Ex Parte Grover et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

10621207 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAJEEV GROVER, KENNETH C. DUISENBERG,
and JOHN NOLAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-004062
Application 10/621,207
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRYAN F.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004062
Application 10/621,207

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17. Claims 9 and 16 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to techniques for
handling exceptions. (Abstract).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claims
Claims 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below:
1. An exception handling mechanism stored in one or more
computer-readable storage devices, said exception handling
mechanism comprising:
an exception handler for recording exception information
dependant on types of exceptions and programming tasks that
encounter exceptions; and
a recovery agent for taking an action upon an occurrence of an
exception that occurred for a programming task, wherein the action is
performed outside of a debugging operation;
wherein the action to be taken upon the occurrence of the
exception corresponds to a type of exception and a programming task,
and includes one or a combination of restarting the programming task,
terminating the programming task, resetting a system running the
programming task, and disregarding the exception,
wherein the exception handler and the recovery agent run on a
first system that operates autonomously and the first system is
embedded in a second system.

Prior Art
Bowman-Amuah US 6,339,832 B1 Jan. 15, 2002
Appeal 2010-004062
Application 10/621,207

3
Rejection
Claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Bowman-Amuah. Ans. 3-12.
Appellants Contentions
Appellants contend that Claim 1 is not anticipated by Bowman-
Amuah because Bowman-Amuah does not disclose “a recovery agent for
taking an action upon an occurrence of an exception that occurred for a
programming task.” (App. Br. 8-12). Specifically, Appellants contend that
“a „batch job‟, as disclosed in Bowman-Amuah, is not an exception and does
not imply an exception or exception handling” (App. Br. 10) and that "an
exception that occurred for a programming task," as disclosed by Appellants'
claim 1 should not be equated with „Batch jobs exceptions,‟ . . . ." (App. Br.
14-15). Appellants further contend that Bowman-Amuah does not disclose
“batch jobs exceptions are handled outside a debugging operation.” (App.
Br. 11-12). Finally, Appellents contend that “the different portions of
Bowman-Amuah cited by the instant Office Action do not disclose the
claimed embodiments as arranged by the Appellants‟ Claims.” (App. Br.
12-14). In other words, Appellants contend that the Examiner cites to an
exception handling embodiment and a batch job embodiment which are
separate and distinct embodiments that cannot be combined.

ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Bowman-Amuah discloses “a
recovery agent for taking an action upon an occurrence of an exception that
occurred for a programming task, wherein the action is performed outside of
a debugging operation.” as recited in claim 1?
Appeal 2010-004062
Application 10/621,207

4
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17
Claim 1 recites “a recovery agent for taking an action upon an
occurrence of an exception that occurred for a programming task.” (Ans. 13-
15). The Examiner finds that this limitation is disclosed by Bowman-
Amuah since exception handling occurs, i.e., restart and recovery, when a
batch job experiences an error. (Ans. 14-16). Thus, the Examiner equates
the claimed “programming task” with Bowman-Amuah‟s batch jobs and “an
exception that occurred for a programming task” with Bowman-Amuah‟s
batch job exceptions.
1
(Ans. 13.) Appellants argue that batch job exceptions
should not be equated to “an exception that occurred for a programming
task” since a batch job is not an exception and does not imply exception
handling. (App. Br. 10). However, since batch jobs are programs that may
contain errors and exception handling occurs after a program error occurs,
we see no reason to disagree with the Examiner‟s interpretation that the
batch job exceptions of Bowman-Amuah are “an exception that occurred for
a programming task.” Appellants have not presented any persuasive
evidence or argument to show the Examiner‟s interpretation of the term
“batch job exception” is in error.
Additionally, claim 1 recites that the “action is performed outside of a
debugging operation.” The Examiner finds that Bowman-Amuah discloses

1
We find that the citation in the Final Office Action to “„[t]he automatic
restart/recovery feature helps a system recognize when components have
failed and attempts to restart them” (Bowman-Amuah 93:24-50) is an
alternative disclosure of a recovery agent that is not relied on in the
Examiner‟s Answer. Therefore, we will not address Appellants‟ argument
directed to this citation.
Appeal 2010-004062
Application 10/621,207

5
that batch jobs are run automatically during execution of the system which is
a time when debugging is not occurring. (Ans. 15-16.) Appellants argue
that the sections of Bowman-Amuah cited in the Final Office Action do not
disclose an “action [] performed outside of a debugging operation.” (App.
Br. 11-13). However, the Examiner‟s Answer cites to additional sections of
Bowman-Amuah and finds that those citations disclose that: 1) Bowman-
Amuah has a typical software lifecycle which includes a specific time for
development activities such as testing and debugging (Bowman-Amuah
143:2-10); and 2) batch job exceptions occur during the live execution of the
system which is separate time from the testing and debugging (Bowman-
Amuah 188:40-44.)
2
We agree with the Examiner. Additionally, in the
Reply Brief, Appellants do not respond to the Examiner‟s specific findings.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Bowman-Amuah discloses that batch
job exceptions are handled outside of a debugging operation.
Lastly, Appellants contend that the exception handling is disclosed as
a part of an embodiment that is distinct from the batch job disclosure and
that the teachings cannot be combined. (App. Br. 10). However, we find
that the Examiner‟s citations indicate that Bowman-Amuah‟s batch job
disclosure is explicitly tied to its exception handling disclosure such that
they are part of a single embodiment. (Ans. 15). For example, Bowman-
Amuah recites that “the exception handler on a server may have different
requirements or constraints than a client . . . where [a] client is a batch
program.” (See Bowman-Amuah 267:36-45). In other words, there are

2 The Answer contains a typographic error in which this citation appears as
“Bowman-Amuah 188:34-4,” however, a review of the cited language shows
that the above citation is correct.
Appeal 2010-004062
Application 10/621,207

6
exception handlers for servers and clients and, because a batch job is a type
of client, there are also exception handlers for batch jobs. Id.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner‟s rejection of claim 1 and claims
2-8, 10-15, and 17, which were not separately argued (see App. Br. 12).

DECISION
The Examiner‟s rejection of claims 1-8, 10-15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bowman-Amuah is affirmed.
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD