Ex Parte Centonze et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12127298 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/127,298 05/27/2008
48233 7590 03/21/2016
SCULLY, SCOTT, MURPHY & PRESSER, P,C
400 GARDEN CITY PLAZA
SUITE 300
GARDEN CITY, NY 11530
Paolina Centonze
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.
YOR920060113US2
(19643Z)
CONFIRMATION NO.
8215
EXAMINER
A VERY, JEREMIAH L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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):
IBMPAIRENotify@ssmp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAO LINA CENTONZE, JOSE GOMES,
and MARCO PISTOIA
Appeal2014-006209
Application 12/127,298
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11, 14-18, 20, 22, 24-26, 29-31, 33, 35, 37-
46, and 48, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Brief, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. We agree with Appellants (Br. 40-4 7) that the Examiner has
not established the combination of Gurevich (US 6,499,036 Bl; issued Dec.
24, 2002) and Kramer (US 7,681,226 B2; issued Mar. 16, 2010) teaches or
Appeal2014-006209
Application 12/127,298
suggests implementing reflection objects to create customized object
parameters that are passed to said selected displayed method
("implementing reflection objects" limitation), as set forth in independent
claim 1.
The Examiner relies on Gurevich to teach the "implementing
reflection objects" limitation. Ans. 4 (citing Gurevich 5:35--42, 5:58-62,
26:47---67, 27:1-10, Fig. 16). The Examiner finds Gurevich teaches
"reflection objects" because it describes the specific class used to instantiate
a programming object is selected during dynamic execution of the program.
Ans. 24--25.
We have reviewed the cited sections of Gurevich and agree with the
Examiner that they describe the specific class used to instantiate a program
object 160 is selected during execution of the program and that the class of
an object determines the properties it can maintain, so that instantiation
under one class (e.g., UnsecureCustomer class) can produce a different set of
behaviors than instantiation under a different class (e.g., Customer class).
See Gurevich 5:38---62. However, even if we accept the Examiner's position
that object 160 is a "reflection object," the Examiner has not explained how
the cited sections of Gurevich teach object 160 creates customized object
parameters that are passed to a user selected method as required by claim 1.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not established
Gurevich teaches the claimed attendant functionality of a reflection object.
Br. 44.
For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us of error in the
rejection of claim 1. The Examiner does not use the additional reference of
record, Keyser (US 5,928,369; issued July 27, 1999), to teach or suggest the
2
Appeal2014-006209
Application 12/127,298
"implementing reflection objects" limitation. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (1) claim 1; (2) independent
claims 17, 31, 35, 37, and 41, which contain limitations substantially similar
to the "implementing reflection objects" limitation; and (3) the remaining
claims, which depend from one of claims 1, 1 7, 31, 3 5, 3 7, and 41.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5, 7, 9-11,
14--18, 20, 22, 24--26, 29-31, 33, 35, 37--46, and 48.
REVERSED
3