Ex Parte Srinivasamurthy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 2013

10630913 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte VENUGOPAL K. SRINIVASAMURTHY, GEETHA MANJUNATH and VENKATESH KRISHNAN _____________ Appeal 2010-011792 Application 10/630,913 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-011792 Application 10/630,913 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 and 21 through 39. Claims 2 through 20 have been canceled. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method of optimizing the performance of an interpreter based runtime system which includes augmenting bytecodes of a virtual machine with application specific opcodes. See pages 2 and 3 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A method of optimizing the performance of an interpreter based runtime system, the runtime system including a virtual machine, the virtual machine adapted to run an application in the context of the runtime environment, the method comprising: augmenting a bytecode set of the virtual machine with semantically enriched opcodes, thereby constituting an application domain-specific virtual machine; optimizing the virtual machine based on semantics of the application to be run on the virtual machine, with at least a portion of the semantically enriched opcodes being specific to the application; performing a quantitative trade-off between execution time and memory space to determine effective semantically enriched opcodes and encoding the semantically enriched opcodes into interpreter action codes based upon the trade-off; analyzing frequently executed bytecodes and encoding the semantically enriched opcodes into interpreter action codes of the instruction set of the virtual machine to efficiently decode the frequently executed bytecodes; optimizing a translation by the interpreter action codes of the semantically enriched opcodes according to a system state, said system state being represented by at least one symbolic variable; and statically embedding the semantically enriched opcode to optimize execution of the interpreter-based runtime system. Appeal 2010-011792 Application 10/630,913 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1 and 21 through 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sokolov (U.S. 6,988,261 B2, Jan. 17, 2006) and Egashira (U.S. 6,014,519, Jan. 11, 2000). Answer 3-11.1 ISSUES Appellants argue on pages 9 through 13 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error.2 These arguments present us with the issues: a) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sokolov and Egashira teach performing a quantitate tradeoff between execution time and memory space to determine effective semantically enriched opcodes as recited in representative claim 1? b) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Sokolov and Egashira teach statically embedding the semantically enriched opcode as recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on May 12, 2010. 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed on February 18, 2010 and Reply Brief dated July 11, 2010. Appeal 2010-011792 Application 10/630,913 4 With respect to the first issue, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Sokolov and Egashira teaches performing a quantitative tradeoff between execution time and memory space to determine effective semantically enriched opcodes. In response to Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has provided a comprehensive explanation of how Egashira teaches this limitation. Answer 12-13. We concur with the Examiner’s analysis and note that Egashira’s teaching in column 14, lines 47-53, further supports the Examiner’s finding. With respect to the second issue, the Examiner has similarly responded by providing a comprehensive explanation of how the term “statically” is interpreted in light of Appellants’ Specification and how Sokolov teaches statically embedding. Answer 13-16. We have reviewed and concur with the Examiner’s fact finding and conclusions with respect to this issue. We note that Appellants’ argument on page 3 of the Reply Brief, viz., that the claim differs from Sokolov’s process which would need to be repeated each time an application is run, is not commensurate in scope with the claim.3 Further, as Appellants have not persuaded us that Sokolov’s system is dynamic we are similarly not persuaded by Appellants’ augment, on page 12-13 of the Appeal Brief, that Sokolov teaches away from the 3 We note that Appellants discussion of the claim limitation directed to “statically embedding” cites the section of the Specification which discusses “static detection” and “dynamic detection.” The Embedding process is discussed as a separate process, see page 8, 12, and 13 of Appellants Specification. The Appellants have neither shown that the interpretation of “static embedding” precludes an embedding process that must be performed each time before an application is run, nor has Appellants shown that Footnote continued on next page. Appeal 2010-011792 Application 10/630,913 5 claimed invention. Thus, we sustain the Examiners’ rejection of claims 1 and 21 through 39. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 21 through 39 is affirmed. 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 ELD Sokolov necessarily must perform the embedding before each run of the application is run.