Ex parte Coskun et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 3, 2000

08354699 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 3, 2000)

Application for patent filed December 13, 1994.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte NURCAN COSKUN
and BRUCE A. TATE
__________
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,6991
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before URYNOWICZ, JERRY SMITH and FLEMING, Administrative
Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-21, all
the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to a method of debugging a program in
a graphic user interface. Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as
follows:
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
2
A method in a data processing system for debugging an object
from a plurality of objects forming an application in an object
oriented system utilizing a graphic user interface, wherein a
number of the plurality of objects each includes at least one
action slot, each action slot containing at least one action
object, the method comprising the data processing system
implemented steps of:
storing each action object within an action slot in an
activation object in response to an event associated with the
action slot generated by a user utilizing the graphic user
interface; and
storing data sent to each action object in the activation
object, the data being data required to recreate the event,
wherein action objects responsive to the event may be debugged.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Coplien et al. (Coplien) 5,093,914 Mar. 03,
1992
Padawer et al. (Padawer) 5,124,989 Jun. 23,
1992 The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Coplien in view of Padawer.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 8) and the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 14), and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 13).
Appellants’ Invention

Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
3
The invention is adequately described at pages 2-5 of the
brief.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
At page 5 of the brief, appellants state that for purposes of
this appeal, the claims will be grouped together.
With respect to Padawer, appellants argue that the reference
is not to analogous art and may not be used to form the basis of
the
rejection. The claimed invention relates to debugging object-
oriented programs using objects. The reference contemplates
debugging programs using a command-line program. In contrast,
appellants are concerned with object-oriented programs. Command-
line programs are at opposite ends of the spectrum, employing
widely disparate approaches and conceptual foundations, and
operating differently. It is argued that command-line programming
techniques are not reasonably pertinent to solving problems
arising in object-oriented programming. Appellants contend that
those skilled in object-oriented programming would not look to
command-line programming techniques to solve problems encountered
in object-oriented programs, particularly problems arising from
program execution.
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
4
The argument is made that nothing suggests that a history
tape for debug commands as disclosed by Padawer may be combined
with an object as disclosed in Coplien to achieve the
functionality of the claimed invention which calls for saving the
context of a user event.
Appellants urge that none of the references discloses or
suggests employing action objects, action slots and activation
objects to visually debug an object in a object-oriented program.
Each of an action object, action slot and activation object
requires a software object in an object oriented environment, not
merely a
function module or routine as disclosed in Coplien or a simple
record as taught in Padawer. It is urged that an activation
object stores the context of the user event, and that this feature
is not taught or suggested by the references.
The examiner argues that Padawer is analogous prior art
because it is in appellants’ field of endeavor, which is debugging
computer programs. The position is taken that command-line
programming techniques, such as recording “records to permit each
debug step to be precisely reproduced” (Padawer col. 5, lines 12-
15), are demonstrated as object oriented programming techniques in
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
5
appellants’ claim limitations for storing “data required to
recreate the event”.
With respect to appellants’ argument that there is no
suggestion or motivation to combine the references, the examiner
states “On the contrary, Padawer et al. suggests combining so that
the user can, trace or debug, and verify the accuracy of a
program’s execution.” The examiner contends that the combination
would have a high expectation of success since the events recorded
in Padawer are breakpoints which are described in both references
associated with controlling a program.
The examiner contends that Coplien discloses action objects,
such as the functions move, refresh or create in Figure 5, where
the methods that correspond to these action objects are shown as
“refresh(){…}” etc., or functions illustrated in Figure 4. It is
urged that “Coplien et al. show an action slot in figure 5 for a
class window which defines events, such as, move, refresh and
create, to be performed by either of the XWindow or
SunviewWindow”. The examiner states that Padawer teaches
activation objects. In support of this position, the examiner
asserts that in column 9, lines 40-50, Padawer discloses that
debug commands stored as a record in debug tape 302 can activate
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
6
the execution events for debugging a program as a re-execute
function, and that column 4, lines 12-17 and lines 27-32, shows
the record structure.
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented
by both the examiner and the appellants, we have concluded that
the rejection should not be sustained.
The examiner’s position that Padawer suggests combining the
references “so that the user can, trace or debug, and verify the
accuracy of a program’s execution" is not persuasive. Coplien
teaches debugging and verifying the accuracy of a program
execution (column 1, lines 42-44). Thus, one of ordinary skill in
the art would not have combined Padawer with Coplien so that the
user of Coplien can “trace or debug, and verify the accuracy of a
program’s execution” because Coplien teaches debugging and
verifying.
Furthermore, although we agree with the examiner that Coplien
teaches action objects and action slots, we agree with appellants
that Padawer does not disclose or suggest activation objects.
It is clear that Coplien is concerned with object-oriented
programs (column 3, lines 3-10) and discusses objects (column 5,
lines 61-64 and column 8, lines 57-68). In discussing related art
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
7
at page 4, lines 6-11, of their specification, appellants
acknowledge that an object in object-oriented programming refers
to methods (such as resize), data (such as color) and events (such
as button-was-pressed). With respect to appellants’ Figure 3,
resize is the “Event” in an action slot 302, color is the “obj”
(data) in an action object 306a within the action slot 302, and
button-was-pressed is the method “m1” in the action object 306a
within the action slot 302. Because Coplien discusses objects and
appellants acknowledge that an object in object-oriented programs
of the prior art includes the above three elements (event, obj and
method), it is clear that Coplien discloses action objects and
action slots.
At page 17, lines 24-27, of their specification, appellants
disclose that an activation object is an object that contains
context required to reproduce the event triggering the action slot
and an action slot. At page 16, line 30, of their specification,
appellants further disclose that context is information required
to recreate an
event. Padawer discloses context in that the debug history tape
contains data used to re-execute debug commands, that is, recreate
an event. However, Padawer discloses no action slot and, contrary
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
8
to the examiner’s position, cannot disclose an activation object
because an activation object requires context and an action slot
according to appellants’ definition of the term. Accordingly,
even if there existed some motivation or suggestion to combine the
teachings of Coplien and Padawer, the subject matter of the claims
would not have been met by the combination.
Although we will not sustain the rejection of the claims, the
examiner’s position that Padawer is analogous prior art because
both Coplien and Padawer relate to debugging computer programs is
reasonable and persuasive. Appellants have submitted no evidence
to rebut the examiner’s rationale and in support of its position
that command-line programming techniques are not reasonably
pertinent to solving problems arising in object-oriented
programming. Relevant prior art includes that reasonably
pertinent to the particular
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
9
program with which the inventor was involved. In re GPAC, Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1577, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 1995).
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-4128
Application 08/354,699
10
SMU/kis
Andrew J. Dillon
FELSMAN, BRADLEY, GUNTER
& DILLON, LLP
Suite 350, Lakewood on the Park
7600B North Capital of Texas Highway
Austin, TX 78731