Ex Parte Dawson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2016

12889644 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/889,644 09/24/2010
45502 7590
Yudell Isidore PLLC
10601 RR2222, Ste. Rll 1
Austin, TX 78730
03/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Dawson
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.
CA920090037US 1 6699
EXAMINER
RONI, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2016 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):
Patents@yudellisidore.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL DAWSON and GRAEME JOHNSON
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
Technology Center 2100
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to data processing systems. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A computer-implemented process for distributed
management of native interface arrays, the computer-
implemented process comprising:
obtaining an array type native interface call associated
with a first array in a first system from a caller in a second
system;
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
in response to obtaining the array type native interface
call, identifying an array type of the array type native interface
call associated with the first array, wherein the identified array
type provides information regarding a quantity of elements of
the first array and a size of elements of the first array;
in response to determining the identified array type,
requesting array elements associated with the identified array
type to form requested array elements, wherein added metadata
is associated with the requested array elements;
building an enhanced data structure using the requested
array elements and the associated added metadata; and
returning a pointer within the enhanced data structure to
the caller, wherein the pointer can be used by the caller to
manipulate array data of the array elements and the first system
can calculate an address of the added metadata in constant time
from the pointer.
Czajkowski
Foti
References and Rejections
US 2002/0087737 Al
US 2006/0212822 Al
July 4, 2002
Sept. 21, 2006
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Foti and Czajkowski.
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-12), and agree
with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions on pages 27-31 of
the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following
points for emphasis.
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
2
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
Issue 1
Appellants contend Czajkowski does not teach "building an enhanced
data structure using the requested array elements and the associated added
metadata," as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added). See App. Br. 6-8. In
particular, Appellants cite the Specification's paragraphs 47 and 50 and
contend the "claimed metadata is structured material/ data which provides
administrative, structural, or describing information on an associated
structure." App. Br. 7.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. It is well established that
during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, but without importing limitations from the
specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters.,
Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do not contend the
Specification specifically defines the claim element "metadata." Therefore,
we decline to import non-limiting examples from the Specification into that
term. See e.g., Specification i-fi-147, 50. Because Appellants have not
provided adequate support for the argued construction of "metadata," we
decline to adopt Appellants' unsubstantiated definition.
Further, in response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides
comprehensive findings showing Czajkowski teaches the disputed claim
limitation. See Ans. 27-28. The Examiner cites Czajkowski's Figures 7-8
and paragraphs 49 and 51, and finds Czajkowski teaches "creating the direct
buffer by creating the list L {A, A', S} where A and A' are the requested
elements of List Land Sis the size/length metadata." Ans. 27-28.
Therefore, the Examiner maps Czajkowski's "creating" to the claimed
3
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
"using," Czajkowski's A and A' to the claim element "the requested array
elements," and Czajkowski's S to the claimed "associated added metadata."
Appellants fail to adequately respond to such findings and therefore, fail to
show specific fault in the Examiner's findings. See In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.")
Issue 2
Appellants contend Czajkowski does not teach "a caller in a second
system ... returning a pointer within the enhanced data structure to the
caller, wherein the pointer can be used by the caller to manipulate array data
of the array elements and the first system can calculate an address of the
added metadata in constant time from the pointer," as recited in claim 1
(emphases added). See App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants contend
Czajkowski's identifier is not the claimed pointer and "Czajkowski . .. only
provides returning data identifiers to a process on a same system and
operating system." See App. Br. 8. Without citing any support or analysis,
Appellants argue "the combination of references also does not suggest a
system that returns a pointer and further provides calculating an address of
added metadata from the pointer in constant time (in an amount of time
independent of the input size)." App. Br. 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error. Again, in response to
Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides comprehensive findings
showing Czajkowski teaches the disputed claim limitations. See Ans. 28-
30. The Examiner cites Czajkowski's paragraph 52, and finds "[s]ince the
4
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
M-id in Czajkowski identifies an area of the memory, it must have been
associated with a value that points to the address of the area of the memory."
(emphasis added). Ans. 28. Appellants fail to adequately respond to such
findings and fail to show why the Examiner's finding is unreasonable. See
Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Further, the Examiner finds "because Czajkowski discloses that Java
virtual machine (JMV) executes in j-process and native library executes inn-
process (page 4, par 0044). Czajkowski further discloses each processes are
isolated from each other (page 2, par 0031)." Ans. 29. Again, Appellants
fail to show why such finding is unreasonable.
Finally, Appellants' unsupported conclusive assertion that the
combination does not teach "calculating an address of added metadata from
the pointer in constant time" (App. Br. 8) is unpersuasive of error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, and
corresponding dependent claims 2 and 4--6, which Appellants do not
separately argue.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 8 and 15, and corresponding dependent claims 9, 11-13,
16, and 18-20, which Appellants do not separately argue.
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Appellants cite Czajkowski's
paragraph 51, and argue:
the identifier of Czajkowski is not suggestive of Appellants'
metadata since the identifier of Czajkowski is only
created/obtained after a buffer is created. For example,
5
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
paragraph [0051] of Czajkowski recites "First, an address range
[A' ,A'+S), at 806, is reserved. The address range is made
available for memory mapping by other processes, and an
identifier M-id is obtained to identify this area, at 808."
In contrast, Appellants' claim 3 provides that the
metadata " ... comprises a set of data including an array type,
an array length and an original pointer to the array elements on
the first system ... " (emphasis added) and that the metadata is
further utilized to build the enhanced data structure. Thus,
Appellants' example claim 1, as modified by dependent claim
3, clearly provides ( 1) that the original pointer is present before
the enhanced data structure is created and provides for (2) using
the original pointer to create the enhanced data structure.
App. Br. 9--10.
We disagree. The cited portion of Czajkowski' s paragraph 51 is silent
on creating a direct buffer and therefore, does not show the "identifier of
Czajkowski is only created/obtained after a buffer is created," as Appellants
contend. Instead, the record shows the opposite is true: Czajkowski's Figure
8 shows "OBTAIN M-id FOR THIS MEMORY AREA" (step 808) occurs
before-not after-"CREATE A DIRECTOR BUFFER" (step 810). See
Czajkowski Fig. 8, Steps 808-810. Therefore, Appellants' above argument
. .
1s unpersuasive.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 10, and 17.
6
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Appellants contend the cited
references fail to teach "extracting the original local pointer from the
enhanced data structure; calling a local release function using the original
local pointer with array elements and one or more previously passed
parameters." See App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellants argue steps 806 and
808 of Czajkowski' s Figure 8 do not teach the above claim limitations, and
the steps are performed prior to the creation of a direct buffer (step 810 }-
contrary to the claim requirement. See App. Br. 10-11. Appellants contend
"Czajkowski cannot extract a pointer from a data structure and use the
extracted pointer to call a release function on that data structure if that
particular data structure has not yet been constructed." App. Br. 11.
In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner provides further
findings showing Czajkowski teaches the disputed claim limitations. See
Ans. 31. The Examiner cites Czajkowski's Figure 8 and paragraphs 51-52,
and finds Czajkowski teaches "returning M-id (the identifier of the memory
mapped area) and an identifier of B after creating the direct buffer (see
reference 812-814 of figure 8." Ans. 31 (emphasis added). Appellants fail
to respond to such findings and therefore, fail to show why the Examiner's
finding is unreasonable. See Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Further, Appellants' unsupported conclusive assertion that "the combination
of references ... is completely devoid of any teaching or suggestion of ( 1)
extracting or performing any function utilizing a pointer, (2) a calling a
release function, or (3) passing both an original local pointer and previously
passed parameter(s) to the release function" (App. Br. 11) is unpersuasive of
error. Finally, such argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, as Appellants fail to show the claims require "passing both an original
7
Appeal2014-005157
Application 12/889,644
local pointer and previously passed parameter(s) to the release function," as
Appellants contend.
Therefore, and for similar reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 14, and 20.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8