Ex Parte Acker et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2015

11237995 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL ACKER, JUERGEN REMMEL, and
HANS-CHRISTIAN WEBER
___________

Appeal 2012-008154
Application 11/237,995
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–6, 9–19, and
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 6. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a multi-document editor system that has a
repository for storing a plurality of documents having code fragments.
Abstract.

Appeal 2012-008154
Application 11/237,995

2

Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A multi-document editor system comprising:
a repository storing a plurality of documents having code
fragments, the code fragments comprising switchable code
fragments that can be switched in and out during runtime by a
switch framework;
a graphical user interface having a single editor window
within a display region, the single editor window for
concurrently displaying a rendering of the plurality of
documents, at least some of the plurality of documents being
sub-documents of a parent document, the single editor window
also displaying comment lines surrounding respective
documents of the plurality of documents, the comment lines
being non-editable;
a program editor module that provides a unified editor
control to the editor window for editing each of the plurality of
documents in the single editor window, the unified editor
control providing a control function for disabling the comment
lines, the program editor module executing a line refactoring
process to set break-points in the parent document in relation
to specific sub-documents; and
an interface builder module that automatically generates
an interface for a business application that is created using the
program editor module, the business application using the
plurality of documents and being generated such that the
business application can be run without local customization and
can run in both centralized and distributed client/server
configurations.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–6, 9–19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Thames (US Patent Application Publication
Number 2004/0186817 A1; published September 23, 2004), Furuya (US
Patent Number 5,630,040; issued May 13, 1997), Darnell (US Patent
Appeal 2012-008154
Application 11/237,995

3

Number 5,596,700; issued January 21, 1997), and Stauber (US Patent
Number 6,574,635 B2; issued June 3, 2005). Answer 4–15.

ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed November 3, 2011) and the Answer
(mailed February 3, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in
this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Appellants argue that Thames fails to disclose or render obvious
“executing a line refactoring process to set break-points in the parent
document in relation to specific sub-documents” as recited in claim 1.
Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner acknowledges that Thames does not
explicitly disclose the claim limitation but finds it would have been obvious
to an artisan to implement Thames inline expansion module to perform
breaking up the lines with refactoring or re-managing the line layout – e.g.,
setting up breakpoints in the parent document. Answer 8–9 (citing Thames
paragraphs 496 and 670).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings. Appellants contend:
Appellant respectfully notes that the inline expansion of
Thames has no relation whatsoever to line refactoring, much
less a line refactoring process to set break-points in the parent
document in relation to specific sub-documents as claimed.
Instead, the inline expansion of Thames includes generating a
popup window containing a full inline expansion of a selected
macrocall of a line (Thames, ¶ [0670]). However, employing an
inline expansion of a line in a popup window is not the same as
setting a break-point in a document. The popup window of
Thames does not lead to a break-point in a document much less
a break-point relating to a sub-document.

Appeal 2012-008154
Application 11/237,995

4

Appeal Brief 15.
We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Therefore, we
reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 9,
and 15 all commensurate is scope, as well as, dependent claims 2–6, 10–14,
16–19, and 21 for the reasons articulated above.1

DECISION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–6, 9–19, and
21 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc

1 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review claims 15–19 for
compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary
examination instructions on patent eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary
Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice
Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.,” Memorandum to
the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.