International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2021

2020001775 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/222,996 07/29/2016 Jijiang Xu CA920160020US1 7809
11601 7590 08/19/2021
IBM Corporation - Patent Center
1701 North Street
B/256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
LEE, CATHERINE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2124
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2021 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):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIJIANG XU
____________________

Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, AMBER L. HAGY and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–13 and 15–21. Final Act. 1. Claim 14 has been
canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A method for providing a self-learning framework for
performance analysis using content-oriented analysis, the
method comprising:
[A.] during a core dump operation, responsive to receiving
user input requesting a performance analysis of a thread
of the core dump operation, presenting, by one or more
processors, time information and an associated location
of the time information for the thread, wherein the
presented time information includes an initiation time of
the thread;
[B.] registering, by the one or more processors, the time
information into a knowledge base;
[C.] generating, by the one or more processors, debugging
information for the thread based on the time information
and information associated with similar threads in the
knowledge base; and
[D.] displaying, by the one or more processors, the time
information and the generated debugging information.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:2
Name Reference Date
Beuch US 2006/0130001 A1 June 15, 2006
Feng US 7,797,338 B2 Sept. 14, 2010

XML Schema Language: Taking XML to the Next Level; IT Pro,
2001, IEEE; Roy et al. (hereinafter “Roy”).

2 Citations are by reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996

3
REJECTIONS
A.
The Examiner rejected claims 1–7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite. Final Act. 5–6.
“The rejection to claims 1–7 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) given in
the [F]inal Office Action has been withdrawn in light of amendments made
in the after-final response dated 21 June 2019.” Ans. 3. Therefore, the
merits of the § 112(b) rejection are no longer before us.
B.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beuch. Final Act. 6–20.
We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection. The
contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to this rejection.
Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not address the merits of
the § 102 rejection of claims 2–5, 8–12, 15–19, and 21 further herein.
C.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 13, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Beuch and Feng. Final Act. 20–
23.
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over the combination of Beuch and Roy. Final Act. 23.
The contentions discussed herein as to claim 1 are dispositive as to
these rejections. Therefore, except for our ultimate decision, we do not
address the merits of the § 103 rejections of claims 6, 7, 13, and 20 further
herein.
Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996

4
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Appellant’s contentions we discuss
are dispositive as to the rejections on appeal. Therefore, Appellant’s other
contentions are not discussed in detail herein.
A.
As articulated by the Federal Circuit, “[a]nticipation requires the
presence in a single prior art disclosure of all elements of a claimed
invention arranged as in the claim.” Connell v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 722
F.2d 1542, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The requirement that the prior art
elements themselves be “arranged as in the claim” means that claims cannot
be “treated . . . as mere catalogs of separate parts, in disregard of the part-to-
part relationships set forth in the claims and that give the claims their
meaning.” Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. Am. Hoist & Derrick Co.,
730 F.2d 1452, 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “[U]nless a reference discloses within
the four corners of the document not only all of the limitations claimed but
also all of the limitations arranged or combined in the same way as recited
in the claim, it cannot be said to prove prior invention of the thing claimed
and, thus, cannot anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added). For
a claim to be anticipated, each claim element must be disclosed, either
expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference, and the claimed
arrangement or combination of those elements must also be disclosed, either
expressly or inherently, in that same prior art reference.
Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996

5
B.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 because:
Beuch is not a disclosure, teaching, or suggestion of
“during a core dump operation, responsive to receiving user
input requesting a performance analysis of a thread of the core
dump operation, presenting . . . time information and an
associated location of the time information for the thread . . .”
as claimed in independent claim 1 (emphasis added).
Further, Applicant respectfully asserts that the teaching of
“[a]fter data is collected” in Beuch does not correspond to
independent claim 1’s limitation of “during a core dump
operation, . . .” (as alleged on page 6 of the Current Office
Action) in a manner that meets the requirements of anticipation
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
. . . Beuch does not teach or suggest that that the processes
of paragraph [0036] occur during “a core dump operation.”
Appeal Br. 14.
C.
We agree with Appellant’s above argument that the language of claim
1 requires “presenting . . . time information and an associated location of the
time information for the thread” to occur “during a core dump operation.”
We determine Beuch (e.g., ¶ 36) relied on by the Examiner is not sufficient
to show such a “presenting” that occurs “during a core dump” as required by
claim 1. Rather, we determine that Beuch discloses a sequence of phases
performed at distinct times in which data is displayed after a core dump
operation, not during the core dump operation.
An initialization phase (step 310) is used to set profiling
parameters. The profiling parameters may include setting the
sample frequency for sampling the stack, setting up the amount
Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996

6
of data recorded, and setting up for recording historical data
using event profiling as described further below. Next, during
the profiling phase (step 315), data of a performance metric 125
is collected according to the profiling parameters selected in step
310. After data is collected for a predetermined period, or after
collecting a set amount of data, or the execution is halted by a
user; the profiling phase is complete (step 315). After the
profiling phase, the post processing phase (step 320) processes
the data to analyze the system performance according to the
several methods described further below. In the post-processing
phase (step 320), the data collected is sent to a file for post-
processing. In one configuration, the file may be sent to a server,
which determines the profile for the processes on the client
machine. Of course, depending on available resources, the post-
processing also may be performed on the client machine. At the
completion of post processing, the data is formatted into the
performance profile with the adjusted performance metrics is
output (127 in FIG. 1) and sent to a display and/or file (step 325).
Beuch ¶ 36 (emphasis added).
We conclude, consistent with Appellant’s arguments that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s finding that
Beuch teaches “presenting . . . time information and an associated location
of the time information for the thread” that occurs “during a core dump
operation” as required by claim 1. Therefore, we conclude that there is
insufficient articulated reasoning to support the Examiner’s final conclusion
that claim 1 was anticipated at the time of Appellant’s invention.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 8–12, 15–19, and 21 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 7, 13, and 20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are reversed.
Appeal 2020-001775
Application 15/222,996

7
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 8–12,
15–19, 21
102(a)(2) Beuch 1–5, 8–12,
15–19, 21
6, 13, 20 103 Beuch, Feng 6, 13, 20
7 103 Beuch, Roy 7
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 15–21

REVERSED