Ex Parte Melillo

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

10465201 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MARCO MELILLO
____________

Appeal 2011-002540
Application 10/465,201
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002540
Application 10/465,201

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 15-19. Claims 2 and 10-14 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
1. A method for managing objects non-compliant with a
pre-set design pattern in a resource management framework
supporting Managed Bean (“MBean”) objects compliant with
the design pattern, the method including the steps of:
machine analyzing, by the way of a processor and a
memory, a particular non-MBean to identify public
characteristics thereof, the non-MBean instantiating a
non-MBean class having public fields and methods;
machine generating, by way of the processor and the
memory an uncompiled source code class prior to run-time
execution of a resource management framework comprising a
compiled version of the uncompiled source code class, the
uncompiled source code class creating a standard MBean
referencing the non-MBean, the uncompiled source code class
implementing an interface exposed to an MBean server, the
interface having a name derived from a name of the MBean
class according to a pre-set design pattern; and
machine generating, by way of the processor and the
memory, uncompiled source code in the uncompiled source
code class prior to the run-time execution, the uncompiled
source code implementing public characteristics of the MBean
that call corresponding public characteristics of the non-MBean
such that the uncompiled source code class defines an MBean
class customized to characteristics of the non-MBean, wherein
the non-MBean is accessible in the resource management
framework through the MBean during the run-time execution.

Appeal 2011-002540
Application 10/465,201

3

Examiner’s Rejection1
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-9, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sun Microsystems, Getting Started with
the Java Dynamic Management Kit 4.1 (2000) (hereinafter “SUNkit”), Sun
Microsystems, Management of Non-MBeam Objects In JMX Environment,
PCT Publication WO 00/77632 A1 (Dec. 21, 2000) (hereinafter “SUNpct”),
and its priority document, Java Management Extensions, No. 99/07583 (Jun.
15, 1999) (hereinafter “SUNp”).

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “machine generating, by way of the processor and the
memory an uncompiled source code class prior to run-time execution of a
resource management framework comprising a compiled version of the
uncompiled source code class, the uncompiled source code class creating a
standard MBean referencing the non-MBean, the uncompiled source code
class implementing an interface exposed to an MBean server, the interface
having a name derived from a name of the MBean class according to a pre-
set design pattern” (emphasis ours). The Examiner finds that SUNkit teaches
this limitation. Ans. 5-6 (citing SUNkit, Figure 2-1 and pages 17-18).
Appellant contends that the cited portion of SUNkit does not teach this
limitation. App. Br. 15. Appellant contends that the combination of
SUNkit, SUNpct, and SUNp does not teach machine generating an

1 The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph has been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 4.
Appeal 2011-002540
Application 10/465,201

4
uncompiled source code class which creates a standard MBean referencing
the non-MBean. Reply Br. 4-6.
We agree with Appellant for the reasons given by Appellant in the
Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. In particular, we agree with the Appellant
that the Examiner has not persuasively explained how Figure 2-1 teaches
“prior to run-time execution …the uncompiled source code class creating a
standard MBean referencing the non-MBean,” as recited in claim 1. Nor has
the Examiner persuasively explained how the combination of SUNkit,
SUNpct, and SUNp teaches this limitation.
We also agree with the Appellant that:
the Examiner attempts to draw a correlation between the
dynamic MBean and a development stage by stating that the
dynamic MBean “is an accomplishment from development.”
This assertion appears to rely on the fact that the dynamic
MBean must have at some point been developed prior to being
executed at runtime. However, this reasoning appears to neglect
the fact that the dynamic MBean is fundamentally different
from a standard MBean. This difference is not altered or
diminished by the fact that the dynamic MBean may have gone
through some type of stage prior to runtime operations. SUNkit
recognizes this difference by explicitly stating that there are two
types of MBeans: standard and dynamic. SUNkit pages 17-18.
Moreover, SUNkit also describes using dynamic MBeans to
wrap non-MBean objects. SUNkit, page 18. Therefore, neither
SUNkit nor SUNpct describes using a standard MBean to wrap
a non-MBean object, at least because SUNkit and SUNpct only
describe using a dynamic MBean to wrap a non-MBean object.

Reply Br. 5.
That is, Appellant persuasively argues that a standard and a dynamic
MBeans is not the same component, merely at different stages of the
development process. Instead, standard and dynamic MBeans provide
Appeal 2011-002540
Application 10/465,201

5
different ways of providing an MBean, such that the process for wrapping a
non-MBean in a dynamic MBean would differ from the process of wrapping
a non-MBean in a standard MBean. We thus agree with Appellant that
using dynamic MBeans to wrap non-MBeans does not support the
Examiner’s finding that SUNkit teaches machine generating uncompiled
standard MBeans source code to wrap non-MBeans. Id.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 and dependent claims 3-9
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 15-19 contain a limitation similar to that
recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We also do not sustain the
rejection of claims 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 15-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over SUNkit, SUNpct, and SUNp is reversed.

REVERSED

msc