Ex Parte Stoodley

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11850174 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARK GRAHAM STOODLEY
____________

Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

2
Claimed Subject Matter
Claims 1, 14, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. Claim 1 recites:
1. A computer-implemented method for updating references to
objects, the computer-implemented method comprising:
responsive to detecting a garbage collection safe point,
identifying a set of references associated with a set of live
objects at the garbage collection safe point, wherein the set of
live objects are located in a set of first locations in a storage
device, and wherein the garbage collection safe point is a point
in a program at which a garbage collection operation can occur,
and wherein the storage device is a device capable of storing
data; and
responsive to detecting the garbage collection operation,
updating the set of references to refer to a set of second
locations for the set of live objects, wherein the set of second
locations is in the storage device.

Rejections
Claims 1-5 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Beier (US 5,881,379, iss. Mar. 9, 1999).
Claims 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Beier and Adl-Tabatabai (US 6,093,216, iss. Jul. 25, 2000).

OPINION
Anticipation by Beier
We have considered the Appellant’s arguments against the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and determined that they are unpersuasive.
First, the Appellant contends that Beier does not disclose a “garbage
collection operation” (App. Br. 11); second, the Appellant contends that
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

3
Beier does not disclose “responsive to detecting a garbage collection safe
point,” as recited in claim 1 (id.); third, the Appellant contends that Beier
does not disclose “identifying a set of references associated with a set of live
objects at the garbage collection safe point,” as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br.
3); and, fourth, the Appellant contends that Beier does not disclose
“responsive to detecting the garbage collection operation, updating the set of
references to refer to a set of second locations for the set of live objects,” as
recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 4).
With regards to the Appellant’s first contention, the Appellant
specifically contends “Beier is silent with regard to any ‘garbage
collection’” and that a “database ‘reorganization’ is not equivalent to a
‘garbage collection operation.’” Reply Br. 2. This contention is
unpersuasive.
At the outset, we note that the Specification defines a “garbage
collection operation” as “an operation that manages the location of objects in
a storage device.” Spec., para. [0003]. Also, a “garbage collection
operation” includes deleting and moving objects that are unreachable or
point to an unreachable object. See id.
The Examiner finds “Beier . . . performs database reorganization
[which] is a garbage collection event.” Ans. 10 (emphasis omitted).
Specifically, the Examiner explains Beier “discloses a process to update
pointers (references) that have pointed to [data] segments that got moved as
a result of the database reorganization.” Ans. 8. The Examiner also
explains the Database Management System (DBMS) reorganization
operation of Beier “permanently remove[s] the deleted records . . . and . . .
relocate[s] updated records if the updated records [cannot] be stored
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

4
continuously in a physical storage.” Ans. 9-10; see also Beier, col. 1, l.62 –
col. 2, l. 4. In other words, the reorganization operation of Beier includes
moving data segments in a database, and deleting and relocating updated
records in a database. Thus, Beier’s reorganization operation is a “garbage
collection operation” because it manages the location of objects, i.e. data
segments and records, in a storage device, i.e. database.
With regards to the Appellant’s second contention, the Appellant
specifically contends that “database ‘reorganization’ does not teach ‘the
garbage collection safe point is a point in a program at which a garbage
collection operation can occur’ because database ‘reorganization’ is not
equivalent to a ‘garbage collection operation’ that can occur at ‘a point in a
program.’” Reply Br. 2. This contention is unpersuasive.
At the outset, we note that the Specification defines the term “garbage
collection safe point” as “any point in a program at which a garbage
collection operation can occur.” Spec., para. [0033]. Therefore, a garbage
collection safe point is any point in a program at which an operation that
manages the location of objects in a storage device can occur.
As discussed above, Beier’s reorganization operation reads on the
claim term “garbage collection operation.” The Examiner finds that Beier
receives the reorganization request as the “DBMS processing performs its
usual processing.” Ans. 13. Since Beier’s DBMS performs the
reorganization operation, in response to a request, at a point in the DBMS’
usual processing program, the Examiner’s finding that Beier discloses a
garbage collection safe point (i.e., any point in a program at which a garbage
collection operation can occur) is correct. See Ans. 13. Beier’s “garbage
collection operation” occurring at a point in the DBMS processing program
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

5
is evidence that Beier’s “garbage collection operation” can occur at a point
in the DBMS processing program. Additionally, Beier’s detection (i.e.,
reception of a reorganization request) reads on the “responsive to detecting a
garbage collection safe point,” as recited in claim 1.
With regards to the Appellant’s third contention, the Appellant
specifically contends that Beier does not disclose “identifying a set of
references associated with a set of live objects at the garbage collection safe
point,” as recited in claim 1, “because updating a pointer ‘upon a first
reference to the targeted data element’ is not equivalent to . . . ‘identifying’ a
set of references associated with live objects.” Reply Br. 3. This contention
is unpersuasive.
At the outset, we note that the Specification defines the term “live
object” as “an object whose location in a storage device is indicated by a
reference,” wherein a reference includes, among other things, “a pointer in a
program” or “a pointer in an object.” Spec., para. [0004].
Beier discloses data segments that are associated with a pointer set1
140 and/or an indirect list entry (ILE) data set2 180. These data segments
are live objects, i.e., objects whose location in a storage device are indicated
by a reference. As such, the Examiner’s finding that Beier discloses a set of
pointer sets 140 and a set of ILE data sets 180 that are associated with a set
of data segments (Ans. 4) is correct, and reads on “a set of references

1 “The pointer set is an expanded pointer containing pointer information for
both directly and indirectly locating a segment.” Beier, col. 12, ll. 52-54.
2 “The indirect list entry is an entity pointed to indirectly that always
contains the pointer set information for locating a segment via direct relative
byte addresses (RBA).” Beier, col. 12, ll. 54-57.
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

6
associated with a set of live objects,” as recited in claim 1. Furthermore,
pointer set 140 and ILE data set 180 are references.
The pointer set 140 and/or ILE data set 180 for a given data segment
are identified by examining the database definition for that data segment.
Ans. 4 (citing Beier, col. 6, ll. 46-49); see also Beier, col. 6, ll. 34-37. This
step of examining the database definition, i.e., identifying the pointer set
and/or ILE data set for each data segment, occurs at step 406 in Figure 4a
during the reorganization operation. See Ans. 11. Since Beier’s
reorganization operation occurs at a “garbage collection safe point,” the
Examiner’s finding that Beier discloses identifying a set of references
associated with a set of live objects at the garbage collection safe point (i.e.,
identifying the pointer sets and/or ILE data sets associated with a set of data
segments during the reorganization operation) is correct. See Ans. 11-13.
With regards to the Appellant’s fourth contention, the Appellant
specifically contends that Beier does not disclose “responsive to detecting
the garbage collection operation, updating the set of references to refer to a
set of second locations for the set of live objects,” as recited in claim 1,
wherein “‘the set of live objects’ refers to the set of live objects that are
associated with ‘the set of references’ that are identified in response to
‘detecting a garbage collection safe point’” because “Beier is silent with
regard to a ‘garbage collection operation’ that can occur at ‘a point in a
program.’” Reply Br. 4. This contention is unpersuasive.
As discussed above, Beier’s reorganization operation reads on the
term “garbage collection operation,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner
finds “the DBMS performs reorganization steps which include . . . updating
pointers with the new location for each data segment moved (e.g. updating
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

7
the set of references to refer to a set of second locations).” Ans. 13; see
Beier, col. 15, ll. 33-67. In other words, the Examiner finds Beier discloses
updating a “set of references,” to refer to the new locations, which are
second locations, for each of the data segments moved during the
reorganization operation. Indeed, Figure 4a discloses (at step 412) updating
the new location of a data segment that has been moved in the data
segment’s associated ILE (identified in step 406). See Ans. 11 and 13
(citing Beier, col. 15, ll. 25-32 and Fig. 4a). Additionally, Beier’s
reorganization operation (i.e., garbage collection operation) is detected when
the reorganization operation is operating.
Therefore, Beier discloses the step of responsive to detecting the
garbage collection operation (reorganization operation), updating the set of
references to refer to second locations (new locations) for the set of live
objects (data segments), wherein the live objects (data segments) are
associated with the set of references (pointer 104 and ILE 180) identified in
response to the garbage collection safe point (point in the DBMS processing
at which the reorganization occurs).
For the foregoing reasons, the Appellant has not shown that the
Examiner erred in determining that claim 1 is anticipated by Beier. Thus,
we sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 14 and 18 include
requirements similar to those of claim 1. See App. Br., Clms. App’x. Since
the Examiner rejects independent claims 14 and 18 “for the same reason[s]”
as claim 1 (Ans. 6), and the Appellant does not separately argue the rejection
of claims 14 and 18 (App. Br. 12), we also sustain the rejection of claims 14
and 18. Claims 2-5, 10-13, 15-17, 19, and 20 depend either directly or
Appeal 2011-012715
Application 11/850,174

8
indirectly from one of independent claims 1, 14 and 18 and are not argued
separately, and thus fall with claims 1, 14, and 18.

Obviousness based on Beier and Adl-Tabatabai
The Appellant contends Beier does not meet the claim limitations of
claims 6-9 for the same reasons provided for claim 1. App. Br. 12-14.
Further, the Appellant contends Adl-Tabatabai does not cure the alleged
deficiencies of Beier with respect to the rejection of claim 1. However, as
discussed above, Beier does not suffer from the alleged deficiencies. As
such, this contention is unpersuasive. The Appellant does not make separate
arguments with regard to the rejection of the additional limitations of claims
6-9.
Thus, the rejection of claims 6-9 as unpatentable over Beier and Adl-
Tabatabai is sustained.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the rejections of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh