Ex Parte Falk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201510844985 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte ALEXANDER FALK and VLADISLAV GAVRIELOV ____________________ Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–6, 8, and 27–31. Claims 7 and 9–26 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Exemplary Claim Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added, reads as follows: 1 1. A data processing system comprising: a processing unit that processes code; a memory storing data defining a plurality of structured data objects automatically derived directly from a source, including a first structured data object comprising a plurality of data elements and data defining a second structured data object comprising a plurality of data elements; a display environment in which structured data objects derived directly from the source are displayed, including at least a portion of the data elements of the first and second structured data objects, wherein any of the displayed structured data objects is positionable by a user in any juxtaposition with respect to any other of the structured data objects, and the displayed data elements are individually selectable by the user for defining mappings, each of the displayed structured data objects comprising a structured content model representation that depends on the object itself, a first set of one or more sockets representing one or more inputs to the structured content model representation, and a second set of one 1 We note that in prior appeal 2009-012172 of this same U.S. Patent Application No. 10/844,985, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board affirmed a rejection under § 103(a) of claim 1 which, similar to claim 1 in the instant appeal, recited a data processing system having program generation code that automatically generates given program code and enables a programmable data transformation. Decision 2 and 10–12; App. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 3 or more sockets representing one or more outputs from the structured content model representation; the display environment further enabling the user to visually define a plurality of mappings, each mapping transforming one or more of the data elements of the first structured data object into one or more data elements of the second structured data object, at least one of the mappings further comprising a specification of a data processing function to manipulate the data elements of the first structured data object into the data elements of the second structured data object; and program generation code, responsive to the plurality of mappings, that when executed by the processing unit, automatically generates program code enabling programmatic data transformation in an application execution environment of a first data structure visually represented by the displayed first structured data object to a second data structure visually represented by the displayed second structured data object. Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4–6, 8, and 27–31 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams (US 5,850,548; issued Dec. 15, 1998) and Beisiegel (US 2004/0015515 A1; published Jan. 22, 2004). 2 Final Act. 3–7. (2) The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams, Beisiegel, Bahrs (US 2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–6, 8, and 27–31 rejected over Williams and Beisiegel (see App. Br. 13–21), and Appellants state that claims 1–6, 8, and 27–31 stand or fall together (App. Br. 12 and 21). Claims 2–6, 8, and 27–31 all ultimately depend from sole independent claim 1. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative for the group of claims 1, 4–6, 8, and 27–31 rejected over the combination of Williams and Beisiegel, and we decide the appeal of claims 2 and 3 (rejected over the combination of Williams, Beisiegel, Bahrs, Bowman-Amuah, and VXT) on the same basis as claim 1 from which claims 2 and 3 depend. Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 4 6,292,933 B1; issued Sept. 18, 2001), Bowman-Amuah (US 6,550,057 B1; issued Apr. 15, 2003), and Emmanuel Pietriga et al., VXT: A Visual Approach to XML Transformations, IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2001 ACM SYMPOSIUM ON DOCUMENT ENGINEERING, pp. 1–10 (Nov. 2001) (hereinafter, “VXT”). Final Act. 8–9. Appellants’ Contentions 3 Appellants contend (App. Br. 18–21) that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Williams and Beisiegel for numerous reasons including: (1) Williams and Beisiegel use visual programming languages in a visual programming environment, and thus the disclosed structured data objects are user created in Williams and Beisiegel and not automatically derived from a source as done by Appellants (App. Br. 19); (2) Williams and Beisiegel are both visual programming environments, as opposed to Appellants’ recited invention which is not a visual programming environment (App. Br. 20); (3) Williams clearly and specifically requires a user to create a visual component (App. Br. 21); and 3 Aside from including claims 2 and 3 in the introduction and conclusion section of the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13 and 21), Appellants’ Brief fails to present any arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 2 and 3 under § 103(a) over Williams, Beisiegel, Bahrs, Bowman-Amuah, and VXT (see App. Br. 12, 13, and 22). Therefore, because Appellants have not disputed the Examiner’s rejection set forth in Final Rejection (Final Act. 8–9), which was not withdrawn in the Answer (see Ans. 2), Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 3. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 5 (4) nothing in Williams and Beisiegel teaches or suggests data “defining a plurality of structured data objects automatically derived directly from a source” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 21). Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Brief (App. Br. 13–22), the following issue is presented on appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–6, 8, and 27–31 as being obvious because the base combination of Williams and Beisiegel fails to teach or suggest the limitations at issue in sole independent claim 1 of a data processing system including a memory storing structured data objects “automatically derived from a source” and “program generation code . . . that . . . automatically generates program code enabling programmatic data transformation in an application execution environment,” as recited in representative independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 3–9) in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 13–21) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response in the Answer (Ans. 2–4) to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. “During examination, ‘claims . . . are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, and . . . claim language should be read in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004)(quoting In re Bond, 910 F.2d Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 6 831, 833 (Fed. Cir. 1990)); see also In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1053-54 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Claims 1, 4–6, 8, and 27–31 With regard to representative and sole independent claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3–5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 2–4). We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner with regard to the obviousness of claims 1, 4–6, 8, and 27–31 in view of the combination of Williams and Beisiegel. As we found in our prior Decision (Appeal 2009-012172 mailed on April 12, 2012), “Beisiegel discloses (Fig. 1) products to facilitate mapping by visually displaying or rendering a first data structure 102 and a second data structure 104, and then ‘generat[ing] a script or source code 110’ for compilation and execution to perform mapping to enable effective and quick design applications (¶ 4 citation omitted) (Decision 10). Therefore, we find with respect to the instant appeal that Beisiegel discloses “program generation code . . . that . . . automatically generates program code enabling programmatic data transformation in an application execution environment,” as recited in representative independent claim 1. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 3–4) that both Williams (col. 5, ll. 38–45; col. 7, ll. 11–18; col. 8, ll. 27–31; Fig. 4f, component 451; see Ans. 3) and Beisiegel (¶¶ 4, 50, and 51; Figs. 1, 4, and 6; see Ans. 4) teach and suggest structured data objects that are automatically derived directly from a source as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 7 Appellant’s contentions (App. Br. 19–21) that Williams and Beisiegel use visual programming languages in a visual or integrated programming environment, and therefore act on user created structured data objects, and not objects that are “automatically derived directly from a source” as recited in claim 1, are not persuasive insofar as being incommensurate with the scope of the claimed invention. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive.”). Representative claim 1 does not contain limitations requiring the plurality of structured data objects to be “automatically derived directly from a source and not user created” (App. Br. 19) (emphasis added). Representation claim 1 on appeal merely recites “a memory storing data defining a plurality of structured data objects automatically derived directly from a source.” In addition, Appellants’ arguments that Williams and Beisiegel disclose systems operating in a visual programming environment which is unlike, and in fact teaches away from, Appellants’ invention (App. Br. 19– 21) are not persuasive. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 2–3) that Appellants’ disclosed and claimed data processing system does indeed operate to create a visual programming environment just as done by Williams and Beisiegel (see Spec. 10:2–27; Fig. 1, visual design environment 25). Appellants have not provided evidence to the contrary or otherwise rebutted the Examiner’s determination that Williams, Beisiegel, and Appellants’ invention are all directed to a visual design/programming environment. Furthermore, we note that claim 1 also recites that the display environment (which is disclosed at Spec. 10:23–26 as being a visual/integrated programming environment) enables “the user to visually Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 8 define a plurality of mappings” of the displayed structured data objects (claim 1, ll. 19–20). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, as well as claims 4–6, 8, and 27–31 grouped therewith. Claims 2 and 3 Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Williams, Beisiegel, Bahrs, Bowman-Amuah, and VXT teaches or suggests the data processing system recited in claims 2 and 3 because Appellants do not address the merits of the inclusion of Bahrs, Bowman-Amuah, and VXT in the combination, or otherwise present arguments on the merits with regard to claims 2 and 3 (see App. Br. 12). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (requiring a statement in the briefs as to each ground of rejection presented by Appellants for review); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (stating that arguments not presented in the briefs by Appellants will be refused consideration). As such, Appellants have not argued that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2 and 3 or otherwise shown this obviousness rejection to be in error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CONCLUSIONS (1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4–6, 8 and 27– 31 as being obvious, because the combination of Williams and Beisiegel teaches or suggests the data processing system including program generation code that “automatically generates program code enabling programmatic Appeal 2013-011015 Application 10/844,985 9 data transformation in an application execution environment,” as recited in representative claim 1. (2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 2 and 3 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1–6, 8, and 27–31 are 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED kme Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation