Ex Parte Degenhardt et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201511580946 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/580,946 10/13/2006 Jon Rexford Degenhardt OIC0285US 6423 60975 7590 02/11/2015 CAMPBELL STEPHENSON LLP 11401 CENTURY OAKS TERRACE BLDG. H, SUITE 250 AUSTIN, TX 78758 EXAMINER CHOWDHURY, ZIAUL A. ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2192 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JON REXFORD DEGENHARDT, SUDHAKAR KAKI, MARIA ELISABETH KAVAL, SINFAN TANG, SANJIN TULAC, and RAHIM MOHAMED YASEEN ____________ Appeal 2012-009258 Application 11/580,946 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, 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. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to debugging functionality embedded in an application. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: Appeal 2012-009258 Application 11/580,946 2 1. A computer-implemented method comprising: determining that a debugging functionality embedded in an application is requested, wherein the application supports an n-tiered architecture; collecting state information of the application at one or more operational break points as the application executes; and providing the state information to a user at each break point. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 5-8, 10, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being unpatentable by Mei (US 2005/0177820 A1; publication Aug. 11, 2005). Claims 3, 4, 9, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mei and Leask (US 6,412,106 B1; issued June 25, 2002). Claims 15, 17, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mei and House (US 6,119,247; issued Sept. 12, 2000). Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mei, Leask, and House. ANALYSIS ANTICIPATION REJECTION We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding Mei discloses “determining that a debugging functionality Appeal 2012-009258 Application 11/580,946 3 embedded in an application is requested,” as recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added). 1 See Reply Br. 6-15. The Examiner maps Mei’s Application collaboration modules 140– 141 to the recited application. See Ans. 5, 52. The Examiner initially cites Mei’s Abstract and contends because Mei states “exposing a set of debugging application programmer interfaces (APIs),” Mei teaches the embedded debugging functionality. See Ans. 4, 25. The Examiner further cites Mei’s paragraphs 22–25 and contends the disclosed debugging functionality is embedded in the Application collaboration modules 140– 141. See Ans. 25–27. Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Mei’s Abstract does not provide sufficient detail to show the embedded debugging functionality. Further, Mei’s Figure 1 shows the debugger 160 is separate from—not embedded in—the Application collaboration modules 140–141, which are part of the interchange server 120. See Mei, Fig. 1. Mei states: “A collaboration debugger 160 is coupled to the interchange server 120 for debugging the collaborations 140142.” Mei ¶ 19 (emphases added). Further, Mei describes the debugging functionality associated with debugger 160 in paragraphs 21 through 28 and therefore, the disclosed debugging functionality is from the debugger 160. See Mei ¶¶ 21–28. Indeed, Mei’s paragraph 28 states: “[t]he user can use collaboration debugger 160 to attach to a running collaboration, set/unset breakpoints in a business process, send 1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not need to address the additional arguments. Appeal 2012-009258 Application 11/580,946 4 a triggering event to interchange server, and watch how the running collaboration processes the flow.” Mei ¶ 28. The Examiner also asserts setting break points in the Application collaboration modules 140-141 constitutes embedded debugging functionality. See Ans. 28–29. However, the Examiner acknowledges Mei’s paragraph 24 teaches “A debugger . . . set[s] or unset[s] breakpoint(s).” Mei ¶ 24. Therefore, the Examiner fails to show the debugging functionality is embedded in the Application collaboration modules 140–141. Because the Examiner fails to show sufficient support for the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102, we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 5–8, 10, 11, and 14 for similar reasons. OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION We do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, and 15-20. Regarding independent claim 15, the Examiner cites Mei and House. See Ans. 14-16. The Examiner relies on Mei in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 1, and does not rely on House in any manner that remedies the deficiencies of the underlying anticipation rejection. See Ans. 14-16. Regarding dependent claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, and 16-20, the Examiner cites additional references Leask and House for those claims. See Ans. 10- 14 and 16-20. Similar to the discussions above with respect to claim 15, because the Examiner does not rely on Leask or House for the disputed Appeal 2012-009258 Application 11/580,946 5 claim limitation, the Examiner fails to show those references remedy the deficiencies discussed above. Therefore, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 4, 9, 12, 13, and 15–20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed. REVERSED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation