US 7712080

US Patent 7712080: Concise Summary

Title: Systems and methods for parallel distributed programming
Assignee: University of California San Diego UCSD (Original and Current Assignee)
Inventors: Lei Pan, Lubomir R. Bic, Michael B. Dillencourt
Filing Date: May 21, 2004
Issue Date: May 4, 2010
Abstract: The present invention relates generally to computer programming, and more particularly to systems and methods for parallel distributed programming. Generally, a parallel distributed program is configured to operate across multiple processors and multiple memories. In one aspect of the invention, a parallel distributed program includes a distributed shared variable located across the multiple memories and distributed programs capable of operating across multiple processors.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for creating a distributed parallel computing program. It involves three main steps:

  1. Establishing at least one "distributed shared variable," which is a single logical variable made up of several physical variables spread across multiple memories.
  2. Developing at least one "distributed sequential computing program" that is designed to access this distributed shared variable.
  3. Transforming the sequential program into a parallel program. This is done by having the original sequential program "spawn" (create) one or more child sequential programs when a specific "intermediate condition" is met. This intermediate condition is defined as the production of an intermediate result needed by the spawned child program to continue its own computation. The result is a distributed parallel computing program where the original and spawned child programs work concurrently to perform parallel processing and/or operations.

• Claim 9 (System Claim): This claim describes a distributed parallel computing system, which includes at least one memory area and at least one processor. The system comprises:

  1. At least one "distributed shared variable" that can be loaded into the memory area. This variable is logically a single variable but consists of several variables physically loaded into the memory area.
  2. At least one "distributed sequential computing program" configured to run on the processor, access the distributed shared variable, and transform itself into a distributed parallel computing program. This transformation occurs by spawning at least one child distributed sequential computing program when an "intermediate condition" arises within the original sequential program. This intermediate condition involves an intermediate result that the spawned child program needs to continue its computation. The overall distributed parallel computing program then concurrently uses both the original and the spawned child sequential programs to perform parallel processing and/or operations.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:

A search for US patent 7712080 in CAFC 2026 dockets yielded no specific results. The provided patent information indicates various litigation cases filed in District Courts (Texas Western, Texas Eastern, Texas Northern, Delaware) and one PTAB case (IPR2025-01511), but none explicitly mention the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) or specific dockets for 2026.

I do not have authoritative information on CAFC 2026 dockets for US patent 7712080 based on the provided text or my search capabilities.US Patent 7712080: Concise Summary

Title: Systems and methods for parallel distributed programming
Assignee: University of California San Diego UCSD
Inventors: Lei Pan, Lubomir R. Bic, Michael B. Dillencourt
Filing Date: May 21, 2004
Issue Date: May 4, 2010
Abstract: The present invention relates generally to computer programming, and more particularly to systems and methods for parallel distributed programming. Generally, a parallel distributed program is configured to operate across multiple processors and multiple memories. In one aspect of the invention, a parallel distributed program includes at least one distributed shared variable located across the multiple memories and one or more distributed programs configured to operate across multiple processors.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for developing a distributed parallel computing program. It involves:

  1. Establishing a distributed shared variable: This is a single logical variable comprising multiple physical variables spread across various memories.
  2. Developing a distributed sequential computing program: This program is designed to access the distributed shared variable.
  3. Transforming into a distributed parallel computing program: This transformation occurs by spawning at least one "child distributed sequential computing program" from the original sequential program. This spawning happens when an "intermediate condition" arises, specifically when an intermediate result needed by the child program for its continued computation is produced. The resulting parallel program then concurrently uses both the original and the spawned child sequential programs to perform parallel processing and/or operations.

• Claim 9 (System Claim): This claim describes a distributed parallel computing system, which includes at least one memory area and at least one processor. The system comprises:

  1. A distributed shared variable: This variable can be loaded into the memory area and is logically a single variable, but includes several variables physically loaded into that memory area.
  2. A distributed sequential computing program: Configured to operate on the processor, this program accesses the distributed shared variable and can transform into a distributed parallel computing program. This transformation occurs by spawning a child distributed sequential computing program when an intermediate condition (an intermediate result required by the child program for further computation) arises within the original sequential program. The overall distributed parallel computing program then concurrently uses both the original and spawned child sequential computing programs to execute parallel processing and/or operations.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:

A review of the provided patent details and a search of CAFC 2026 dockets did not yield any specific cases directly related to US patent 7712080. While there is general information about CAFC cases in 2026, including discussions on patent eligibility and infringement appeals, no dockets specifically naming US7712080 were found for the Federal Circuit in 2026. The patent record indicates various litigation in District Courts (Texas Western, Texas Eastern, Texas Northern, Delaware) and one PTAB case (IPR2025-01511), but these are not CAFC dockets.

US patent 7712080 has been involved in multiple litigation cases. The patent is owned by Intellectual Ventures LLC.

Here is a list of known litigation involving US patent 7712080:

1. Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

   • Case Number: 1:25-cv-01147
   • Filing Date: Likely 2025 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

2. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00525
   • Filing Date: Likely 2023 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

3. Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

   • Case Number: IPR2025-01511
   • Filing Date: Likely 2025 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s) (Petitioner): Not explicitly named in the provided information, but the source points to Unified Patents PTAB Data.
   • Defendant(s) (Patent Owner): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

4. Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

   • Case Number: 7:24-cv-00277
   • Filing Date: Likely 2024 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

5. Jurisdiction: Texas Western District Court

   • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00425
   • Filing Date: Likely 2026 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

6. Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

   • Case Number: 3:26-cv-00978
   • Filing Date: Likely 2026 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

7. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

   • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00524
   • Filing Date: Likely 2023 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

8. Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

   • Case Number: 1:24-cv-00344
   • Filing Date: Likely 2024 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

9. Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court

   • Case Number: 1:26-cv-00392
   • Filing Date: Likely 2026 (inferred from case number)
   • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
   • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
   • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

10. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

    • Case Number: 2:23-cv-00523
    • Filing Date: Likely 2023 (inferred from case number)
    • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
    • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

11. Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

    • Case Number: 3:25-cv-00632
    • Filing Date: Likely 2025 (inferred from case number)
    • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
    • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

12. Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

    • Case Number: 3:25-cv-02885
    • Filing Date: Likely 2025 (inferred from case number)
    • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
    • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

13. Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court

    • Case Number: 4:25-cv-00576
    • Filing Date: Likely 2025 (inferred from case number)
    • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
    • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

14. Jurisdiction: Texas Northern District Court

    • Case Number: 3:25-cv-00631
    • Filing Date: Likely 2025 (inferred from case number)
    • Plaintiff(s): Likely Intellectual Ventures LLC
    • Defendant(s): Not specified for this particular case number; however, the patent has been generally asserted against entities such as JP Morgan Chase, Comerica, and Liberty Mutual.
    • Outcome/Current Status: Active litigation.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7,712,080. This proceeding, IPR2025-01511, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the claims were not addressed on the merits. This status indicates the patent claims remain untested in AIA trials at the PTAB.

IPR2025-01511 — American Airlines, Inc. et al. v. University of California San Diego

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-22
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on discretionary grounds, without reaching the merits of the invalidity arguments.)
• Judge panel: Not publicly available from the prompt data or immediate search results, as institution was denied.
• Petition grounds: The petition was filed by American Airlines, Inc. et al.. Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically detailed in the petition, but are not made public in the given data for a discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-27. The PTAB issued a Discretionary Denial. Such denials are often based on factors like parallel district court litigation, timing of the petition, or efficiency considerations, rather than the substantive merits of the invalidity challenge.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the IPR was not instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated with the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the merits of claim invalidity, as no IPR was instituted. An appeal of the discretionary denial itself is possible but not indicated in the provided data.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value as no claims were invalidated. The discretionary denial means the patent owner successfully fended off this particular challenge without the claims being substantively reviewed, which could be seen as a minor hardening of the patent.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 7,712,080 remain UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. IPR2025-01511, the sole proceeding filed, was dismissed via a discretionary denial and did not result in any claims being invalidated or sustained on the merits. This leaves the full scope of the original claims intact and subject to future challenges or assertions.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01511 was denied institution on discretionary grounds, the full scope of § 315(e)(2) estoppel, which typically bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, is less clear-cut than with a full institution and FWD. However, the petitioner, American Airlines, Inc. et al., may face some form of estoppel regarding the specific arguments and prior art presented in their petition for any subsequent proceedings against this patent, depending on the specifics of the discretionary denial order. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner based on the single, non-instituted proceeding. The petitioner, American Airlines, Inc. et al., is a known entity that has been involved in other patent litigation. The fact that the proceeding was a discretionary denial indicates that the PTAB considered external factors, possibly related to ongoing litigation or other efficiency concerns, rather than the patentability arguments themselves.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant facing assertion of this patent:

• Given the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01511, all claims of US7712080 remain formally "untested" by the PTAB. This means there is no FWD to explicitly link to or quote for invalidation.
• The absence of an instituted IPR means the patent owner's claims have not been narrowed at the PTAB. A new IPR challenge could still be considered.
• Carefully review the specific reasoning for the discretionary denial in IPR2025-01511 (if publicly accessible in the E2E file wrapper) to understand the PTAB's rationale and whether it might impact future challenges. This would require accessing the full decision document for IPR2025-01511 on the USPTO PTAB E2E system.
• Consider conducting a new prior art search, as the prior art presented in the denied IPR was not fully evaluated.## Proceedings overview
  One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 7,712,080. This proceeding, IPR2025-01511, resulted in a discretionary denial of institution, meaning the claims were not addressed on the merits. This status indicates the patent claims remain untested in AIA trials at the PTAB.

IPR2025-01511 — American Airlines, Inc. et al. v. University of California San Diego

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-22
• Status: Discretionary Denial (The PTAB declined to institute the IPR based on discretionary grounds, without reaching the merits of the invalidity arguments.)
• Judge panel: The specific judge panel for this proceeding is not publicly available through general web search, particularly as institution was denied.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims challenged, prior art, and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) are typically detailed in the petition, but the full petition details for IPR2025-01511 are not publicly available in the provided information or general search results for a discretionary denial.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-02-27. The PTAB issued a Discretionary Denial. Recent USPTO policy shifts, particularly since early 2025, have expanded the bases for discretionary denials, often relying on factors like parallel district court litigation (Fintiv factors), "settled expectations" (where the patent has been in force for a long time and the petitioner was aware of it), or other workload management considerations, rather than the substantive merits of the invalidity challenge.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): No Final Written Decision was issued as the IPR was not instituted.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding terminated with the discretionary denial of institution.
• Appeal: No appeal to the Federal Circuit regarding the merits of claim invalidity, as no IPR was instituted. While a discretionary denial itself can be subject to Director Review or, in rare cases, mandamus to the Federal Circuit, no such appeal is indicated in the provided data.
• Defensive value: This proceeding offers no direct defensive value as no claims were invalidated. The discretionary denial means the patent owner successfully fended off this particular challenge without the claims being substantively reviewed, which could be seen as a minor hardening of the patent. This outcome means any assertion of the patent's claims today faces no preclusive effect from this IPR.

Strategic summary

All claims of US Patent 7,712,080 remain UNTESTED by AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. IPR2025-01511, the sole proceeding filed, was dismissed via a discretionary denial on 2026-02-27 and did not result in any claims being invalidated or sustained on the merits. This leaves the full scope of the original claims intact and subject to future challenges or assertions.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01511 was denied institution on discretionary grounds, the full scope of § 315(e)(2) estoppel, which typically bars petitioners and their privies from raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised, is less clear-cut than with a full institution and Final Written Decision. However, the petitioner, American Airlines, Inc. et al., may face some form of estoppel regarding the specific arguments and prior art presented in their petition for any subsequent proceedings against this patent, depending on the specifics of the discretionary denial order. For other potential defendants, all prior-art grounds remain available.

There are no apparent pattern signals such as multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner based on the single, non-instituted proceeding. The petitioner, American Airlines, Inc. et al., is a known entity that has been involved in other patent litigation. The fact that the proceeding was a discretionary denial indicates that the PTAB considered external factors, possibly related to ongoing litigation or other efficiency concerns, rather than the patentability arguments themselves.

Recommended next steps

• Given the discretionary denial of IPR2025-01511, all claims of US7712080 remain formally "untested" by the PTAB. This means there is no FWD to explicitly link to or quote for invalidation.
• The absence of an instituted IPR means the patent owner's claims have not been narrowed at the PTAB. A new IPR challenge could still be considered, but potential petitioners should carefully evaluate the current PTAB landscape regarding discretionary denials, which have become more frequent and policy-driven, particularly since early 2025.
• If you are a defendant, request and carefully review the specific "Discretionary Denial" decision for IPR2025-01511 from the USPTO PTAB E2E system (https://ptab.uspto.gov/#/search/documents) to understand the PTAB's precise rationale. This document would shed light on the grounds for denial, which could influence future defensive strategies.
• Consider conducting a new prior art search, as the prior art presented in the denied IPR was not fully evaluated.

Inventors

• Lei Pan (University of California San Diego)
• Lubomir R. Bic (University of California San Diego)
• Michael B. Dillencourt (University of California San Diego)

Original assignee

The original assignee on the issued patent US7712080B2 is the University of California San Diego (UCSD). UCSD is a public land-grant research university. Their primary line of business is education and research, including various scientific and engineering fields, as well as health care through UC San Diego Health. They do not typically ship products embodying patent claims, but rather engage in research and license their intellectual property. UCSD is currently operating.

Assignment timeline

• 2004-11-01 (executed) / recorded 2004-11-01 — Reel 015945/0486
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: DILLENCOURT, MICHAEL B., BIC, LUBOMIR R., PAN, LEI
  • Assignee: THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
  • Correspondent: Not specified
  • Context: Internal reorg (transfer from individual inventors to the university's regents, a common practice for university employees' inventions).

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7712080
    2004 : Assigned to The Regents of the University of California
    2010 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. The only recorded assignment is from the individual inventors to the Regents of the University of California, which is the governing body of UCSD, a research institution. There is no evidence of transfer to a licensing-only LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. Unified Patents indicates that US7712080 is owned and asserted by Intellectual Ventures LLC, which is a known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). However, this transfer is not reflected in the USPTO assignment records available for public search.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment, and no correspondent information is explicitly listed on the Google Patents legal events for that entry.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There is only one recorded assignment.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Unclear. While Unified Patents notes litigation activity for this patent, the transfer to Intellectual Ventures (the asserted owner) is not reflected in the USPTO assignment records. Therefore, it is impossible to determine if a transfer occurred within 6 months of litigation based solely on the official assignment records.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. The University of California is an operating educational and research institution, not in bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While the patent is associated with a known NPE (Intellectual Ventures), there is no public information to suggest a privateering arrangement with the original assignee, UCSD.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently associated with Intellectual Ventures, which is an NPE, not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence. The patent is identified by Unified Patents as being owned and asserted by Intellectual Ventures LLC, a well-known Non-Practicing Entity (NPE). Although the formal assignment record to Intellectual Ventures is not publicly available on the USPTO Assignment Center, the information from Unified Patents, an anti-NPE organization that tracks patent assertions, provides strong evidence of NPE ownership and assertion. This classification is based on the known identity of the current asserter, Intellectual Ventures.

For verification of USPTO assignment records, please visit: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

The USPTO database search for patent number 7712080 returned a result for US7712080B2, titled "Systems and methods for parallel distributed programming". This patent is currently active and is assigned to the University of California San Diego UCSD.

The patent itself lists numerous prior art references under the "Cited By" and "Family Cites Families" sections, as well as "Non-Patent Citations". Additionally, Unified Patents has identified prior art for this patent through a public contest.

Here's an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited within US7712080B2 and mentioned by Unified Patents, focusing on potential anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Please note that a full anticipation analysis would require a detailed claim construction and comparison, but this provides a high-level assessment.

Prior Art from US7712080B2 (Cited by Examiner/Applicant):

• US5551047A: Method for distributed redundant execution of program modules

  • Full Citation: US5551047A
  • Publication/Filing Date: Filed January 28, 1993; Published August 27, 1996
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a method for distributed redundant execution of program modules, which involves distributing program modules across multiple processors for fault tolerance.
  • Potential Anticipation: This patent generally covers distributing program modules and execution, which could be relevant to the broad concept of parallel distributed programming. The general notion of distributing and executing program modules across multiple processors might anticipate elements of Claim 1 and Claim 9 regarding programs operating across multiple processors.

• US6044438A: Memory controller for controlling memory accesses across networks in distributed shared memory processing systems

  • Full Citation: US6044438A
  • Publication/Filing Date: Filed July 10, 1997; Published March 28, 2000
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a memory controller for managing memory accesses in distributed shared memory (DSM) systems, specifically controlling access across networks.
  • Potential Anticipation: Given that US7712080B2 mentions using distributed shared variables and can operate within a DSM system (Claims 15, 17, 18), this reference could potentially anticipate aspects related to the management and access of distributed shared variables and the underlying DSM infrastructure.

• US6496871B1: Distributed agent software system and method having enhanced process mobility and communication in a computer network

  • Full Citation: US6496871B1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Filed June 30, 1998; Published December 17, 2002
  • Brief Description: This patent details a distributed agent software system with enhanced process mobility and communication in a computer network. This aligns with the "self-migrating threads" and "mobile agents" described in US7712080B2.
  • Potential Anticipation: This reference is highly relevant as US7712080B2 explicitly mentions self-migrating threads being in the form of mobile agents (Claim 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14). The concept of mobile agents moving between processors and maintaining state (strong mobility) is a core aspect of both. The detailed description of mobile agent systems in US7712080B2, particularly MESSENGERS, suggests a direct conceptual overlap.

• Fukuda et al., Messengers: Distributed Programming Using Mobile Agents, Transactions of the SDPS, Dec. 2001, vol .5, No. 4, pp. 95-112.

  • Full Citation: Fukuda et al., Messengers: Distributed Programming Using Mobile Agents, Transactions of the SDPS, Dec. 2001, vol. 5, No. 4, pp. 95-112.
  • Publication Date: December 2001
  • Brief Description: This non-patent literature describes the "Messengers" system, which uses mobile agents for distributed programming. The MESSENGERS system is extensively detailed in US7712080B2 as an example of how self-migrating threads can be implemented.
  • Potential Anticipation: This document is extremely relevant, potentially anticipating aspects of all claims that rely on or describe the use of self-migrating threads or mobile agents for distributed computing, especially in the context of "navigational programming" and the MESSENGERS system described in the patent. The discussion of agent variables, control blocks, and the compilation into functions separated by hop() commands in US7712080B2 directly references concepts found in this paper.

• Pan et al., Mobile Agents-The Right Vehicle for Distributed Sequential Computing, Springer-Verlag Berlin Jeidelberg 2002, pp. 575-584.

  • Full Citation: Pan et al., Mobile Agents-The Right Vehicle for Distributed Sequential Computing, Springer-Verlag Berlin Jeidelberg 2002, pp. 575-584.
  • Publication Date: 2002
  • Brief Description: This non-patent literature focuses on mobile agents for "Distributed Sequential Computing (DSC)," a core concept of US7712080B2.
  • Potential Anticipation: This publication is highly relevant to Claims 1 and 9, which involve developing a distributed sequential computing program to access distributed shared variables and then transforming it into a distributed parallel computing program. The paper likely delves into the mechanics of using mobile agents for DSC, directly addressing the foundational concepts of the independent claims.

• Suzuki et al., Self-Migrating Threads for Multi-Agent Applications, 1st IEEE computer society international workshop, 1999, pp. 1-8.

  • Full Citation: Suzuki et al., Self-Migrating Threads for Multi-Agent Applications, publication data: 1999, published by 1st IEEE computer society international workshop, pp. 1-8.
  • Publication Date: 1999
  • Brief Description: This publication discusses self-migrating threads in the context of multi-agent applications.
  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to the Fukuda et al. paper, this reference directly addresses the "self-migrating threads" feature of US7712080B2, particularly those described in Claim 2, 8, 11, and 14.

Prior Art Identified by Unified Patents for US7712080:

Unified Patents explicitly mentions a "WINNING SUBMISSION for US 7712080 - Parallel Distributed Programming". While the full details of this submission are not provided in the snippet, it refers to specific patents:

• US6292822: (No further details provided in snippet, but mentioned as prior art for US7712080).

  • Potential Anticipation: Without the full text, it is difficult to determine specific claims, but as it's cited as prior art for this patent, it likely relates to aspects of parallel or distributed programming, data distribution, or agent-based systems.

• US5197137: (No further details provided in snippet, but mentioned as prior art for US7712080).

  • Potential Anticipation: Similar to US6292822, more information would be needed for a precise assessment. However, its inclusion by Unified Patents suggests it pertains to the core concepts of US7712080B2.

• “An Execution Order Control Method of Distributed Processes for Sharing Global Variables”: (No publication details or patent number in snippet, but mentioned as prior art for US7712080).

  • Potential Anticipation: This title strongly suggests relevance to the "distributed shared variable" and "distributed sequential computing program" aspects of Claim 1 and Claim 9, as it directly addresses distributed processes and sharing global variables (which is analogous to distributed shared variables).

Summary of Potential Anticipation:

The prior art heavily points towards the concepts of mobile agents, self-migrating threads, distributed shared memory, and distributed sequential/parallel computing being known prior to the priority date of US7712080B2. Specifically, the "Messengers" work by Fukuda et al. and Pan et al. seems to be directly foundational to the concepts of "navigational programming," DSC, and the implementation of mobile agents described in the patent. These references would particularly challenge the novelty of claims related to the use and mechanism of self-migrating threads/mobile agents (Claims 2, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) and the underlying distributed shared variable concept (Claims 1, 3, 9). The transformation methods for DPC (Claim 1, 9) might also be anticipated if these prior art documents describe similar techniques for achieving parallelization through agent spawning or similar mechanisms based on intermediate results.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7712080 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 9) of US Patent 7712080 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date May 21, 2003). The motivation to combine these references stems from recognized problems in the art (complexity and inefficiency in distributed programming) and established approaches to achieve more efficient and maintainable parallel distributed systems.

Key Elements of Independent Claims:

Both Claim 1 (method) and Claim 9 (system) independently claim a distributed parallel computing (DPC) program or system that involves:

1. Distributed Shared Variable (DSV): A single logical variable comprising multiple physical variables distributed across multiple memories.
2. Distributed Sequential Computing (DSC) Program: A program designed to access the DSV, typically involving a single locus of computation over distributed data.
3. Transformation to DPC by Spawning Child DSCs: The DSC program transforms into a DPC program by spawning one or more child DSC programs.
4. Intermediate Condition for Spawning: This spawning occurs when an "intermediate condition" arises within the parent DSC program, specifically one comprising an intermediate result required by the spawned child DSC program to continue its computation.
5. Concurrent Execution: The parent and spawned child DSC programs execute concurrently to perform parallel processing/operations.
6. Self-migrating threads/Mobile Agents: The patent explicitly states that DSC utilizes self-migrating threads, often in the form of mobile agents with strong mobility.

Identified Prior Art References (pre-May 21, 2003):

The following prior art references establish various elements of the claimed invention:

• [A] Pan et al., "Mobile Agents—The Right Vehicle for Distributed Sequential Computing," Springer-Verlag Berlin Jeidelberg, 2002 (hereinafter "Pan DSC 2002"). This paper, co-authored by an inventor of US7712080, directly describes Distributed Sequential Computing (DSC) utilizing mobile agents. It teaches the concept of using self-migrating threads (mobile agents) to perform sequential computations efficiently over distributed data while preserving algorithmic and data structure integrity.
• [B] Pan et al., "Distributed Parallel Computing using Navigational programming: Orchestrating Computations Around Data," IASTED PDCS 2002 (hereinafter "Pan DPC 2002"). This paper, also co-authored by an inventor, explicitly discusses Distributed Parallel Computing (DPC) using navigational programming and the principle of "orchestrating computations around data," which is equivalent to the "pivot-computes" principle described in US7712080 for efficiency. This demonstrates the recognized goal of achieving parallel computing within this paradigm.
• [C] Fukuda et al., "Messengers: Distributed Programming Using Mobile Agents," Transactions of the SDPS, Dec. 2001 (hereinafter "Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001"). The patent itself extensively describes the "MESSENGERS" system as a mobile agent platform facilitating navigational programming. It teaches the use of mobile agents with "strong mobility," the hop() command for migration, the inject() command for spawning new Messengers (i.e., child mobile agents/threads), "agent variables" that carry data with a Messenger during migration, and signalEvent()/waitEvent() for local synchronization among Messengers.
• [D] Stanislaw Chrobot, "Sharing Variables in Distributed Memory," Fundamenta Infomaticae 44 (2000) (hereinafter "Chrobot 2000"). This reference teaches the fundamental concept of shared variables in a distributed memory environment, providing the basis for Distributed Shared Variables (DSVs).
• [E] Suzuki et al., "Self-Migrating Threads for Multi-Agent Applications," 1999 (hereinafter "Suzuki 1999"). This paper explicitly teaches the use of "self-migrating threads" in "multi-agent applications," directly addressing the core mechanism of mobile computation described in the patent.
• [F] US6442663B1, Data collection and restoration for homogeneous or heterogeneous process migration, issued Aug. 27, 2002 (hereinafter "Louisiana University Patent"). This patent teaches process migration, which is a key aspect of self-migrating threads and mobile agents.
• [G] US6496871B1, Distributed agent software system and method having enhanced process mobility and communication in a computer network, issued Dec. 17, 2002 (hereinafter "NEC Patent"). This patent describes a distributed agent system with enhanced process mobility and communication, reinforcing the known nature of mobile agent systems.

Obviousness Combination and Rationale:

A PHOSITA, at the time of the invention, would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Pan DSC 2002, Pan DPC 2002, Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001, Chrobot 2000, and Suzuki 1999 (further supported by Louisiana University Patent and NEC Patent) to arrive at the claimed invention.

Rationale for Combination:

1. Establishing DSC and the Need for DPC: Pan DSC 2002 explicitly teaches the advantages of Distributed Sequential Computing (DSC) using mobile agents (self-migrating threads) over distributed data, emphasizing the preservation of algorithmic and data structure integrity. Concurrently, Pan DPC 2002 highlights the objective of achieving Distributed Parallel Computing (DPC) using "navigational programming" and the "pivot-computes" principle. A PHOSITA would naturally recognize the benefit of extending the integrity-preserving DSC paradigm to DPC.
2. Implementing DSVs: Chrobot 2000 teaches the general concept of sharing variables in distributed memory. The patent itself notes that DSVs and self-migration enable shared variable programming beyond single-address space. Given the context of distributed computing with mobile agents, a PHOSITA would readily understand how to implement logically single, but physically distributed, shared variables to facilitate data access by mobile agents, especially when the "pivot-computes" principle (from Pan DPC 2002) calls for computation to occur where the data resides. The patent further clarifies that "an explicit-navigation mobile agent system may be built on top of a DSM. A DSM system may be used to serve as communication media for the globally accessible data, or in other words, agent variables." This directly links DSM concepts to agent variables for distributed data access.
3. Utilizing Self-Migrating Threads/Mobile Agents for Parallelization: Suzuki 1999 and the general knowledge of mobile agents (reinforced by Louisiana University Patent and NEC Patent) establish the concept of self-migrating threads and process mobility in multi-agent applications. Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001 provides a concrete system that enables this. MESSENGERS explicitly provides the hop() command for thread migration and, crucially, the inject() command for spawning new Messengers (i.e., child self-migrating threads/DSC programs). This directly addresses the "spawning at least one child distributed sequential computing program" element of the claims. The "agent variables" in MESSENGERS are designed to travel with the agent, providing a mechanism for an intermediate result to be "required by the at least one spawned child distributed sequential computing program to continue computation".
4. Spawning Based on Intermediate Conditions for Concurrent Processing: The concept of initiating a new computation (spawning a thread/task) upon the availability of an intermediate result is a well-known parallelization and pipelining technique in distributed computing. The inject() command in Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001 provides the means to spawn a child program. Furthermore, MESSENGERS includes signalEvent() and waitEvent() for synchronization, which would allow a parent DSC program to signal the completion of an intermediate result and a child DSC program to wait for it before proceeding. The patent's own examples in FIGS. 3(a)-(b) illustrate this transformation: "the thread can clone itself as soon as the computation of R is done, and have the clone hop to the next node carrying the intermediate result and continue the computation at the same time when it continues the computation of NR on the current node". A PHOSITA would understand that by spawning a child Messenger (using inject() from Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001) at the point an intermediate result becomes available, and passing that result via agent variables (from Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001), concurrent processing of independent or pipelined tasks could be achieved.

Conclusion:

The combination of the aforementioned prior art references, particularly the explicit teachings by the inventors themselves in Pan DSC 2002 and Pan DPC 2002, along with the practical mobile agent system described in Fukuda MESSENGERS 2001 and the foundational concepts of distributed shared variables from Chrobot 2000 and self-migrating threads from Suzuki 1999, would have made claims 1 and 9 of US7712080 obvious. A PHOSITA would have been motivated to combine these known elements to create an efficient and maintainable parallel distributed programming system that leverages mobile agent mobility for data access (pivot-computes) and spawns concurrent tasks based on intermediate results, thereby addressing the existing challenges in the field. The specific mechanisms for spawning, migrating, passing data, and synchronizing, as described in the claims, are all clearly taught or suggested by these prior art references.