Ex Parte Davis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14563822 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/563,822 12/08/2014
47973 7590 01/03/2019
WORKMAN NYDEGGER/MICROSOFT
60 EAST SOUTH TEMPLE
SUITE 1000
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jackson Davis
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13768.3546.1 7896
EXAMINER
LE, DIEU MINH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
Docketing@wnlaw.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACKSON DA VIS, TAE HYUNG KIM, COLIN A. THOMSEN,
AND STEVE CARROLL
Appeal 2018-006121
Application 14/563,822
Technology Center 2100
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, CARL L. SILVERMAN and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Microsoft Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006121
Application 14/563,822
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is "[a] debugging and
diagnostics system allow[ing] users to take lightweight process snapshots of
running debuggee processes so the users may analyze those snapshots at a
later time." Abstract. "The snapshot mechanism further allows users to
inspect a snapshot of process memory while allowing the original process to
continue running with minimal impact." Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. In a computing environment, a method of
debugging an executing process, the method comprising:
simultaneously running, independently, an executing
process and a snapshot of the executing process, wherein the
executing process and the snapshot point to a same physical
memory address; and
analyzing data collected from the snapshot, using a
debugging tool associated with the snapshot, without affecting
the executing process.
THE REJECTI0NS 2
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Law (US 2012/0096441 Al; pub. Apr. 19, 2012) and
Brodeur (2002/0087950 Al; pub. July 4, 2002). Final Act. 4--13.
2 We note that the Examiner withdraws the enablement rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112 (a) and the new matter objection under 35 U.S.C. § I32(a).
See Ans. 17.
2
Appeal 2018-006121
Application 14/563,822
ANALYSIS
THE REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as patent ineligible.
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 82 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.
v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first step in that
analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts" (id.), for example, to an abstract idea. If
the claims are directed to one of the patent-ineligible concepts, the inquiry
proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are considered
"individually and 'as an ordered combination'" to determine whether there
are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo, 132
S.Ct. at 1297).
With respect to step one of the eligibility analysis, the Examiner finds
that the claims are directed to the abstract idea, namely "an idea of itself of
collecting information/data, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis." Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that this claimed
concept is similar to the collecting, analyzing, and displaying of information
that were found to be abstract in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id; see also Ans. 19 (finding that "[t]he concept
described in claims are [sic] not meaningfully different than the collecting,
3
Appeal 2018-006121
Application 14/563,822
analyzing and displaying information from resulting of analyzing concepts
found by the courts to be abstract ideas in Electric Power Group."). Under
step two of the eligibility analysis, the Examiner determines that the claims
do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 3; see
also Ans. 20-21.
Appellants argue that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
and that the claims are directed to significantly more than the alleged
abstract idea. App. Br. 8-9. Namely, the claims do more than merely
gathering and analyzing information and then displaying results as found by
the Examiner. See App. Br. 8. Appellants assert that "unlike Electric Power
Group, the claims on appeal require inventive technology for performing
those functions, such as by running both an executing process and a snapshot
of the executing process that point to a same physical memory address."
App. Br. 8. Further, Appellants explain that "the pending claims require a
unique and inventive configuration that allows by both an executing process
and a snapshot of the executing process that point to a same physical
memory address to run independently and simultaneously." App. Br. 9.
We are persuaded of error in the Examiner's rejection. We agree with
Appellants that the claims are not directed to merely collecting, analyzing,
and displaying information like in Electric Power Group. Instead, the
claims are directed to a debugging method that requires simultaneously
running, an independent snapshot of the executing process and also requires
both the executing process and the running snapshot "to point to a same
physical memory address." See, e.g., App. Br. 7-10. Further, as Appellants
point out,
4
Appeal 2018-006121
Application 14/563,822
The limitations of Claim 1 require more than an abstract idea.
Claim 1 requires a new source of information - a shared physical
memory - that is used by two processes. When the snapshot
process is analyzed, the executing process cannot be affected.
This is more than mere off-the-shelf, conventional computer
technology. Claim 1 requires an inventive device (shared
physical memory) and technique (analyzing data collected from
the snapshot without affecting the executing process).
App. Br. 10. As such, we agree that the Examiner erred in rejecting the
claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-
20 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONUNDER35 U.S.C. § 103 BASED ON LAW
AND BRODEUR
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as unpatentable over Law and Brodeur.
Appellants argue that the combination of Law and Brodeur does not
teach or suggest simultaneously running, independently, an executing
process and a snapshot of the executing process, as required by the claims.
App. Br. 18-19. Appellants explain that
Claim 1 does not require a static, one-time version of a
working memory space as taught in Law. Instead, in Claim 1,
"the executing process and the snapshot point to a same physical
memory address" while the executing process and the snapshot
of the executing process are "simultaneously running,
independently." Because Law does not teach a running
"snapshot of the executing process," Law does not teach or
suggest this limitation of Claim 1.
App. Br. 19.
5
Appeal 2018-006121
Application 14/563,822
The Examiner maintains that Law describes concurrent memory
access by multiple threads and regularly snapshotting the process as it runs
and running the appropriate snapshot forward to find the process' state at
any given time. Ans. 25. As Appellants point out, though, Law merely
creates static snapshots, not a running snapshot of the executing process.
See, e.g., Law ,r 46. As such, on the record before us, we are persuaded of
error in the Examiner's rejection.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-
20 as unpatentable over Law and Brodeur.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6