Ex Parte Sevenich et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 24, 2018

14276895 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/276,895 05/13/2014 Martin Sevenich
42425 7590 09/26/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM/ORACLE
1 Almaden Boulevard
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
50277-4551 8907
EXAMINER
KANG,INSUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARTIN SEVENICH, SUNGPACK HONG, and
HASSAN CHAFI
Appeal2018-003386
Application 14/276,895
Technology Center 2100
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3-8, 11, and 13-18, which constitute
all claims pending in this Application. We have jurisdiction over the
pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2 and 12 were previously
cancelled. Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent on
rejected base claims. See Final Act. 7. We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention is generally directed to automatically selecting
an implementation of an Abstract Data Type (ADT) to optimize compiling.
Spec., Abstract. "The compiler chooses an implementation for each instance
Appeal2018-003386
Application 14/276,895
of an abstract data type in a program based on operations performed in the
instance within the program." Spec., Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are
independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising the steps of:
identifying, by a compiler, a set of operations that high-
level language source code specifies for an instance of an abstract
data type;
based on the set of operations, selecting, by the compiler,
a certain implementation for said instance; and
in response to selecting said certain implementation,
performing by the compiler:
rewriting the high-level language source code
specifying operations on said instance to generate
rewritten source code, and
compiling the rewritten source code using the
certain implementation; and wherein the method 1s
performed by one or more computing devices.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
anticipated by Stall (US 2010/0180269 Al; July 15, 2010). Final Act. 3--4.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Stall and Data Structures, UNF (2011)
https://www.unf.edu/-wkloster/3 540/wiki_book. pdf ("Data Structures").
Final Act. 5-6.
ANALYSIS
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, AND 14
The Examiner finds Stall discloses every limitation recited in claims
1, 3, 4, 11, 13, and 14 and, accordingly, rejects the claims as anticipated by
Stall. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds Stall's description that "the
compilation is performed on the source code being implemented according
2
Appeal2018-003386
Application 14/276,895
to the selected type implementation" discloses "rewriting the source code
using the selected type implementation." Final Act. 4; see Ans. 3 (citing
Stall ,r,r 16-17). The Examiner states: "the compiler does not generate[] the
source code, rather it compiles the code according to the selected type
implementation, therefore, the source code is considered to be rewritten
according to the type implementation) during the compilation)." Final
Act. 4.
We first interpret the Examiner's rejection to be based on the
following findings: ( 1) Stall's source code version of the target instruction
set discloses the recited "high-level language source code specifying
operations on said instance"; (2) Stall's compiled code version of the target
instruction set, which includes the automatically selected implementation
type, discloses the recited "rewritten source code," which is generated in the
rewriting step; and (3) Stall's compilation of the target instruction set
discloses the recited compiling step ( our "first interpretation"). See Final
Act. 3--4 ( citing Stall ,r,r 16-17); Ans. 3 ("compiling generates type instances
of the type according to the selected type implementation within that
domain" ( citing Stall ,r 17)).
An alternate interpretation of the Examiner's rejection is one based on
a finding that Stall discloses binding an implementation type to the target
instruction set based on the implementation domain and this binding, in
conjunction with the source code version of the target instruction set,
discloses the recited rewritten source code ( our "second interpretation"). See
Ans. 3 ("the source code version of the target instruction set with the
selected type implementation bound to the type instances during compilation
3
Appeal2018-003386
Application 14/276,895
is considered to be rewritten source code as it incorporates the selected type
implementation").
The Examiner provides little explanation and does not clearly map
Stall's disclosures to the recited elements. Rather, the Examiner's rejection
quotes multiple recited steps followed by quoted sections of Stall.
Moreover, the Final Action appears to map Stall's compiled version of the
target instruction set that includes a particular implementation type for each
type instance to the recited rewritten source code, see Final Act. 4, but the
Answer appears to map Stall's source code version of the target instruction
set, in combination with the binding, to the recited rewritten source code.
Ans. 3. The fact that the Examiner's rejection is, on its face, ambiguous is
problematic. Nevertheless, we address both possible bases in this Decision.
Appellants present various arguments, including that Stall does not
disclose "rewriting the high-level language source code specifying
operations on said instance to generate rewritten source code," as recited in
claims 1 and 11. Br. 4. Appellants assert Stall compiles a source code
version of a target instruction set, but the target instruction set is not
"rewritten source code." Br. 4. Rather, the target instruction set is
compiled, machine-executable code and Stall does not disclose or suggest
rewritten source code. Br. 4--5.
Under either interpretation of the Examiner's rejection, we agree with
Appellants that Stall does not disclose the rewriting step. Under our first
interpretation, the Examiner's findings fail to account for "high-level
language source code," "rewritten source code" generated from the high-
level language source code, and "compiling the rewritten source code."
Specifically, even accepting the Examiner's finding that Stall discloses a
4
Appeal2018-003386
Application 14/276,895
source code version of the target instruction set, the Examiner's finding that
Stall's source code version of the target instruction set discloses the recited
high-level language source code and the compiled version of the target
instruction set discloses the recited rewritten source code, the Examiner fails
to account for the recited step of "compiling the rewritten source code." In
other words, under our first interpretation in which Stall's compiled code
including the bound implementation type discloses the recited rewritten
source code, the Examiner fails to explain how Stall discloses further
compiling the already compiled version of the target instruction set.
Under our second interpretation, we also find the Examiner erred.
First, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Stall's binding discloses any
change to the source code. Stall discloses "a type binding instruction set 42
that binds type instances within the target instruction set 14 to a particular
type implementation." Stall ,r 26. Stall discloses three exemplary type
binding instruction sets. Stall ,r 26. The examples disclose generating a
class implementation at runtime based on the execution domain,
"configur[ing] a compiled version of the target instruction set 14 to generate
type instances of a type according to a particular type implementation," or
determining the type from information in the target instruction set 14 itself.
Stall ,r 26. We see nothing in Stall to indicate that Stall's type binding
instruction sets generate rewritten source code.
Based on the record before us, and under either interpretation of the
Examiner's rejection, Appellants have persuaded us the Examiner erred in
finding Stall discloses the rewriting step recited in independent claims 1 and
11. Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 11 as anticipated
5
Appeal2018-003386
Application 14/276,895
by Stall. Claims 3 and 4 depend from claim 1 and claims 13 and 14 depend
from claim 11, incorporating the rewriting step recited in claims 1 and 11.
Therefore, we also reverse the rejection of claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 for the
same reason. Claims 5-8 and 15-18 depend from and incorporate the
limitations of claims 1 and 11, respectively. Although these claims were
rejected as obvious, the Examiner does not rely on additional teachings or
rationale for curing the deficiency addressed above. Therefore, we also
reverse the rejection of claims 5-8 and 15-18 as obvious for the same
reason.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13,
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 5-8 and 15-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
6