Ex Parte Gownder et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2007

10165081 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today is not binding
precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SRILEKHA KRISHNAN GOWNDER and KUMAR MARAPPAN
____________

Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: August 29, 2007
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ANITA PELLMAN GROSS,
and MARC S. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

GROSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Gownder and Marappan (Appellants) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134
from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 20, which are all of
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081

Appellants' invention relates to a method of creating source code
(specifically Java beans) that interfaces with a presentation layer. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the claimed invention, and it reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method of creating source code, said
method comprising:

receiving a tag-based input file;

identifying one or more tags in the input file that include a field name;

creating a variable name for one or more of the field names in the
identified tags;

generating source code for one or more of the identified tags, the
source code including the created variable name; and

wherein the source code is selected from the group consisting of setter
source code and getter source code, the setter source code and the getter
source code being Java bean source code.

The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
Chiang US 2001/0037490 A1 Nov. 01, 2001

Claims 1 through 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Chiang.
We refer to the Examiner's Answer (mailed May 16, 2006) and to
Appellants' Brief (filed February 20, 2006) and Reply Brief (filed July 14,
2006) for the respective arguments.

2
Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081

SUMMARY OF DECISION
As a consequence of our review, we will affirm the anticipation
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 15, and 18 through 20 and
reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17.

OPINION
Appellants contend (Br. 5-7) that instead of generating getter and
setter source code, as recited in each of the independent claims, Chiang
discloses generating an event handler framework and a user manually
entering the getter and setter source code into the framework. The Examiner
asserts (Answer 4) that the generated event handler code is generated source
code. The issue, therefore, is whether Chiang discloses generating getter
and setter source code.
Chiang discloses (paragraph [0010]) generating an event handler
skeleton by receiving input files, identifying tags, attribute names, and
attribute values in the input files. Chiang also discloses (paragraph [0052])
that the web application generator generates source code 610 which
comprises, among other things, the event handler code 620. In other words,
event handler code 620 is source code. However, the question still remains
as to whether the event handler code is getter and setter source code.
The Examiner (Answer 4) points to the get and set codes in paragraph
[0099] as disclosure for generating getter and setter source code. Appellants
explain (Br. 5-7) that the getter and setter source code in paragraph [0099] is
entered by the user, not generated as recited in the claims. Specifically,
Chiang discloses (paragraph [0096]) that the object file
(CostCalculator.java) requires the web developer to write additional source
3
Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081

code. In paragraph [0097], Chiang shows that the generated source code
includes file CostCalculator.java, which in turn includes a line "click method
code here." Chiang shows in paragraph [0099] the file CostCalculator.java
with the source code added by the web developer. The code added includes
the getter and setter code referenced by the Examiner. Thus, the getter and
setter code of paragraph [0099] is entered by the user and not generated.
However, in response to Appellants' Brief, the Examiner directs our
attention to getter code in paragraph [0097] of Chiang. Since the code
shown in paragraph [0097] is source code generated by the web application
generator and includes getter code, the Examiner asserts that Chiang
discloses generating source code that is selected from setter and getter
source code. Appellants' sole counterargument (Reply Br. 2) is that
"paragraph 97 only includes the code line 'public int getUnitPrice(String
item_code).'" Appellants do not indicate that the code in paragraph [0097] is
not getter code, nor that it is not generated. That the code only includes a
single line of getter code is not persuasive, because the claims do not require
more than a single line. Further, the claims do not require both getter and
setter code. Lastly, the claims do not preclude entering getter and setter
source code in addition to generating some. Consequently, we will sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 15, and 18
through 20, all of which were argued as a single group.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 16, Appellants contend (Br. 7) that
Chiang does not disclose receiving a user selection of getter and setter
source code. The Examiner (Answer 5) asserts that Chiang's screens shown
in Figures 9 and 10, in which the user can enter a number for a variable
name in the generated source code, correspond to the claimed steps of
4
Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081

displaying a screen including one or more of the created variables and
receiving a user selection corresponding to generating the getter and setter
source code for the variable name. The issue, therefore, is whether Chiang
discloses a user selection corresponding to generating getter and setter
source code.
We agree with Appellants. Although Chiang's Figures 9 and 10 show
display screens corresponding to variable names, there is no indication in
Chiang that the user makes a selection corresponding to generating getter
and setter source code. Entering a value for the variable name does not
correspond to generating getter and setter source code. Therefore, we cannot
sustain the anticipation of claims 3, 10, and 15.
For claims 4, 11, and 17, Appellants contend (Br. 8) that Chiang fails
to disclose that the generation of getter and setter source code includes the
steps of selecting a source code template and combining the template with a
variable name. The Examiner (Answer 6) relies on paragraph [0098] of
Chiang as disclosing the claimed steps. The issue is whether Chiang
discloses generating getter and setter source code by selecting a source code
template and combining the template with a variable name.
We find nothing in paragraph [0098] or elsewhere in Chiang that
would suggest selecting a getter or setter source code template and
combining it with a variable name. The code of paragraph [0097] is a source
code template that includes a line of getter source code, but nowhere do we
find generating the line of getter source code by selecting a template and
combining it with a variable name. Therefore, we will not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 4, 11, and 17.
5
Appeal 2006-3396
Application 10/165,081

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) is affirmed as to claims 1, 2, 5 through 9, 12 through 15,
and 18 through 20 and reversed as to claim 3, 4, 10, 11, 16, and 17.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc

IBM CORPORATION- AUSTIN (JVL)
C/O VAN LEEUWEN & VAN LEEUWEN
PO BOX 90609
AUSTIN, TX 78709-0609
6