Ex Parte Chakrabarti et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 20, 2012

10698509 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DHRUVA RANJAN CHAKRABARTI and SHIN-MING LIU ____________________ Appeal 2010-003754 Application 10/698,509 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-003754 Application 10/698,509 2 STATEMENT OF CASE1 The Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-13. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1 with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method of compiling a computer program with inline specialization, the method comprising: given a call-graph, if multiple call-chains in the call-graph have a common call site, inlining the common call site in one or more of the call-chains, without inlining the common call site into all of said multiple call-chains having the common call site. REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Berry US 6,651,243 B1 Nov. 18, 2003 Kramskoy US 7,080,366 B2 Jul. 18, 2006 REJECTION Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Kramskoy and Berry. Ans. 3. 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jun. 8, 2009), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 17, 2009), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Sep. 17, 2009). Appeal 2010-003754 Application 10/698,509 3 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-13 as being obvious because the combination of Kramskoy and Berry fails to teach or suggest the argued limitations? In particular, the issue turns on whether the proffered combination teaches “inlining,” and “a call-graph,” as recited in claim 1.2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with the Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-18) in response to the Appellants’ Appeal and Reply Briefs. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Claims 1, 7, and 13 Claim 1 recites inlining the common call site in one or more of the call-chains. The Examiner finds that Kramskoy explicitly teaches or suggests “inlining.” Ans. 3, 9-11; see also Kramskoy, col. 11, ll. 11-13. The Appellants contend that the Examiner’s finding of inlining in Kramskoy is not consistent with Appellants’ definition of inlining. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-5. We disagree with the Appellants. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Kramskoy explicitly teaches or suggests “inlining” at Kramskoy, col. 6, ll. 47-49, “Where the fragments are compiled, preferably 2 Claims 7 and 13 include similar subject matter. Appeal 2010-003754 Application 10/698,509 4 the compiler is able to optimize the compiled code. Such optimisations might include inlining.” Id. Moreover, Kramskoy discloses that the compilation “follow[s] method calls” in order to determine “the dominant path” to optimize. Kramskoy col. 13, ll. 44-46. And we further agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have known that “method calls” are equivalent to “routine calls.” Ans. 10. Thus, Kramskoy discloses inlining, which Appellants concede “replaces a call site with the called routine’s code.” App. Br. 6-7 (quoting Spec at 1-2). Despite this teaching, Appellants argue that Kramskoy does not disclose the recited limitation because it compiles only fragments of the dominant path rather than the entirety of the code. App. Br. 6. This argument is not persuasive. Nothing in the claim language requires the entirety of the code to be compiled. Therefore, we find that Kramskoy teaches or suggests “inlining,” as required by the claims. The Appellants additionally contend that Kramskoy and Berry fail to teach or suggest “a call graph” as per claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. However, Berry explicitly describes a “call stack tree in which each node in tree structure 1100 represents a function entry point.” Berry, col. 15, ll. 58-61 (citing Fig. 11A). Appellants do not persuasively explain how Berry’s call stack tree differs from the recited graph. The Specification illustrates “[a] node in the call-graph denotes the definition of a routine.” Spec. at 11. Appellants do not point to a definition in the Specification that narrows the scope of a “call-graph” that would preclude a “call-graph” from encompassing Berry’s tree structure. As such, we agree with the Examiner that a “call-graph” encompasses a call stack tree, as described by Berry, and therefore Berry describes a “call-graph.” Ans. 14 (citing Berry Fig. 11B). Appeal 2010-003754 Application 10/698,509 5 Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has not erred in finding the combination of Kramskoy and Berry would have taught or suggested the features recited in claims 1, 7, and 13. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 The Appellants contend that dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 are patentable for the same reasons asserted in support of claims 1 and 7, respectively. App. Br. 9. The Appellants’ arguments were not found to be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons. The Appellants further contend that Kramskoy and Berry fail to teach or suggest that new call sites are added, as recited in dependent claims 2, 3, 8, and 9. App. Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that adding new call sites is disclosed in Kramskoy. Ans. 4, 6, and 16. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, and 9. Claims 4-6 and 10-12 The Appellants contend that dependent claims 4-6 and 10-12 are patentable for the same reasons asserted in support of claims 2 and 8, respectively. App. Br. 9-10. The Appellants’ arguments were not found to be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons. The Appellants further contend that Kramskoy and Berry fail to teach or suggest that new call sites are added to a global work-list, as recited in dependent claims 4 and 10. Id. We agree with the Examiner that Kramskoy’s “dispatch table” equates to the claimed “global work-list.” Ans. 17-18; see also Kramskoy col. 85, ll. 48-60. As to dependent claims 5, 6, 11, and 12, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with Appeal 2010-003754 Application 10/698,509 6 respect to these claims and thus, these claims fall with claims 4 and 10, respectively. As such, we sustain the rejection of claims 4-6 and 10-12. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-13 is sustained. 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) (2010). AFFIRMED msc