Ex Parte Liu et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 201814196968 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/196,968 03/04/2014 51444 7590 05/31/2018 COOPER LEGAL GROUP I ORACLE 4700 Rockside Road Summit One, Suite 510 Independence, OH 44131 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alan Liu 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. CONFIRMATION NO. ORA170931 (NS-76) 1144 EXAMINER BOURZIK, BRAHIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/31/2018 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): MUthoff@CooperLegalGroup.com DDay@CooperLegalGroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN LIU, NING WANG, and RY AN GRISSO Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20, constituting all claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention is directed to providing a "reliable method of verifying the code contained in a complex software system as a code base is updated or modified during further development activities." Spec. i-f 10. Claim 1, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for verifying a proposed change to a set of source-code, comprising: receiving the set of code representing source-code; generating a baseline map of source-code to testing-code representing an association between a unit of the source-code and one or more units of a testing-code; selecting a proposed change to the source-code; using the baseline map of source-code to testing-code to determine which unit or units of the testing-code are applicable to the proposed change to the source-code; executing the unit or units of the testing-code applicable to the proposed change to the source-code; generating an updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code in response to an implementation of the proposed change, wherein the updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code is generated by limiting comparison of source-code to testing-code to that of the source- code and testing-code associated with the proposed change; and generating an updated version of the source-code. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Davia et al. (US 2 Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 2006/0277439 Al; published Dec. 7, 2006) ("Davia") and Hardy et al. (US 7,614,042 Bl; issued Nov. 3, 2009) ("Hardy"). Ans. 2. Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Davia, Hardy, and Hardy et al. (US 7,568,183 Bl; issued July 28, 2009) ("Donald"). Ans. 27. ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Davia and Hardy teaches or suggests "generating a baseline map of source-code to testing-code representing an association between a unit of the source-code and one or more units of a testing-code" and "generating an updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code in response to an implementation of the proposed change, wherein the updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code is generated by limiting comparison of source-code to testing-code to that of the source-code and testing-code associated with the proposed change," as recited in independent claim 1? Appellants contend Davia does not teach the claimed "generating a baseline map." See App. Br. 16-17. Specifically, Appellants argue the claimed baseline map generated "necessarily implies an ability to update," but that Davia teaches that a "map is created once and consulted often and cannot be construed as any manner of baseline map" because there is no teaching of "being able to alter this map." App. Br. 17. The Examiner finds Davia's code coverage data that is created is the equivalent of the claimed baseline map. Ans. 3--4; Ans. 33-35. Specifically, the Examiner finds Davia teaches code coverage data that 3 Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 identifies an association between baseline build code portions and tests, which is an association between source-code and testing-code, and thereby the code coverage data teaches the original or base map. Ans. 35 (citing Davia Fig. 6, i-f 17). We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments. As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 35), Davia describes the "code coverage data identifies which test implicates which code path of the baseline build." Davia i-f 17 (emphasis added). Davia describes "FIG. 6 represents a logical flow diagram of one embodiment for generating code coverage data for baseline build." Davia i-f 39 (emphasis added). In other words, Davia teaches a baseline build and the generation of code coverage data for the baseline build. Appellants have not responded to the Examiner's findings or otherwise provided persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed "generating a baseline map of source-code to testing-code representing an association between a unit of the source-code and one or more units of a testing-code" precludes Davia's generating code coverage data for a baseline build. Appellants further contend Davia does not teach "generating an updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code, in response to an implementation of the proposed change, wherein the updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code is generated by limiting comparison of source-code to testing-code to that of the source-code and testing-code associated with the proposed change," as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 17-18; see also Reply Br. 3-5. Specifically, Appellants argue Davia's baseline build is "laboriously compared to the entire newly modified build, which is the "opposite of limiting the comparison to only changed 4 Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 sections" as claimed. App. Br. 17. Appellants also argue the claim requires an "iterative process where the baseline map of source-code to testing-code is updated for the now recently implemented changes," but Davia does not teach updating the initial code coverage data map. App. Br. 18 (citing Davia Fig. 6); see Reply Br. 3--4. The Examiner finds Davia's "[d]etermining and matching which test unit are to be executed for the modified build (change) generate new entries in the coverage data that is a map between source code and test unit," teaches "an update to the code coverage data." Ans. 6 (citing Davia i-fi-f 18, 31, 42); Ans. 7 (citing Davia i-fi-f 18, 42). Specifically, the Examiner finds Davia's "baseline build and the modified build are differentiated and code path[ s] that are modified are identified." Ans. 3 8 (citing Davia i1 41) (emphasis added). The Examiner finds Figure 7 of Davia teaches updating the coverage data. Ans. 41 (citing Davia Fig. 7). We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments. Claim 1 does not recite an iterative process where the baseline map of source-code to testing-code is updated for recently implemented changes. See App. Br. 18. Rather, claim 1 recites "generating an updated version of the baseline map of source-code to testing-code in response to an implementation of the proposed change .. . by limiting comparison of source- code to testing-code to that of the source-code and testing-code associated with the proposed change" (emphasis added). Claim 1 merely requires generating an updated version of the baseline map in response to the implementation of a proposed change, and the generating being limited to comparison of codes associated with the proposed change. 5 Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 As cited by the Examiner (Ans. 38, 41), Davia describes "FIG. 7 represents a logical flow diagram of one embodiment for testing a modified build," and "the modified build is compared to the code of the baseline build to determine changes in the code" and the "modified code is associated with code paths of the modified build." Davia i-f 41 (emphasis added). Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed "generating an updated version of the baseline map of source- code to testing-code in response to an implementation of the proposed change .. . by limiting comparison of source-code to testing-code to that of the source-code and testing-code associated with the proposed change," encompassing generating an updated version of the baseline map in response to the implementation of a proposed change, and the generating being limited to comparison of code associated with the proposed change, precludes Davia's generating a modified code build that is associated with code paths of the modified build that is used to compare and determine the changes in the code. Appellants have not explained why Davia's modified code associated with the code paths of the modified build does not teach the claimed updated map limiting comparison associated with the proposed change. Appellants further contends that Hardy does not cure the deficiencies of Davia. App. Br. 18. Specifically, Appellants argue Hardy does not teach "an updated version of the map is generated." Reply Br. 6. Appellants also argue that Davia teaches away from the claimed invention because it is "unable to update the initial code coverage map" and instead describes the "static nature of the code coverage data map." App. Br. 18. 6 Appeal2018-001006 Application 14/196,968 We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds Davia teaches the claimed "generating a baseline map" and "generating an updated version of the baseline map," and does not rely on Hardy to teach these limitations. Furthermore, Davia cannot teach away from the claimed invention because, as discussed supra, Davia's generating code coverage data for a baseline build teaches the disputed "generating a baseline map," as claimed, and Davia's generating a modified code build teaches the disputed "generating an updated version of the baseline map," as claimed. For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejection of independent claim 1. For the same reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of commensurate independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, and 14--20, not argued for separate reasons of patentability. See App. Br. 19-27. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 is 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation