Imagination Technologies LimitedDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 20212020002665 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/677,939 08/15/2017 Christopher Philip Smith 8059-105941-01 6126 24197 7590 11/19/2021 KLARQUIST SPARKMAN, LLP 121 SW SALMON STREET SUITE 1600 PORTLAND, OR 97204 EXAMINER WHEATON, BRADFORD F ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2193 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2021 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): docketing@klarquist.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER PHILIP SMITH ____________________ Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claim 20 has been canceled (see Appeal Br. 19, Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Imagination Technologies Limited (Appeal Br. 1). Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 2 Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim Appellant’s disclosed invention, entitled “String Logging in an Embedded System” (see Title), generally relates to the monitoring of the progress of a computer program running on an embedded system by managing human-readable messages or strings in a log section and/or memory (see Spec. ¶¶ 1–3; Abstract). Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to key portions of the claims at issue, reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method to generate executable code for a program to be run on an embedded system which causes the embedded system to log one or more strings during execution of the executable code wherein the string comprises one or more human-readable messages, the method comprising: receiving source code for a program, the source code identifying one or more strings to be logged during execution of the program; causing a compiler to generate object code based on the source code such that the object code comprises: a separate log section that includes the one or more identified strings; and [a] one or more instructions to cause the embedded system to write a reference to one of the one or more strings to memory of the embedded system, the reference represented by a symbol associated with the string; causing a linker to generate executable code based on the object code by causing the linker to mark the separate log section as a non-loadable section, and to replace each symbol associated with a string in the one or more instructions with information indicating the location of the string in the separate log section so as to form one or more executable instructions; and Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 3 [b] loading the executable code comprising the one or more executable instructions into the memory of the embedded system such that the one or more identified strings are not stored in the memory of the embedded system. Appeal Br. 15, Claims Appendix (emphases, formatting, and bracketed lettering added). Independent claim 5 recites a system to perform a method having limitations commensurate in scope with claim 1. Remaining independent claim 17 is drawn towards a host computing-based device, and reads as follows: 17. A host computing-based device configured to generate a complete log of strings representing flow of a program executed by a processor of an embedded system, the host computing-based device comprising: a processor; and memory comprising computer executable instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to: [c] receive a file comprising a log section of executable code representing the program, the log section comprising one or more strings wherein the or each string comprises one or more human-readable messages; [d] obtain one or more references stored in memory of the embedded system, each reference identifying a location of a string of the one or more strings in the log section of the executable code, the references being stored in the memory of the embedded system during execution of the program; and [e] generate a complete log that includes one or more strings of the received file identified by the references in the log buffer. Appeal Br. 18–19, Claims Appendix (emphases, formatting, and bracketed lettering added). As discussed below, limitations b) (see e.g., claim 1), and limitation c) (see e.g., claim 17), will be dispositive of the instant appeal. Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 4 The Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9–14, 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Jones et al. (US 2016/0132322 A1; published May 12, 2016) (hereinafter, “Jones”) and Darlet et al. (US 2002/0087956 A1; published July 4, 2002) (hereinafter, “Darlet”). Final Act. 5–12. (2) Claims 3 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Jones and Darlet, further in view of Rao et al. (US 2007/0168049 A1; published July 19, 2007) (hereinafter, “Rao”). Final Act. 12–13. (3) Claims 4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Jones and Darlet, further in view of Stevens et al. (US 2012/0289299 A1; published Nov. 15, 2012) (hereinafter, “Stevens”). Final Act. 13–14. (4) Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the base combination of Jones and Darlet, further in view of Kim et al. (US 2005/0097544 A1; published May 5, 2005). Final Act. 14–15. Appellant’s Dispositive Contentions Appellant contends (see Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2–3) the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on the failure of Darlet, and thus the base combination of Jones and Darlet, to teach or suggest the negative limitation of claim 1, namely not storing identified strings in the memory (see e.g., claim 1, limitation b). Appellant also contends (see Appeal Br. 12; Reply 3, 5–6) the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 5 on the failure of (i) Jones to teach or suggest the recited file having a log section that includes strings of one or more human-readable messages (see claim 17, limitation c); and (ii) Darlet to teach or suggest obtaining references (see claim 17, limitation d) and generating a log having strings of the file identified by the references in the log buffer (see claim 17, limitation e). Principal Issues on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 6– 13) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1–7), the following two dispositive issues are presented on appeal: (1) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–16 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Darlet fails to teach or suggest limitation b, as recited in claim 1, and as commensurately recited in independent claim 5? (2) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the combination of Jones and Darlet fails to teach or suggest a file used for obtaining references and generating a log as set forth in limitations d and e of claim 17? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 6– 13; Reply Br. 1–7), the Examiner’s rejection as to claims 1, 5, and 17 (Final Act. 5–7, 10–12), and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 3–6) to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that (i) Darlet teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in limitation b of claim 1, and Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 6 the commensurate limitation found in independent claim 5 (see Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 4–5); and (ii) the combination of Jones and Darlet teaches or suggests the subject matter recited in limitations d and e of claim 17. Our reasoning follows. The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). Issue 1: Claims 1–16 and 19 In this light, and in view of the Examiner’s explanations as to the basis for the rejection of claims 1 and 5 (see Final Act. 5–7, 10–12; Ans. 4– 6), it is clear the Examiner relies on Darlet, and specifically paragraph 31 of Darlet, as teaching limitation b of claim 1, and the commensurate limitation of claim 5. Limitation b of claim 1 recites that “the one or more identified strings are not stored in the memory” (see claim 1, limitation b) (emphasis added). In stark contrast, Darlet teaches loading a file 107 of Figure 1, wherein “only a portion of the [processed software] module saved in the linker/loader’s memory” (Darlet ¶ 31) is used for a linking procedure, Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 7 “rather than the entire software module” (Darlet ¶ 31). Thus, while Darlet stores only a portion of the software module, Darlet does not operate on identified strings as required by claims 1 and 5. Darlet is silent as to identifying strings as required by claims 1 and 5. At best, the Examiner leaves us to speculate as to how or why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Darlet to meet limitation b recited in claim 1, and the commensurate limitations recited in claim 5. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017; Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999) (unpublished) (“The review authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§] 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first instance.”). As a result, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 2–3, 5) that Darlet fails to teach or suggest not storing identified strings in a memory. We agree with Appellant that “the ‘ability’ to save only a portion of the software module to memory, is not the same as teaching ‘loading the executable code comprising one or more executable instruction[s] into the memory of the embedded system such that the one or more identified strings are not stored in the memory of the embedded system,’ as required by the claims” (Reply Br. 4). In view of the foregoing, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–15 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the base combination of Jones and Darlet, because Darlet fails to teach or suggest limitation b, as recited in claim 1, and as commensurately recited in independent claim 5. Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 8 Issue 2: Claims 17 and 18 For similar reasons, we are also persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (see Appeal Br. 12; Reply 5–6) that Darlet fails to teach or suggest obtaining references (see claim 17, limitation d) and generating a log having strings of the file identified by the references in the log buffer (see claim 17, limitation e), as recited in claim 17. In view of the foregoing, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the base combination of Jones and Darlet, because Darlet fails to teach or suggest a file used for obtaining references and generating a log as set forth in limitations d and e of claim 17. Summary As a result, based on the record before us, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 5, and 17, and thus claims 2–4, 6–16, 18, and 19 depending respectively therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of (i) claims 1–19 over the base combination of Jones and Darlet. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows: In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5, 6, 9– 14, 16–19 103 Jones, Darlet 1, 2, 5, 6, 9– 14, 16–19 3, 7 103 Jones, Darlet, Rao 3, 7 4, 8 103 Jones, Darlet, Stevens 4, 8 Appeal 2020-002665 Application 15/677,939 9 15 103 Jones, Darlet, Kim 15 Overall Outcome 1–19 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation