Ex Parte Hagmeier et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2013

10185705 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOACHIM HAGMEIER, JUTTA KREYSS, and
BASSAM T. SALEM
____________________

Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, HUNG H. BUI, and MIRIAM L. QUINN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 4, 5 and 8.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 Real Party in Interest is IBM Corporation.
2 Claims 1-3, 6 and 7 have been cancelled and are not on appeal.
3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed January 19, 2010
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 16, 2010 (“Ans.”); Final
Office Action mailed August 19, 2009 (“FOA.”); and the original
Specification filed June 27, 2002 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
According to Appellants, their invention relates to a method of
managing storage resources while running a program application of a
computer system, such that “first category” program data is managed with a
first Storage Management System (STMS) in a first address space, and
“second category” program data is managed with a second STMS in a
second, separate address space. See Appellants’ Spec. 3:15-24, FIG. 1, and
Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 4 and 5 are independent claims on appeal. Claim 4 is
representative of the invention, and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:

4. A method for managing storage resources while
running a program application, characterized by the steps of:

managing program data of a first category with a first
Storage Management System (STMS), wherein the first STMS
has an associated first physical address space for storing the
program data of the first category based upon a plurality of
category flags that indicate a category type for individual
portions of the program data;

managing program data of a second category with a
second STMS, wherein the second STMS has an associated
second physical address space, which is distinct from the first
physical address space, for storing the program data of the
second category based upon the plurality category flags that
indicate the category type for the individual portions of the
program data, wherein the first physical address space is
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

3

dedicated for use by the first STMS and the second physical
address space is dedicated for use by the second STMS; and

the management of the first data category and the second
data category being driven by application-specific requirements
in which said first category program data is persistent data, and
said second category data is transient data, wherein the method
is used for embedded systems, wherein the program data
comprises a plurality of variables, with each variable of the
plurality of variables having an associated category flag from
the plurality of category flags that indicates the category type
for the variable, with the category type being set during
program development of the program application and the
category flag being evaluated during runtime of the program
application to invoke an appropriate one of the first STMS and
the second STMS to manage the variable, and further
comprising the step of:

periodically re-initializing, by the second STMS, the
storage resources used for the transient data for each
transaction processed by the program application such that the
storage resources used for the transient data can be stored into a
beginning of the storage resources used for the transient data for
each of a plurality of transactions processed by the program
application.

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Thatte US 4,814,971 Mar. 21, 1989
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

4

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 4, 5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Thatte.4 Ans. 3-6.

ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Thatte. The issue turns on whether Thatte
discloses:
managing program data ... with a first Storage
Management System (STMS) ... an associated first physical
address space ... a second STMS ... an associated second
physical address space, which is distinct from the first physical
address space..., wherein the first physical address space is
dedicated for use by the first STMS and the second physical
address space is dedicated for use by the second STMS [(App.
Br. 10-14) (emphasis added)];

with the category type being set during program
development of the program application [(App. Br. 14-15)];

category flag being evaluated during runtime of the
program application to invoke an appropriate one of the first
STMS and the second STMS to manage the variable [(App. Br.
15-16)]; and

4 We note that claims 4 and 5 are also objected to because of
informalities. See FOA. 2. However, our jurisdiction is limited to
reviewing appealable matters, namely Examiner’s rejections, for error. As
such, we will not review the Examiner’s objection of claims 4 and 5.
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

5

periodically re-initializing, by the second STMS, the
storage resources used for the transient data for each transaction
processed by the program application [(App. Br. 16-17)].

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants in the Appeal Brief have been considered. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
First, Appellants contend that Thatte does not disclose the following
limitation as recited in independent claim 4, and similarly recited in
independent claim 5:
managing program data ... with a first Storage
Management System (STMS) ... an associated first physical
address space ....

... a second STMS ... an associated second physical
address space, which is distinct from the first physical address
space..., wherein the first physical address space is dedicated
for use by the first STMS and the second physical address space
is dedicated for use by the second STMS[.]

App. Br. 10-14 (emphasis added).
In particular, Appellants argue that Thatte only provides “a single,
uniform memory space (Thatte col. 1, ll. 22-24 and 53-55), as the virtual
memory 22 appears to CPU 20 as a uniform, or single level, memory store
with a single linear address space.” App. Br. 11. Appellants also cite
column 6, ll. 52-54 of Thatte, which describes a recovery scheme in which
“all memory objects are located in the same address space” (emphasis
added), and column 8, lines 3-20 of Thatte, which also describes that “all
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

6

processes within a symbolic computer share the same single, linear address
space” (emphasis added). App. Br. 11-12.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The virtual memory
20, as shown in FIG. 2 of Thatte, is a uniform memory abstraction and can,
therefore, been seen by a CPU as a single, uniform memory space. See
Thatte, col. 6, ll. 52-54; col. 8, ll. 3-20. However, as correctly found by the
Examiner, the virtual memory 22 contains two different memory systems
with separate address space for (1) persistent data, and (2) transient data, as
shown, for example, in FIG. 3 of Thatte. Ans. 7-9.
FIG. 3 of Thatte is reproduced below.

FIG. 3 illustrates a virtual memory 22 including transient root 109 for
transient data and persistent root 110 for persistent data.

As shown in FIG. 3, the virtual memory 22 is characterized as
including a transient root 109 with a number of registers 101-108 (i.e.,
hardware register or scratch-pad memory in the processor), and a persistent
root 110 that defines persistent memory objects (i.e., persistent data) located
at fixed virtual addresses and disk location. According to Thatte, persistent
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

7

data will survive system shutdowns or crashes, whereas transient data will
not survive a system shutdown or crash. See Thatte, col. 8, ll. 18-19 and ll.
51-52.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that: (1) transient memory
objects make up a transient data address space (Ans. 8); (2) persistent
memory objects make up a persistent data address space (Ans. 8); (3) the
persistent data address space and the transient data address space are distinct
and separate from each other, and therefore, can be seen as two different
storage management systems (Ans. 9); and (4) memory objects (data)
dedicated at pointers 126, 129, and 130 are transient for storage in the
transient data address space, while memory objects (data) dedicated to
pointers 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, and 127 are persistent for storage in
the persistent data address space (Ans. 9).
Second, Appellants contend that Thatte does not disclose “with the
category type being set during program development of the program
application,” as recited in independent claim 4, and similarly recited in
independent claim 5. App. Br. 14-15. However, we agree with the
Examiner’s characterization that program development of a program
application can occur at any time and that the category type (i.e., transient
data type or persistent data type) can be set, via pointer, at a time when the
program is running. Ans. 10. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that, given its broadest reasonable interpretation, the disputed
limitation is disclosed by Thatte, column 9, ll. 41-43. Ans. 10.
Third, Appellants contend that Thatte does not disclose the limitation
“category flag being evaluated during runtime of the program application to
invoke an appropriate one of the first STMS and the second STMS to
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

8

manage the variable,” as recited in independent claim 4, and similarly
recited in independent claim 5. App. Br. 15-16. As correctly found by the
Examiner, a pointer can be used by the roots to point to any memory object,
which can be either transient or persistent, and the root flag used (invoked)
to make a memory object persistent or transient data. Ans. 10 (citing to
Thatte, col. 9, ll. 39-46). Therefore, the root flag and pointer of Thatte can
be seen as invoking an appropriate one of the first STMS and the second
STMS as recited in independent claim 4.
Lastly, Appellants also contend that Thatte does not disclose the
limitation “periodically re-initializing, by the second STMS, the storage
resources used for the transient data for each transaction processed by the
program application,” as recited in independent claim 4, and similarly
recited in independent claim 5. App. Br. 16-17. However, as correctly
found by the Examiner, the recovery scheme of Thatte is based on a
mechanism to take periodic checkpoints of the entire machine state in an
efficient fashion, possibly initiated by the user or an application program.
See Thatte, col. 12, ll. 58-63. At checkpoint time, a checkpoint takes over,
and all previous transient objects (second STMS) now become persistent.
See Thatte, col. 16, ll. 42-45. As such, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that Thatte discloses periodically re-initializing, at certain
checkpoints, the transient data objects as persistent data objects. Ans. 11.
For the reasons set forth above, we find that the Examiner’s factual
findings are supported by the preponderance of the evidence of record and
see no error in the Examiner’s conclusions. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 4, as well as claims 5
and 8, which were not separately argued.
Appeal 2010-010122
Application 10/185,705

9

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting claims 4, 5, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 4, 5, and 8.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc