Ex Parte Lange-Last

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 2012

10892437 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SVEN LANGE-LAST
___________

Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, ERIC B. CHEN, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-10, all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for fault finding
in repository management code. A repeated sequence of undoing a
respective last operation and subsequent checking of the consistency of the
repository is performed until the repository is found consistent again. The
fault finding system redoes the last operation by a redo operation, and
generates a diagnostic output including some debugging information which
is usable for retrieving the one or more software instructions which indicates
a reason for the inconsistency that was found. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for automated fault finding in repository
management code, the repository being operated in a processing
infrastructure comprising a logging mechanism and undo and redo
functionality for repository operations, comprising the steps of:
determining if an inconsistency was found in said repository
management code;
when said inconsistency is found:
undoing a respective last operation involving said repository
management code;
after undoing the respective last operation, determining if the
repository management code is consistent;
in response to determining that the repository management
code is still inconsistent, repeating the steps of undoing a respective
last operation and determining if the repository management code is
consistent until a determination is made that the repository
management code is consistent;
Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

3
in response to determining that the repository management code
is consistent, identifying a faulty instruction that caused the
inconsistency;
debugging the faulty instruction to form a corrected instruction;
and
redoing the last operation prior to the occurrence of said
inconsistency using the corrected instruction.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Chung (U.S. Patent No. 6,044,475; Mar. 28, 2000).

ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 12-13) that
Chung does not describe the first disputed limitation “after undoing the
respective last operation, determining if the repository management code is
consistent,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the disclosure in Chung of restoring the
volatile and persistent checkpoints after detection of a failure corresponds to
the first disputed limitation. (Ans. 8-9; Chung, col. 7, ll. 43-47.) We agree
with the Examiner.
Chung “relates to a system for checkpointing and restoring the state of
a process,” in particular, “to systems for checkpointing and restoring the
process state . . . .” (Col. 1, ll. 15-18.) Chung discloses that a state of a
process includes both a volatile state and a persistent state. (Col. 2, ll. 6-7.)
“Although the persistent state is generally not lost upon a failure, it is
necessary to restore the persistent state to the same point as the restored
volatile state, in order to maintain data consistency.” (Col. 2, ll. 11-14.) In
one embodiment, upon detection of a failure F1, a volatile state of the
process is rolled back to a latest volatile checkpoint VC3 by restoring the
Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

4
checkpoint data associated with the checkpoint VC3. (Col. 7, ll. 43-47;
Fig. 2.) Furthermore, persistent checkpoints, PC3 and PC3", allow each of
the modifications to the persistent state to be undone since the latest volatile
checkpoint VC3. (Col. 7, ll. 47-50; Fig. 2.) In other words, Chung describes
the limitation “after undoing the respective last operation, determining if the
repository management code is consistent.”
Appellant argues that “[o]nce the restoration subroutine has restored
the states associated with the checkpoint, Chung teaches that the states are
consistent” and thus, “by definition according to Chung’s design, once the
restoration subroutine has been executed, the states are always going to be
consistent.” (Br. 12-13.) However, as discussed previously, Chung
discloses restoring the persistent state to the same point as the restored
volatile state to maintain data consistency.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Chung describes the
limitation “after undoing the respective last operation, determining if the
repository management code is consistent.”
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 13-14) that
Chung does not describe the second disputed limitation “in response to
determining that the repository management code is still inconsistent,
repeating the steps of undoing a respective last operation and determining if
the repository management code is consistent until a determination is made
that the repository management code is consistent,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
The Examiner found that Figure 2 of Chung, which illustrates
multiple checkpoints (i.e., VC1, VC2 and VC3), corresponds to the second
disputed limitation. (Ans. 8-9; Chung, Fig. 2.) We agree with the Examiner.
Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

5
Chung discloses that during execution of a user application
process 40, “checkpoints of the volatile state are invoked, such as the
volatile checkpoints VC1, VC2 and VC3.” (Col. 7, ll. 12-16; see also Fig. 2.)
Figure 2 also illustrates upon a detected failure F1, the volatile state of the
process can be rolled back to volatile checkpoints VC1, VC2 and VC3. In
other words, Chung describes the limitation “in response to determining that
the repository management code is still inconsistent, repeating the steps of
undoing a respective last operation and determining if the repository
management code is consistent until a determination is made that the
repository management code is consistent.”
Appellant argues that “Chung, Figure 10, does not teach ‘in response
to determining that the repository management code is still inconsistent,
repeating the steps of undoing a respective last operation and determining if
the repository management code is consistent until a determination is made
that the repository management code is consistent’” because “Chung teaches
being unable to allocate dynamic memory” and “[b]eing unable to allocate
dynamic memory does not teach repository management code being
inconsistent.” (Br. 14.) However, the Examiner also cited Figure 2 of
Chung for the disclosure of the second disputed limitation. Appellant has
not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence to address why the
Examiner’s citation of Figure 2 of Chung was in error.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Chung describes the
limitation “in response to determining that the repository management code
is still inconsistent, repeating the steps of undoing a respective last operation
and determining if the repository management code is consistent until a
determination is made that the repository management code is consistent.”
Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

6
We are further not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 15-16)
that Chung does not describe the third disputed limitation “debugging the
faulty instruction to form a corrected instruction,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
The Examiner found that the disclosure in Chung of tolerating one or
more flaws in a software component corresponds to the third disputed
limitation. (Ans. 10; Chung, col. 3, ll. 58-60, 63-67.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Chung discloses that “one or more flaws in a software component”
imported into the user application process can be tolerated. (Col. 3, ll. 58-
60.) In one embodiment, the flaw is an introduction of an undesirable
memory state and a checkpointing step performs a checkpoint of the
memory state before the undesirable memory state is introduced. (Col. 20,
ll. 43-46; see also col. 3, ll. 63-67.) In other words, Chung discloses the
limitation “debugging the faulty instruction to form a corrected instruction.”
Appellant argues that “Chung teaches undoing modifications to the
persistent state” (Br. 15) and “[u]ndoing modifications to a persistent state
has nothing whatsoever to do with locating and correcting an error in an
instruction” (Br. 16). However, the Examiner also found that the disclosure
in Chung of introducing one or more flaws into a software component
corresponds to the third disputed limitation. (Ans. 10.) Again, Appellant
has not provided any persuasive arguments or evidence to address why the
Examiner’s findings were erroneous.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Chung describes the
limitation “debugging the faulty instruction to form a corrected instruction.”
Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

7
Last, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Br. 16) that
Chung does not describe the fourth disputed limitation “redoing the last
operation prior to the occurrence of said inconsistency using the corrected
instruction,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that the disclosure in Chung of restoring
checkpointed portions of a process state corresponds to the fourth disputed
limitation. (Ans. 10; Chung, col. 4, ll. 1-6.) We agree with the Examiner.
Chung discloses that the checkpoint and restoration system can be
utilized to exclude the entire persistent state, such that “only a ‘clean’
memory state is included in the checkpointed data, which may be restored
from time to time to avoid a gradual build up of an undesirable memory
state.” (Col. 3, ll. 9-15; see also col. 4, ll. 1-6.) In other words, Chung
describes the limitation “redoing the last operation prior to the occurrence of
said inconsistency using the corrected instruction.”
Appellant argues that “Chung teaches continuing to attempt to
allocate dynamic memory until a maximum number of attempts has been
exceeded” and thus, “Chung does not teach redoing the last operation prior
to the occurrence of said inconsistency using the corrected instruction.”
(Br. 16.) However, the Examiner also found that the disclosure in Chung of
restoring checkpointed portions corresponds to the fourth disputed
limitation. (Ans. 10.) Again, Appellant has not provided any persuasive
arguments or evidence to address why the Examiner’s findings were
erroneous.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Chung describes the
limitation “redoing the last operation prior to the occurrence of said
inconsistency using the corrected instruction.”
Appeal 2009-014103
Application 10/892,437

8
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b). Claims 2-4 depend from independent claim 1, and
Appellant had not presented any substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 5, 9 and 10 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 5, 9 and 10, as well as claims 6-8, which
depend from claim 5, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10 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).

AFFIRMED

babc