Ex Parte Patton et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

13052421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/052,421 03/21/2011
107681 7590 02/19/2016
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gordon D. Patton
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.
10-216 6455
EXAMINER
MCINTOSH, ANDREW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/19/2016 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):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GORDON D. PATTON and ANDREW MONAGHAN
Appeal2014-002708 1
Application 13/052,421
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and SHARON
PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a graphical user interface (GUI)
for updating serialized objects (72a) in an Extensible Markup Language
(XML) file loaded from a disk drive (32) to the random access memory (14)
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as NCR Corp. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-002708
Application 13/052,421
of a computer system (10). Spec. 1 :20---21, Fig. 1. In particular, upon
ascertaining the properties (86), the defined values, and the alternative
values for each of a plurality of identified classes (80, 82) of a serialized
object (72a), an object serialization editor (64) creates a class data set to
represent the identified classes (80, 82) along with the ascertained properties
(86) as well as a list of selectable alternative values. Id. at 7: 26-9:28, Fig. 2.
Subsequently, the object serialization editor (64) renders on the GUI (70) the
created data set to allow a user to edit the class data by selecting alternative
values to replace defined values for the ascertained properties. Id. at 10:8-
28, Fig. 5.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method of updating serialized objects so that the
serialized objects are available for use with new properties, the
method comprising:
loading a file containing at least one serialized object into
memory;
identifying classes within the loaded file utilizing an object
serialization program executed by a processor;
ascertaining one or more properties associated with each identified
class;
ascertaining for each of the one or more ascertained properties
(i) any defined value, and (ii) any alternative values to the defined
value;
creating a class data set to represent (i) the identified classes
and (ii) the ascertained properties associated with those identified
classes, where each ascertained property includes (a) the defined value
and (b) a list of the alternative values that may be selected instead of
that defined value;
visually representing the created class data set on a display; and
2
Appeal2014-002708
Application 13/052,421
allowing a user to update the class data set by selecting
alternative values for the ascertained properties.
Yadav et al.
Yap et al.
Agarwal et al.
Seto et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 5,774,725 A
US 2002/0020745 Al
US 2003/0065659 Al
US 2004/0015858 Al
June 30, 1998
Feb.21,2002
Apr. 03, 2003
Jan.22,2004
Rejections on Appeal2
Appellants request review of the following Examiner's rejections:
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Seto and Yadav.
Claims 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Seto and Yadav. 3
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Seto, Yadav, and Agarwal.
ANALYSIS
2 The Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 previously
entered against claim 8. Ans. 2.
3 The Examiner cites to Yap as evidentiary reference. Ans. 7-10.
3
Appeal2014-002708
Application 13/052,421
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8-13, and the Reply Brief, pages 1--4. 4
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding Yadav is
properly combined with Seto to render claim 1 unpatentable?
Appellants argue Y adav is nonanalogous prior art, and is therefore not
properly combinable with Seto to render claim 1 unpatentable. App. Br. 9-
11, Reply Br. 2. In particular, Appellants argue Yadav is directed to testing
computer software products wherein a tester is allowed to alter values of
different parameters passed to a given subroutine as a way to quickly
expedite an entire testing procedure. App. Br. 10 (citing Yadav 2:51-56). In
contrast, Appellants submit the invention and Seto relate to updating
serialized objects to make them available with new properties. Id.
Accordingly, Appellants submit because Y adav appears to have a
sufficiently different context from Seto and the invention, it cannot form a
proper basis for modifying Seto to render claim 1 unpatentable. Id. This
argument is not persuasive. "Whether a reference in the prior art is
'analogous' is a fact question." In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656, 658 (Fed. Cir.
4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 1, 2013 ), the Reply Brief (filed Dec. 13,
2013), and the Answer (mailed Oct. 25, 2013) for their respective details.
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
4
Appeal2014-002708
Application 13/052,421
1992) (citing Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1568 n.9
(Fed. Cir. 1987)).
Two criteria have evolved for answering the question: "(1) whether
the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem
addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor's
endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to the particular
problem with which the inventor is involved. Id. at 658-59 (citing In re
Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,
1036 (CCPA 1979)). "A reference is reasonably pertinent if ... it is one
which, because of the matter with which it deals, logically would have
commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering his problem." Id.
at 659. "If a reference disclosure has the same purpose as the claimed
invention, the reference relates to the same problem, and that fact supports
use of that reference in an obviousness rejection." Id.
We echo the Examiner's finding that the disclosure ofYadav pertains
to the same field of endeavor as Appellants' claimed invention and Seto.
Ans. 12. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Yadav's disclosure of
providing a GUI to allow users to readily replace defined values with
selectable alternative values for a particular object class is within the same
field of endeavor as Appellants' method for updating serialized object via a
GUI. Id. (citing Yadav Abstract, 3:45-50, 8:48-54, 9:23-32). We do not
agree with Appellants' argument that Yadav's disclosure of ultimately using
the updated object class values for testing a software somehow restricts the
field ofYadav's invention to software testing without regard to Yadav's
5
Appeal2014-002708
Application 13/052,421
express teaching of using a GUI for facilitating the updates of class objects.
In our view, because Yadav's teaching of updating class objects would have
logically commended itself to an inventor's attention in considering the
problem of updating serialized objects, Yadav is reasonably pertinent to the
problem with which Appellants' invention is concerned, and is thereby
analogous prior art. It follows that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Y adav and Seto
renders independent claim 1 unpatentable.
Regarding the rejection of claim 14, Appellants argue the
combination of Seto and Y adav, in light of the evidentiary reference (Yap)
does not teach or suggest an object class being a "card reader class". App.
Br. 11, Reply Br. 2-3. This argument is not persuasive. Although
Appellants correctly point out that Yap is not the best evidence for the
purpose for which it is presented, we agree with the Examiner that it would
have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan to designate
one of the object classes as a card reader class. Ans. 13. Accordingly, we
will sustain the rejection of claim 14.
Regarding the rejection of claim 13, Appellants argue that the
combination of Seto, Yadav, and Agarwal does not teach or suggest the
subject matter of claim 13. App. Br. 11. This argument is not persuasive. We
agree with the Examiner Agarwal's disclosure of allocating a unique row in
a table to each of a plurality of instances of an object class type would have
complemented the Seto-Y adav combination to produce a visual
6
Appeal2014-002708
Application 13/052,421
representation of properties for each identified class for an object. Ans. 14.
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 13.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2-12, and 15-20, because
Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or
have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-12, and 15-20 fall
therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2013).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1-20. 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