APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/751,277 05/21/2007 Larry Bert Brenner AUS US1 1721

Transcription

1 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/751,277 05/21/2007 Larry Bert Brenner AUS US /19/2014 IBM CORPORATION (MH) c/o MITCH HARRIS, ATTORNEY AT LAW, L.L.C. P.O. BOX 7998 ATHENS, GA EXAMINER TALUKDAR, ARVIND ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2182 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/19/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LARRY BERT BRENNER, MICHAEL EDWARD LYONS, BRUCE G. MEALEY, and JAMES BERNARD MOODY Appeal Technology Center 2100 Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ERIC B. CHEN, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL

3 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) from the non-final rejection of claims Claims 1-20 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants invention relates to managing a heap, such that the heap is partitioned into sub-heaps based on a relationship to memory classes. A memory allocation request includes a memory class received from a requester and a unique heap handle, based on the memory class and associated with a specific sub heap is generated. (Abstract.) Claim 21 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics: 21. A computer performed method for managing a heap, the method comprising: within an operating system executing within a computer system, receiving a first call to an application programming interface for generating new sub-heaps, wherein a first sub-heap identifier for uniquely identifying a sub-heap is provided in conjunction with the application programming interface call; responsive to receiving the first call to the application programming interface, generating a first sub-heap; further responsive to receiving the first call to the application programming interface, generating and returning a first sub-heap handle, wherein the first sub-heap handle is associated with the first sub-heap; subsequent to the receiving a first call, receiving a second call to the application programming interface call for generating new subheaps, wherein a second sub-heap identifier is provided in conjunction with the second call; and responsive to receiving the second call, generating and returning a second sub-heap handle, wherein if the second sub-heap identifier is the same as the first sub-heap identifier, the second sub- 2

4 heap handle is associated with the first sub-heap, whereby the first sub-heap is shared, and wherein if the second sub-heap identifier is different from the first sub-heap identifier, a second sub-heap is generated and the second sub-heap handle is associated with the second-subheap. Claims 21, 23, 26, 28, 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Abrashkevich (US 2004/ A1; Nov. 4, 2004), Hallinan (US 2001/ A1; Oct. 11, 2001), and Lam (US 2004/ A1; Jan. 22, 2004). Claims 22, 27, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Abrashkevich, Hallinan, Lam, and San Soucie (US 5,369,778; Nov. 29, 1994). Claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Abrashkevich, Hallinan, Lam, and Marsland (US 2003/ A1; June 12, 2003). 1 ANALYSIS We are persuaded by Appellants arguments (App. Br. 10; see also Reply Br. 4) that the combination of Abrashkevich, Hallinan, and Lam would not have rendered obvious independent claim 21, which includes the limitation wherein a first sub-heap identifier for uniquely identifying a subheap is provided in conjunction with the application programming interface call. 1 The Examiner inadvertently rejected claims 25, 30, and 35, which depend from claims 24, 29, and 34, under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as obvious over Abrashkevich, Hallinan, and Lam. (Ans. 5.) 3

5 The Examiner found that the allocation request by the memory manager of Abrashkevich corresponds to the limitation receiving a first call to an application programming interface for generating new sub-heaps, wherein a first sub-heap identifier for uniquely identifying a sub-heap is provided in conjunction with the application programming interface call. (Ans. 6, ) In particular, the Examiner found that there is inherently a host making a call to the memory manager for an allocation request and in return receives a pool handle such that [t]he host is initiating a process that is done through an application therefore the allocation request is initiated through an API call. (Ans. 12.) We do not agree. Abrashkevich relates to dynamic computer memory management, in particular, managing computer memory including detecting memory access errors and corruptions of storage heap data at run-time. ( 0001.) In one embodiment, a heap memory manager of Abrashkevich creates and initializes a memory heap of specified size. ( 0038.) Abrashkevich explains that [a]fter receiving a request for allocating a memory pool, the memory manager performs all necessary size alignments such that [t]he heap memory manager returns to the requesting process a pool handle which contains a pool identifier which in a preferred embodiment is the unique user s pool offset value. ( 0039.) However, because Abrashkevich is silent with respect to an application programming interface call, the Examiner has not established with sufficient evidence that the allocation request of Abrashkevich is necessarily initiated through an API call, much less teaches the limitation identifying a sub-heap is provided in conjunction with the application programming interface call. See In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. 4

6 Cir. 1999) ( To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient. ). Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants argument that [t]he Office Action provides no support for the proposition that the cited art shows such a feature... [of] the phrase wherein a first sub-heap identifier for uniquely identifying a sub-heap is provided in conjunction with the application programming interface call (App. Br. 10) and nothing in Abrashkevich suggests providing a unique identifier to or along with the API call, i.e., in conjunction therewith (Reply Br. 4). Therefore, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of Abrashkevich, Hallinan, and Lam would have rendered obvious independent claim 21, which includes the limitation wherein a first sub-heap identifier for uniquely identifying a sub-heap is provided in conjunction with the application programming interface call. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Claim 23 depends from independent claim 21. We do not sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 21. Independent claims 26 and 31 recite limitations similar to those discussed with respect to independent claim 21. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 26 and 31, as well as dependent claims 28 and 33, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 21. 5

7 Claims 22, 27, and 32 depend from independent claims 21, 26, and 31. San Soucie was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 22, 27, and 32. (Ans ) However, the Examiner s application of San Soucie does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Abrashkevich. Claims 24, 25, 29, 30, 34, and 35 depend from independent claims 21, 26, and 31. Marsland was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 24, 29, and 34. (Ans ) However, the Examiner s application of Marsland does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Abrashkevich. DECISION The Examiner s decision rejecting claims is reversed. REVERSED lp 6