Ex Parte Baudel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

13282338 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/282,338 10/26/2011
46320 7590 10/03/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Baudel
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
RSW920110035US1 (741) 4243
EXAMINER
PATEL, KAMIN! B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/03/2016 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS BAUDEL and NICOLAS SAUTEREY
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-21, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. App. Br. 1; Final Act. 1. 1 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec."), filed Oct. 26, 2011
(claiming benefit ofEPO 11290421.4, filed Sept. 19, 2011); Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed Oct. 15, 2014; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed Mar. 5,
2015. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Jan. 5, 2015,
and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Mar. 3,
2014.
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
Appellants' Invention
The invention concerns assuring predetermined programing
conditions for a computer program are met during run-time (execution),
specifically computer program products, systems and methods for providing
programmatic assertions in a dynamically assembled computer program. In
one embodiment, a method comprises dynamically assembling a computer
program utilizing different execution units, introspecting and applying a
predicate assertion to one or more of the different execution units, and
generating a failure report in the case of a failure of the predicate assertion.
Spec. i-fi-12, 7-8; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A method for assertion management in a
dynamically assembled programmatic environment, the method
compnsmg:
dynamically assembling different execution units into a
dynamically assembled computer program;
applying a predicate assertion to at least one of the
different execution units through an introspection of the one of
the different execution units; and,
generating an assertion result reporting a failure of the
predicate assertion responsive to the failure of the predicate
assertion.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toussaint et al. (US
2
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
2009/0006167 Al, published Jan. 1, 2009) ("Toussaint") and Lee et al. (US
2011/0246969 Al, published Oct. 6, 2011 (filed Dec. 7, 2010)) ("Lee").
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Toussaint, Lee, and Opstad et
al. (US 2012/0304010 Al, published Nov. 29, 2012 (filed May 25, 2011))
("Op stad").
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that Toussaint and Lee collectively
would have taught or suggested "applying a predicate assertion to at least
one of the different execution units through an introspection of the one of the
different execution units" (claim 1) within the meaning of Appellants' claim
1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 8 and 15?
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21
Appellants argue claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21 together as a group
and do not separately argue independent claims 8 and 15, or dependent
claims 4--7, 11-14, and 18-21 (or remaining dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10,
16, and 17). See generally App. Br. 4--7. Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of Appellants' arguments and
grouping with respect to claims 1, 4--8, 11-15, and 18-21. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
We have reviewed the rejection of claim 1 in light of Appellants'
arguments. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence and
all arguments made by Appellants. We are not persuaded that Appellants
identify reversible error. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings,
reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Final Office Action (Final Act.
3-5; see Ans. 3--4) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 9-11) with the noted
exception of the Examiner's claim construction, which we discuss in detail
(infra). We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's findings with respect to the
prior art references (Toussaint and Lee) in detail. See generally App. Br. 4--
7; Reply Br. 2-6. Instead, Appellants focus on the Examiner's interpretation
of the recited claim terminology- "predicate assertion" (App. Br. 5---6;
Reply Br. 3---6) and contend that because the "Examiner has misconstrued
'predicate assertion' to just mean 'assertion' or 'true-false statement',
Examiner necessarily has not mapped the claim term 'predicate assertion' to
the cited art. Therefore, it is not possible that Examiner has located all
claimed elements within the combination of Touissaint and Lee" (App. Br.
6-7). We disagree, and find Appellants' contentions unpersuasive of
Examiner error.
We agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 5---6; Reply Br. 3---6) that the
Examiner does not provide sufficient support for the Examiner's
interpretation of the claim term "predicate assertion." Citation to an undated
"Wikipedia" definition is insufficient to constitute prior art support. Reply
Br. 3. Even so, Appellants do not explain how the Examiner's interpretation
of "predicate assertion" provides a different result, e.g., by contrasting the
citied prior art to demonstrate reversible error. See generally App. Br. 4--7;
4
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
Reply Br. 2---6. The Examiner provides a detailed rejection and response
(Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3--4, 9-11) delineating where the recited "predicate
assertion" is found in both Toussaint and Lee (Final Act. 4; Ans. 4, 10-11).
Appellants do not directly dispute these findings.
Even if we arguendo adopt Appellants' proposed construction of
"predicate assertion" - that is "an assertion that is predicate to the
execution of an execution unit" (Reply Br. 6) - Appellants do not explain
how this construction distinguishes Appellants' recited features from the
Examiner cited portions of Toussaint and Lee (supra). As explained by the
Examiner, Toussaint describes such a predicate assertion: Toussaint
describes a business process management (BPM) system introspecting
usemame token WS-Security Policy assertions (Toussaint i-f 28). See Final
Act. 4; Ans. 4, 10-11 (citing Toussaint i-fi-126, 28, 29, 84). The Examiner
also found that Lee describes the predicate assertion and explains why the
cited portion of Lee meets the recited limitation:
[Lee] teaches this predicate assertion. For example, in paragraph
26 Lee et al. teaches of the "validation of an assertion," which
includes checking a plurality of elements associated with the
assertion (e.g., a usemame ). For the example of a usemame, it is
understood by the Examiner that if a proper usemame was
entered but not recognized, then this would create an error and
that element of the assertion would be invalid. This teaching
alone teaches of a predicate assertion.
Ans. 10-11 (citing Lee i-f 26). Toussaint and Lee also describe suspending
program execution and reporting the failure of a predicate assertion in the
event a predicate assertion is not met (fails). See Final Act. 4; Ans. 4, 10-11
(citing Toussaint i-fi-126, 28, 29, 84 and Lee i-fi-126, 30; Fig. 1); see also
Toussaint i-fi-131, 34 (describing reporting an incompatible process).
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has somehow failed to map the
5
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
features recited in Appellants' claim to the prior art (supra), are
demonstrably inaccurate.
We further note that even if the Examiner had provided no
construction of the term "predicate assertion," the Examiner (supra) has
mapped Appellants' limitations to the cited prior art. The Examiner need
not provide a detailed claim construction to present a prima facie case of
obviousness (or anticipation). In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[T]he prima facie case is merely a procedural device that enables an
appropriate shift of the burden of production." The Examiner meets this
"burden of production by 'adequately explain[ing] the shortcomings it
perceives so that the applicant is properly notified and able to respond."'
(quoting Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d 1365, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2007))). In the
present appeal, similar to Jung, Appellants respond to the Examiner's
rejection and dispute the Examiner's claim construction (see supra), but fail
to articulate the distinctions, in the recited claim features, from the
Examiner's prior art citations. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362---63.
Thus, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 (which
include limitations of commensurate scope), and dependent claims 4--7, 11-
14, and 18-21 (which depend on claims 1, 8, and 15, respectively), not
separately argued with particularity (supra).
The Obviousness Rejections of Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 as obvious in view
of Toussaint, Lee, and Opstad. Final Act. 7-9. Appellants do not separately
argue dependent claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17. App. Br. 7. Accordingly, we
6
Appeal2015-004623
Application 13/282,338
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. We atlirm the
Examiner's rejections of claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, and 17 for the reasons set
forth with respect to claim 1 (supra). That is, the combination of Toussaint
and Lee at least suggests applying a predicate assertion to one or more
execution units through an introspection thereof.
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-21under35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7