Ex Parte LI et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 31, 2012

09955764 (B.P.A.I. May. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte JUN LI and KEITH MOORE
____________________

Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY,
and THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-43. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a monitoring method and
apparatus for runtime monitoring of a distributed software application which
is able to debug, monitor, and characterize a multi-threaded, multi-
processed, and distributed system (Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ [0010]-[0011]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A monitoring method for a component-based software
system operating over one or more processing devices,
comprising the steps of:

initiating an invocation of a second software component
from within an execution of a first software component;

recording a stub start log data including a global causal
identifier in an instrumented stub before said invocation of said
second software component;

transmitting the global causal identifier from the first
software component to the second software component wherein
the second software component executes on a separate thread
and in a system remote from first software component;

recording a stub end log data including the global causal
identifier in said instrumented stub after a response is received
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

3
from said invocation of said second software component, said
response including the global causal identifier;

wherein said stub start log data and said stub end log data
sather runtime information about execution of said second
software component within said component-based software
system.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Delucia US 4,819,233 Apr. 04, 1989
Brandle US 5,146,593 Sep. 08, 1992
Courant US 5,522,073 May 28, 1996
Tucker US 6,151,639 Nov. 21, 2000

Kazi et al, “JaViz: A client/server Java profiling tool,” 39 Java
Performance (2000),
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/sj/391/kazi.html.

Technical Report from Blumson et al, Center for Information
Technology Integration, University of Michigan, Automatic
Insertion of Performance Instrumentation for Distributed
Applications (February 1995) (hereinafter “Blumson”).

Peek et al, Unix Power Tools (O’Reilly Media, Inc., 2nd ed. 1997).

Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-19, 21-32, and 35-42 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kazi in view of Blumson,
Delucia, and Tucker.
Claims 8, 12, and 43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kazi in view of Blumson, Delucia, Tucker, and Courant.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kazi in view of Blumson, Delucia, Tucker and Brandle.
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

4
Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kazi in view of Blumson, Delucia, Tucker, and Peek.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that:
1. the combination of Kazi, Blumson, Delucia, and Tucker teaches or
would have suggested “recording a stub start log data including a global
causal identifier in an instrumented stub before said invocation of said
second software component” and “transmitting the global causal identifier
from the first software component to the second software component
wherein the second software component executes on a separate thread and in
a system remote from the first software component” (claim 1, emphasis
added);
2. the combination of Kazi, Blumson, Delucia, and Tucker teaches or
would have suggested “wherein a log data content is configured during
operation of said component-based software system” (claim 7, emphasis
added); and
3. the combination of Kazi, Blumson, and Courant teaches or would
have suggested “wherein a user is capable of changing said particular log
data contents during said operation of said component-based software
system by setting said regular expression” (claim 8, emphasis added).

Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

5
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, a global causal identifier is a user-
defined software component that is sent between a stub (object/software
routine) and a skeleton (object/software routine) (Spec. ¶¶ [0027] and
[0057]).
2. Runtime information about various processes is stored in a log
file (Spec. ¶ [0037]).
3. An instrumented stub instruments (records) application-
meaningful events such as stub start log data at the component’s interface
definition language (IDL) description level (Spec. ¶¶ [0042] and [0043]).
Kazi
4. Kazi discloses a performance analysis tool (JaViz) that
generates execution traces with sufficient detail to determine program hot
spots, including remote method calls, in a distributed Java application
program; wherein, the tool has the capability of tracing client/server
activities across multiple Java virtual machines (Jvms) (Abstract; p. 8, third
para., ll. 1-4).
5. The tool includes a Java remote method invocation (RMI)
facility that allows one Jvm to execute a method on another Jvm having a
physically distributed processor (p. 8, third para., ll. 1-4).
6. A trace generation module of the Jvm is modified to record
every invocation of a method using time stamps showing start and end times
of the method with microsecond resolution (p. 7, third para., ll. 1-3). A
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

6
profiling function creates a new trace record in a buffer for each method
entry or exit event (p. 7, third para., ll. 7-8).
7. Each record is recorded in a .jta file which contains parent-child
links and such information as the number of methods invoked by this
method, the time when the method started, the time when it completed, the
thread executing this method, the method identifier of the method call being
represented, and the specific Jvm on which the method is executed (p. 5,
third para., ll. 8-11).
8. For every remote method invoked through RMI, the Jvm
records these identifiers at both the client side and the server side (p. 8, fifth
para., ll. 4-5). In particular, the identifier of the thread that invoked the
remote call is recorded on the client side in order to map the detailed trace
entry of the remote method invocation to the corresponding client profile
entry and the identifier of the thread where the remote call is received is
recorded on the server side (p. 9, second para.).
Blumson
9. Blumson discloses that client and/or server stubs should be
instrumented so that the stub can collect runtime data (Sec. 6.1, first para.).
Delucia
10. Delucia discloses that data can be recorded before and after
invocation for the purpose of providing an indication that the call statement
was reached and that the program returned to the correct location after the
call (col. 2, ll. 37-42).
Tucker
11. Tucker discloses identifiers may be transmitted in a remote
object invocation request to the appropriate remote node (col. 3, ll. 22-24).
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

7
Courant
12. Courant discloses that a user may apply any pattern matching to
a file, such as “only respond to files which begin with the two letters ‘ab’”
(Fig. 9; col. 8, ll. 26-32).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 13-19, 21-32, and 35-42
As to claim 1, Appellants contend that “the .jta file [of Kazi] cannot
be the ‘instrumented stub’ … because the .jta file is merely a data file” (App.
Br. 9). Appellants argue that “the method identifier creation [in Kazi] is at
the second software component (in Jvm 2), not at the first software
component” and, therefore, Kazi does not teach “[as recited] in claim 1,
[that] the global causal identifier is CREATED by component 1 and then
TRANSMITTED to component 2” (App. Br. 10). Appellants contend
further that Tucker “does not cure the defect in Kazi” and that it discloses “a
remote-object-invocation-oriented unique identifier [which] is different from
the claimed global causal identifier that is designed for ‘call causality
tracking’” (App. Br. 11).
However, the Examiner finds that “Appellants misrepresent the art by
contending that Kazi … describes a method identifier that is given by an
[remote method invocation (RMI)] module at Jvm 2;” however, “Kazi
clearly shows that an RMI call using the method identifier is created at Jvm
1” (Ans. 21). The Examiner notes that “the features upon which
[Appellants] rel[y] (i.e., ‘the global causal identifier is CREATED by
component 1’ …) are not recited in the rejected claims” (id.).
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

8
Appellants’ argument that “claim 1 [recites] the global causal
identifier is CREATED by component 1, and then TRANSMITTED to
component 2” is not commensurate in scope with the specific language of
claim 1 (App. Br. 10). In particular, claim 1 does not recite such “the global
causal identifier is CREATED by component 1” as Appellants argue.
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). However, we will not read limitations from the Specification into the
claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Representative claim 1 does not place any limitation on what “stub
start log data,” “global causal identifier,” and “instrumented stub” mean,
include, or represent. The Specification discloses that a “global causal
identifier” is a user-defined software component that is sent between a stub
(data/software routine) and a skeleton (data/software routine) (FF 1). Thus,
we give “global causal identifier” its broadest reasonable interpretation as
data, as consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim
1.
As to “stub log data,” the Specification discloses that stub log data
refers to the runtime information regarding the stub process or software
routine (FF 2). Thus, we give “stub start log data” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as data, as consistent with the Specification and as specifically
defined in claim 1.
As to “instrumented stub,” the Specification discloses that an
“instrumented stub” is an object (data) or software routine that is capable of
recording data (FF 1 and 3). Thus, we give “instrumented stub” its broadest
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

9
reasonable interpretation as a software routine for recording data, as
consistent with the Specification and as specifically defined in claim 1.
Kazi discloses a performance analysis tool that generates execution
traces including remote method calls (FF 4). The tool includes a Java RMI
facility that allows one Jvm to execute a method on another Jvm (FF 5). We
find that the execution of one method on another Jvm comprises invocation
of a second software component.
Kazi further discloses that the tool records every invocation of a
method using time stamps for the start and end times of the method’s
execution on the processor (FF 6). Each record is recorded in a file that
includes not only the start and end times of the method but also a method
identifier (FF 7). These records are updated on both the client and server
side including the identifier of the thread that invoked the remote call
(recorded on the client side) and the identifier of the thread where the remote
call is received (recorded on the server side) (FF 8). We find that the
recording of the start and end times of every invocation of a method
comprises recording the stub start log data. We also find that recording the
method identifier in a file comprises recording the global causal identifier in
an instrumented stub. That is, we find that “recording a stub start log data
including a global causal identifier in an instrumented stub before said
invocation of said second software component” (claim 1) reads on Kazi’s
performance analysis tool that records start and end times of every
invocation of each method along with its method identifier before the
invocation of another software component.
In addition, Blumson discloses that client and/or server stubs are
instrumented for the purpose of collecting runtime data (FF 9). We find that
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

10
the instrumented stubs comprise software routines that are capable of
recording data. That is, we also find that “recording a stub start log data …
in an instrumented stub” (claim 1) reads on Blumson’s instrumented stub.
Furthermore, Delucia discloses that data can be recorded before and
after invocation (FF 10). We find that data being recorded before and after
invocation comprises recording of data before invocation of a software
component. That is, we find that “recording … data … before said
invocation of said second software component” (claim 1) reads on Delucia’s
data capturing process.
Moreover, Tucker discloses identifiers may be transmitted in a remote
object invocation request to the appropriate remote node (FF 11). We find
that transmission of the identifier within a remote object invocation request
comprises transmission of the identifier from a first software component to a
second software component. That is, we find that “transmitting the global
causal identifier from the first software component to the second software
component wherein the second software component executes on a separate
thread and in a system remote from the first software component” (claim 1)
reads on Tucker’s transmission of the identifier within a remote object
invocation request.
The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of Kazi’s performance analysis tool that records start and end times of the
method and a method identifier where the recording occurs before
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

11
invocation of the remote software component, as disclosed in Delucia,
produces recoding of the data before the remote process execution, which
would be obvious (Ans. 6-7; FF 4-7 and 10). Further, we find no error in the
Examiner’s finding the combination of Kazi’s performance analysis tool
with the transmission of an identifier within a remote object invocation
request to a remote (second) software component, produces transmission of
an identifier from a first software component to a second software
component which would be obvious (Ans. 7; FF 4-7 and 10).
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Kazi in view of Blumson, Delucia, and Tucker. Similarly, independent
claims 29 and 36 having similar claim language and dependent claims 2-6,
9-11, 13-19, 21-28, 30-32, 35, and 37-42 depending from claims 1, 29, and
36 which have not been argued separately fall with representative claim 1.
Claim 7
Appellants argue that “any log data contents being configured in the
visualizer is configured after the operation of the software system in Kazi,
and not during such an operation as claimed” (App. Br. 11-12).
As noted supra, however, we find that Kazi and Blumson disclose
runtime data that is configured during operation (FF 4 and 8).
We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 1,
supra.
Claims 8, 12, and 43
Appellants argue that, since “claim 8 further recites that ‘a user is
capable of changing said particular log data contents during said operation of
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

12
said component-based software system” and Courant discloses that “user
modification is possible prior to the operation of such software system, and
not during such an operation as claimed,” the claims are allowable (App. Br.
12-13).
The Examiner, however, finds that “Courant teaches using a
customizable regular expression to limit the information” (Ans. 17).
Courant discloses that a user may apply any pattern matching to a file
such that, for example, the system only responds to files which begin with
specified characters (FF 12).
Although the Examiner finds that “Courant teaches using a
customizable regular expression to limit the information” (Ans. 17, emphasis
added), we find that the part of Courant cited by the Examiner does not teach
or suggest “wherein a user is capable of changing said particular log data
contents during said operation of said component-based software system by
setting said regular expression” (claim 8, emphasis added) as required by the
claim.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kazi in view of
Blumson, Delucia, Tucker, and Courant; and claims 12 and 43, depending
from claims 1 and 36, which have been grouped therewith.
Claims 20, 33, and 34
Appellants argue that claims 20, 33, and 34 are patentable over the
cited prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claims 1 and 26
respectively (App. Br. 14).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combination of Kazi,
Blumson, Delucia, and Tucker, at least suggests all the features of claims 1
Appeal 2010-003476
Application 09/955,764

13
and 26. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 1,
supra, and affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 33 and 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons expressed with respect to parent claim 26,
supra.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-42 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 12,
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
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-IN-PART

peb