GE Aviation Systems, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 22, 2022

2021001740 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2022)

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. 15/601,546 05/22/2017 Christian Reynolds Decker 286144-US-1 9880 159325 7590 03/22/2022 Wood IP LLC - GEAV 555 Quince Orchard Road Suite 280 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 EXAMINER PARIKH, KALPIT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2137 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/22/2022 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): OC.Prosecution@ge.com USPTO@dockettrak.com docketing@woodiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte CHRISTIAN REYNOLDS DECKER ____________ Appeal 2021-001740 Application 15/601,546 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20. Claims 6 and 15 are canceled. See Claims App. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-001740 Application 15/601,546 2 The present invention relates generally to safe memory object access in memory management mechanisms. See Spec. Abstr. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. An apparatus comprising: a memory object container to: tag active memory objects with a first tag type and tag inactive memory objects with a second tag type; and store data into a memory object corresponding to the second tag type and tag the memory object with a tag corresponding to the first tag type; an object list manager to store statically-sized references to active memory objects in storage, the stored references including a reference to the tagged memory object, wherein the reference has a predetermined size and includes at least one of the tag and a snapshot of the memory object; and a query results determiner to, in response to receiving a query, transmit the query to the object list manager to identify the reference in the storage based on the query and return a query response to the query results determiner. REFERENCES The references relied upon by the Examiner are: Name Reference Date Mattis US 6,128,623 Oct. 3, 2000 Mianji US 8,219,555 B1 July 10, 2012 REJECTION Claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Mianjii and Mattis. Non-Final Act. 2-5. We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appeal 2021-001740 Application 15/601,546 3 identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “statically-sized references . . . wherein the reference has a predetermined size and includes at least one of the tag and a snapshot of the memory object.” See claim 1 (emphasis added). Regarding the aforementioned limitation, Appellant contends “the content ID of Mianji is not the same as statically-sized references . . . [because] Mianji does not disclose the use of statically-sized references, which includes at least one of a tag and snapshot.” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant also contends that “to correlate the content ID of Mianji to the statically-sized references claimed in claim 1 is to take an unreasonably broad interpretation.” Id. Appellant further contends that “[t]he addition of Mattis does not cure these defects.” Id. Firstly, we point out that the Examiner is relying on the combined teachings of Mianji and Mattis to teach the aforementioned claimed limitation, not Mianji alone. See Non-Final Act. 2-3; see also Ans. 5-6. Also, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that “the broadest reasonable interpretation of ‘reference’ as recited in the claims encompass[es] a content ID [as taught in Mianji] because the content ID references the particular memory object.” Ans. 3. Furthermore, the Examiner relies upon Mianji to teach “a memory object container to tag active and inactive memory objects, and an object list manager to store . . . references in storage” (Ans. 5), and relies on Mattis “to teach a reference comprising a predetermined size and includes at least one of the tag and a snapshot of the memory object.” Id. at 5-6. Appeal 2021-001740 Application 15/601,546 4 For example, Mianji discloses that “[t]he tag manger 205 is used to process the tags and tag chains that describe the content. . . . The content, tags, and tables . . . are then stored in a data storage 215.” Mianji 9:35-41. Mianji further discloses: The tag receiver 310 receives content from a content provider 385 and allows a content provider to select existing tags stored in a tag storage 392 or create new tags for later storage in the tag storage to describe the content. Each piece of content 305 has a respective content ID to identify the content within the CID. Mianji 10:25-30. In other words, Mianji teaches an object manager to store references to active object in storage, the references including a content ID to identify the content. Similarly, Mattis discloses “receiving a name that identifies a requested information object; computing a fixed size key value . . . based on the name . . . and retrieving a copy of the requested information object from the data storage areas using a reference.” Mattis 5:38-45. In other words, Mattis teaches using a fixed size key value and using a reference to retrieve a copy of the object. It is the combined teachings of Mianji and Mattis that the Examiner is relying on to teach and/or suggest the aforementioned argued limitation. Appellant fails to persuasively explain why the combined teachings of Mianji and Mattis does not teach the claimed “the reference has a predetermined size and includes at least one of the tag and a snapshot.” See claim 1. Appellant simply argues that Mianji does not teach certain features that the Examiner is clearly relying on Mattis to cure. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that “one cannot show Appeal 2021-001740 Application 15/601,546 5 non[-]obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.” Ans. 5. Specifically, Appellant’s arguments do not take into account what the collective teachings of Mianji and Mattis would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art and is therefore ineffective to rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether . . . the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.”) This reasoning is applicable here. Secondly, although Appellant contends that “Mattis does not cure” the alleged defects of Mianji, Appellant fails to meaningfully explain why the specific teachings in Mattis, which are relied upon by the Examiner (see Non-Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 5-6), do not cure the alleged deficiencies in Mianji. Appellant merely presents their interpretation of what Mattis is directed to, without persuasively explaining how Mattis’ disclosure is distinguishable from the claimed invention, particularly when combined with Mianji. See Appeal Br. 11. Therefore, Appellant’s aforementioned argument is unpersuasive. Finally, the Examiner finds, and we agree, “the claims do not recite subject matter Appellant is drawing on to compare and contrast with Mianji. Ans. 5. More specifically, “the claims do not specify the subject matter that the Specification proposes ameliorates memory consumption.” Id. For example, Appellant contends that “only the references are stored not data.” See Appeal Br. 11. However, we agree with the Examiner that the feature of “not storing data” is not claimed. See claim 1. To be relevant, evidence of Appeal 2021-001740 Application 15/601,546 6 non-obviousness must be commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In re Kao, 639 F.3d 1057, 1068 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As such, we find unavailing Appellant’s aforementioned argument given that such a feature is not in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Mianji in view of Mattis, likewise with the rejection of claims 2-5, 7-14, and 16-20, which are not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 7-14, and 16-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-5, 7-14, 16-20 103 Mianji, Mattis 1-5, 7- 14, 16-20 No 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) (2019). AFFIRMED