Ex Parte Javed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2015

12855131 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/855, 131 08/12/2010
48813 7590 01/12/2016
LAW OFFICE OF IDO TUCHMAN (YOR)
PO Box 765
Cardiff, CA 92007
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Taimur Javed
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.
YOR920050581 US2 9275
EXAMINER
TECKLU, ISAAC TUKU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01112/2016 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):
pair@tuchmanlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte T AIMUR JAVED, PHILIP LOATS,
WILLIAM J. TRACEY II, and DAVID A. WOOD III
Appeal2014-000045
Application 12/855, 131
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-000045
Application 12/855, 131
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-21, 23, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
The invention relates to "enhancing the execution performance of
program code by separating code modules from their original module
containers into new module containers" (Spec. i-f 2). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for enhancing the execution performance of
program code, the program code including at least one original
module container, the original module container including at
least one code module, the method comprising:
receiving code usage information for the code module in
the original module container; the code usage information
generated from an analysis of the program code, the code usage
information includes an order of use of the code module;
determining that the code module in the original module
container should be separated from the original module
container based, at least in part, on the code usage information;
transporting the code module to a new module container;
and
replacing the code module in the original module
container with a reference to the code module in the new
module container.
2
Appeal2014-000045
Application 12/855, 131
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bortnikov
Li
Javed
us 6,029,004 Feb.22,2000
US 2003/0101445 Al May 29, 2003
US 7,788,658 B2 Aug. 31, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under the non-
statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting over Javed.
Claims 1--4, 7, 9-13, 15-18, 21, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 3 5
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Bortnikov.
Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bortnikov and Li.
ANALYSIS
The Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants do not traverse the merits of the non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection (see Br. 5-6). Therefore, absent
any specific arguments to the contrary, we affirm the Examiner's non-
statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection.
The Anticipation Rejection
Appellants contend Bortnikov fails to disclose the claim 1 limitation
"the code usage information includes an order of use of the code module"
(Br. 6). We disagree with Appellants.
3
Appeal2014-000045
Application 12/855, 131
Bortnikov discloses: "One important profile-based optimization is
procedure reordering, which analyzes the most frequently executed paths
among procedures in a computer program, and uses this information to
reorder the procedures within the module or computer program of interest"
(Bortnikov, col. 4, 11. 34--38). We find that an executed path is an order of
use of code portions in a program. Accordingly, Bortnikov's analysis
generates information including the frequency of at least one order of use of
code portions in a program. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 4) that
Bortinikov's analysis discloses "the code usage information includes an
order of use of the code module," as recited in claim 1.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
1, and claims 2--4, 7, 9--13, 15-18, 21, 23, and 24 not specifically argued
separately.
The Obviousness Rejection
Appellants do not present specific arguments for claims 5, 6, 19, and
20, but rely on the arguments presented for claims 1 and 15 from which
claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 depend (see Br. 9). Those arguments are not
persuasive, as discussed above. Thus, we also sustain the rejection of claims
5, 6, 19, and 20.
CONCLUSIONS
Under the non-statutory doctrine of obviousness-type double
patenting, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-7, 9-13, 15-21, 23, and 24.
Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
1--4, 7, 9--13, 15-18, 21, 23, and 24.
4
Appeal2014-000045
Application 12/855, 131
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
5, 6, 19, and 20.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7,
9-13, 15-21, 23, and 24 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
msc
5