Ex Parte Bryl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2017

14560866 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2017)

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.
14/560,866 12/04/2014 Rafi Bryl 13913-0458001 4077
32864 7590 12/18/2017
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
SWIFT, CHARLES M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2017 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAFI BRYL and RIMA SIRICH
Appeal 2017-008349
Application 14/560,866
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to methods and systems for
“automated generation of semantically correct test data for application
development,” the generated test data “including values that are semantically
correct for a respective [value] type” (Title (capitalization altered);
Abstract).
Appeal 2017-008349
Application 14/560,866
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for providing test
data for an application that is to be tested, the method being
executed using one or more processors and comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, user input
indicating an entity of the application;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a data structure
of the entity, the data structure providing a set of elements of the
entity, the set of elements comprising one or more elements, each
element being associated with a value type;
displaying, by the one or more processors, the set of
elements, each element being associated with a rule defining how
values of a respective element are to be provided and indicating
that a test data is to be randomly generated; and
generating, by the one or more processors, the test data for
elements of the set of elements based on respective rules by
maintaining an integrity of associations between the entity and a
second entity of the application, the test data comprising values
that are semantically correct for a respective value type for each
element in the set of elements.
REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based upon
the teachings of Sultan (US 2007/0006153 Al; published Jan. 4, 2007) and
Friedman (US 2004/0078684 Al; published Apr. 22, 2004).
ANALYSIS
With respect to claim 1, Appellants contend Sultan’s semi-random test
data values (e.g., semi-random IP addresses and domain names) generated
based on values set by a tester/user do not teach “test data [that] is to be
randomly generated” as claimed (Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 13—14).
2
Appeal 2017-008349
Application 14/560,866
Particularly, Appellants argue the claimed test data “randomly generated”
cannot be interpreted to “semi-random because the test data values may be
based on criteria specified by the tester,” as Sultan teaches because
Appellants’ Specification distinguishes “randomly generated” from
“generated . . . based on user-defined constraints” (Reply Br. 2 (citing Spec.
|24)). Appellants also argue Sultan is “silent as to test data including
values that are semantically correct for a respective value type,” as claimed
(App. Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 3). Appellants additionally contend
Friedman is silent as to “maintaining an integrity of associations between the
entity and a second entity of the application” as recited in claim 1 (Reply Br.
5). Rather, Appellants contend, “Friedman, at best disclose[s] how an object
of each datatype can be created” from individual data “fields . . .
corresponding to the elements of [a] data structure,” not corresponding to
entities as claimed (Reply Br. 6 (citing Friedman Fig. 9); see also App. Br.
15). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner Sultan’s semi-random test data
values teach “randomly generated” test data, as claimed (Ans. 3—4 (citing
Sultan || 40-41); Final Act. 3—4). Appellants’ argument that the claimed
“‘test data is to be randomly generated’ . . . should not be interpreted as
‘semi-random because the test data values may be based on criteria
specified by the tester [user]”’ is not commensurate with “randomly
generated” as claimed and described in Appellants’ Specification (Reply Br.
2 (emphasis added)).1 Similar to Appellants’ Specification, Sultan randomly
1 Appellants’ Specification provides “the user is able to select whether the
integers for the element are randomly selected or fixed”; for example “if the
3
Appeal 2017-008349
Application 14/560,866
generates test data within user-defined ranges and bounds (see Sultan || 43,
56).
We further agree with the Examiner Sultan’s generated test values are
“random values within the correct format required . . . , as [Sultan’s]
IPAddressRandomizer would create random IP address[es] within the
specified format such as in IPv6 format using signed int64” (Ans. 4—5 (citing
Sultan || 40, 41). Thus, Sultan’s random IP addresses are “semantically
correct for the value type required by each [IP address] elemenf1 (emphasis
added) (Ans. 5). Sultan, therefore, teaches “test data comprising values that
are semantically correct for a respective value type for each element in the
set of elements,” as claimed. Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s reasonable findings.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Friedman’s
complex objects in Figure 9 are unrelated to the claimed “entity” and
“second entity of the application” (Reply Br. 5—6; App. Br. 15). We agree
with the Examiner that Friedman’s complex objects (i.e., “MyCustomer”
object 302, and “Customer Name” object 308) include elements such as
“Customer Number,” “Customer Balance,” “First Name,” and “Fast Name”
(see Friedman Fig. 9; Ans. 6—7). Thus, Friedman’s complex objects are
user selects that the integers are to be randomly selected, the user can
further select whether any integer can be selected, or define a range of
integers, between which the integers can be randomly selectecT (see Spec.
132 (emphases added)). A further example in Appellants’ Specification
states, “if a name of a person is selected, test data can be randomly selected
from a set of names (e.g., pre-defined and stored in computer-readable
memory)” (see Spec. 133 (emphases added)).
4
Appeal 2017-008349
Application 14/560,866
commensurate with the broad description of “entities” in Appellants’
Specification (see Spec. H 19-21).2
Appellants’ Specification also does not provide an explicit and
exclusive definition of the claimed term “maintaining an integrity of
associations” between entities (Ans. 6). The Specification merely provides
non-limiting examples of valid “associations” between entities (see Spec.
11 14, 21, 24, 40). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Friedman’s
generated complex objects “generate [a] test case for all the member objects
within [each] complex object, while leaving the association of the [member]
objects within the complex object unchanged” (Ans. 6—7). Particularly,
Friedman generates “First Name” test data within the correct “Customer
Name” entity (complex object), not within a “Customer Balance” of another
entity (complex object “MyCustomer”), thereby maintaining integrity of
associations between the entities’ constituent elements (see Friedman 119,
Fig. 9). Thus, Friedman teaches “generating ... the test data ... by
maintaining an integrity of associations between the entity and a second
entity,” as claimed (Ans. 6—7).
In light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments
presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 argued together and
2 Appellants’ Specification describes “objects (e.g., entities[)],” and
provides that “[f]or some example[sic], an entity can be defined and can
include one or more elements. . . . ei,. . ., en,” and “[i]n some examples, an
entity can be associated with one or more other entities. For example, an
element of an entity can include one or more other entities” (see Spec.
1119-21).
5
Appeal 2017-008349
Application 14/560,866
dependent claims 2—7, 9—14, and 16—20, not separately argued (App. Br. 11,
13, 16).
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 is affirmed.
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
6