version of the file/class to the user.” Ans. 5. The Examiner also
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
15
finds, “Bates further discloses [Fig. 4; 0043-0044] a user notification
indicates that a newer version (of a duplicate class) of one of the classes
displayed was found and a class path (directory) is provided for the location
of the newer version.” Ans. 5. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that
“Bosschaert would have to perform a class search path for each class loader
in the set of class loaders” because Bosschaert “iterates through the entries
in the system class path until it finds an implementation of a class that it is
searching for.” Ans. 6. Additionally, the Examiner finds that one skilled in
the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Bosschaert
and Bates because doing so would avoid the use of incorrect versions of
files. Ans. 6. In this light, the Examiner finds that “Bosschaert discloses
identifying and generating a class search, but fails to explicitly disclose
identifying one or more class loaders with a duplicate class,” that Bates
teaches issuing a warning when multiple versions of a file are found, and
that one skilled in the art would have been motivated to combine these
teachings to avoid the use of incorrect file versions. Ans. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Based on our
review, Bosschaert teaches arranging a plurality of loaded class loaders into
a parent-child hierarchy and generating a class search path sequence for each
class loader of the plurality of loaded class loaders. For example,
Bosschaert shows, in Figure 5, and describes, in paragraph 67, a plurality of
loaded firewall class loaders that are arranged in a parent-child hierarchy
with respect to a system class loader and loaded application server class
loaders. According to Bosschaert, the application server class loaders may
not pass requests up to the system class loader through the firewall class
loaders, but the firewall class loaders may pass requests up to the system
class loader or down to the application server class loaders based on their
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
16
positive or negative filters. Bosschaert ¶ 66. Further, according to
Bosschaert, the system class loader generates a class search path sequence
for each class loader in the system. Bosschaert ¶ 67. For example,
Bosschaert states, in paragraph 67, “[t]he System Class Loader 508 iterates
through the entries in the system class path until it finds an implementation
of a class that it is searching for, and it will load this without regard for
which Application Server it is associated with.”
Additionally, based on our review, Bates teaches identifying one or
more class loaders in said set of class loaders with a duplicate class in its
class search path sequence and displaying a message identifying said
identified one or more class loaders as being potentially problematic. For
example, Bates teaches, in paragraphs 8–10, a software debugging process
that identifies duplicate classes in a class search path and warning a user
about such duplicate classes.8 According to Bates, if a newer version of a
class is found along with an older version of a class when performing a

8 See e.g., Bates, ¶ 8:
The classpath can become a source of great frustration and
annoyance for the user because as the number of dependent third-
party and user-defined classes increases for the program being
debugged, the classpath becomes a dumping ground for every
conceivable directory and archive file, and the risk becomes
greater that the class contains duplicate class entries. Thus, the
user can experience great difficulty in determining which class
the class loader will load first. For example, the user may
append a directory to the classpath in attempt to get the latest
version of a class loaded into the program being debugged, but
the user may be unaware that another version of the class is
located in a directory of higher precedence in the classpath.
(emphasis added).
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
17
search for classes using a class path search sequence, a visual warning is
issued to the user. Bates Figure 4, ¶ 10.
Thus, based on our review of Bosschaert and Bates, we agree with the
Examiner in that “Bosschaert discloses identifying and generating a class
search, but fails to explicitly disclose identifying one or more class loaders
with a duplicate class.” However, Bates teaches issuing a warning when
multiple versions of a file are found, and that one skilled in the art would
have been motivated to combine these teachings to avoid the use of incorrect
file versions. Ans. 7.
Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error
in the Examiner’s factual findings or legal conclusion of obviousness, and
we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 in view of Bosschaert and Bates.
ii. Claims 2 and 8
Appellant argues that neither Bosschaert nor Bates “teach or suggest
‘composing said class search path sequence for a class loader by prefixing a
parent node’s class search path to one or more classes of said class loader in
response to said class loader having a delegation mode of parent-first.’”
Appeal Br. 25. Appellant contends that the Examiner relies on Bosschaert to
teach this feature, but that “Bosschaert simply teaches that the down class
loader attempts to load a class when a class loading request returns (in
failure) from its parent in the class loader hierarchy.” Appeal Br. 26; see
also Reply Br. 22.
In response, the Examiner finds that Bosschaert teaches that “the
down class loader is prefixed to a parent node’s class search path” because
the down class loader “passes the request to load a class to its parent, and it
tries to load the class if the parent and its ancestors do not.” Ans. 7.
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
18
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Based upon our
review, Bosschaert teaches that up class loaders, for passing class requests
up the hierarchy, and down class loaders, for passing class requests down the
hierarchy, may be inserted anywhere in the hierarchy. Bosschaert ¶¶ 99,
100. Thus, based on our review, we agree with the Examiner in that
Bosschaert teaches or suggests that “the down class loader is prefixed to a
parent node’s class search path.” Ans. 7.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 2 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Bosschaert and Bates.
iii. Claims 3 and 9
Appellant argues that neither Bosschaert nor Bates “teach or suggest
‘composing said class search path sequence for a class loader by postfixing a
parent node’s class search path to one or more classes of said class loader in
response to a class loader having a delegation mode of parent-last.’” Appeal
Br. 27. Appellant contends that the Examiner relies on Bosschaert to teach
this feature, but that “Bosschaert simply teaches that the down class loader
attempts to load a class when a class loading request returns (in failure) from
its parent in the class loader hierarchy.” Appeal Br. 27; see also Reply Br.
23.
In response, the Examiner finds that Bosschaert teaches that if the up
class loader cannot load a class, “then it passes the request to its parent
[postfixing a parent node’s class search path in response to the parent-last
mode].” Ans. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Based upon our
review, Bosschaert teaches that up class loaders, for passing class requests
up the hierarchy, and down class loaders, for passing class requests down the
hierarchy, may be inserted anywhere in the hierarchy. Bosschaert ¶¶ 99,
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
19
100. Thus, based on our review, we agree with the Examiner in that
Bosschaert teaches postfixing a parent node’s class search path in response
to the parent-last mode if the up class loader cannot load a class. Ans. 7.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 3 and 9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Bosschaert and Bates.
b. Claims 4 and 10
Appellant argues neither Bosschaert nor Bates nor Chapman “teach or
suggest ‘wherein said hierarchical arrangement is implemented by a stack.’”
Appeal Br. 31. Appellant contends that the Examiner relies on Chapman to
teach this feature, but that “the Examiner has not shown that the LUDCL
stack of Chapman includes a hierarchical arrangement of the set of class
loaders in parent-child relationships, where such a hierarchical arraignment
is implemented by a stack.” Appeal Br. 32 (emphasis omitted); see also
Reply Br. 29.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Chapman with Bosschaert and Bates is insufficient. Appeal Br. 34.
Appellant contends that “Chapman teaches that the stack processing module
. . . provides stack management capabilities for the core processing module,”
but that the Examiner’s rationale, namely that Chapman provides stack
management capabilities, does not provide “motivation to modify
Bosschaert to arrange the set of class loaders hierarchically into parent-child
relationships.” Appeal Br. 34–35; see also Reply Br. 30.
In response, the Examiner finds “Bosschaert and Bates disclose a
hierarchical arrangement, but fail to explicitly disclose hierarchical
arrangement is implemented by a stack” and that “Chapman discloses a
similar method,” but “further teaches . . . [that the] hierarchical arrangement
is implemented by a stack.” Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds that
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
20
combining Chapman with Bosschaert and Bates would be advantageous
because doing so would add “stack management capabilities” to Bosschaert
and Bates. Ans. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Appellant’s
arguments rely upon the arguments proffered for a deficiency in the base
combination, but we did not find a deficiency in the base combination.
Nevertheless, based on our review, Chapman, like Bosschaert and Bates,
teaches management of class loaders. Chapman ¶ 13. According to
Chapman, class loading can be managed using a stack. Chapman Figure 5,
¶¶ 89, 90.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 4 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Bosschaert, Bates, and Chapman.
c. Claims 5, 6, 11, and 12
i. Claims 5 and 11
Appellant argues, for Claims 5 and 11, neither Bosschaert nor Bates
nor Park “teach or suggest ‘wherein said class search path sequence for each
class loader is generated during one of the following: a compile time in a
development environment and a build time in said development
environment.’” Appeal Br. 36; see also Appeal Br. 38. Appellant contends
that the Examiner relies on Park to teach this feature, but that the “Examiner
has not shown that Park teaches the concept of class search path sequences.”
Appeal Br. 37; see also Reply Br. 33.
In response, the Examiner finds “Bosschaert and Bates disclose
generating class search path sequence, but fail to explicitly disclose search
path sequence is generated during compile time” and “Park discloses a
similar method,” but “further teaches . . . the steps of loading compiled byte
codes by a class loader unit [generating class by class loader unit during
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
21
compile time].” Ans. 8. The Examiner further finds that combining Park
with Bosschaert and Bates would be advantageous because doing so would
shorten “the compiling time” of a “Java program.” Ans. 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Based on our
review, Park, like Bosschaert and Bates, teaches management of a class
loader. According to Park, class loading can be performed during a compile
time. Park ¶¶ 11, 12. Moreover, Bates teaches and suggests “[t]ypically, a
programmer uses another computer program commonly known as a
‘debugger’ to debug a program under development.” Bates ¶ 3.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 5 and 11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Bosschaert, Bates, and Park.
i. Claims 6 and 12
Appellant argues Claims 6 and 12 on the same basis as Appellant’s
arguments for Claims 5 and 11. Appeal Br. 40. Therefore, based on the
same reasoning set forth for Claims 5 and 11 in the section above, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejections of Claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view
of Bosschaert, Bates, and Park.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. §  Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12 101  Eligibility 1–12
1–3, 7–9 103 Bosschaert, Bates 1–3, 7–9
4, 10 103 Bosschaert, Bates,
Chapman
4, 10
5, 6, 11, 12 103 Bosschaert, Bates,
Park
5, 6, 11,
12

Overall
Outcome
1–12
Appeal 2019-001542
Application 15/080,470
22
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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