Ex Parte Ramchandani

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 2011

10649903 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/649,903 08/26/2003 Mahesh A. Ramchandani 5150-77400 5752
7590 06/10/2011
Jeffrey C. Hood
Meyertons, Hood, Kivlin,
Kowert & Goetzel PC
P.O. Box 398
Austin, TX 78767
EXAMINER
MITCHELL, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/10/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MAHESH A. RAMCHANDANI
____________

Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, DANIEL S. SONG, and GREGORY J.
GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 76-86, 88-107, and 109-114. (App. Br. 2.) Claims 1-75, 87, and 108
were cancelled. (Id.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The Disclosed Invention
The disclosed invention includes “a system and method for creating a
test executive application that provides a graphical user interface for
executing one or more test executive sequences.” (Spec. 3:1-3.) A
“graphical user interface (GUI) element may be included in the test
executive application in response to user input.” (Spec. 3:9-10.) A “control
may also be included in the test executive application in response to user
input.” (Spec. 3:17-18.) The control may include “functionality for
managing execution of a test executive sequence and/or displaying
information regarding execution of a test executive sequence.” (Spec. 3:21-
23.) A binding may be configured between the GUI element and the control
so that the control performs its functionality automatically in response to
user input received at the GUI element. (Spec. 3:25-28.)
Exemplary claim 76 follows:
76. A computer-implemented method for displaying information
regarding a test executive sequence, wherein the test executive sequence
includes a plurality of steps, the method comprising:
including a GUI element in a graphical user interface of a run-time
operator interface application in response to user input, wherein the GUI
element is operable to display information;
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

3
including a control in the run-time operator interface application in
response to user input , wherein the control includes pre-existing first
functionality for determining the steps in the test executive sequence;
configuring a binding between the GUI element and the control,
wherein configuring the binding enables the GUI element to automatically
display at least a subset of the steps in the test executive sequence in
response to the control determining the steps in the test executive sequence
during execution of the run-time operator interface application; and
executing the run-time operator interface application, wherein said
executing comprises the control executing to automatically determine the
steps in the test executive sequence, wherein the binding between the GUI
element and the control causes the GUI element to automatically display at
least a subset of the steps in response to the control determining the steps,
wherein the GUI element displays the at least a subset of the steps in the
graphical user interface of the run-time operator interface application during
execution of the run-time operator interface application.
The Examiner rejected claims 76-86, 88-90, 92-107, and 109-114 as
obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on U.S. Patent 6,401,220 B1 (Grey)
and U.S. Patent 5,485,617 (Stutz). (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner rejected claim 91 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Grey, Stutz, and U.S. Patent 6,718,534 B1 (Carter). (Ans. 14.)

ISSUE
Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the
following issue:
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

4
Did the Examiner establish that the combination of Grey and Stutz
discloses a) “including a control in the run-time operator interface
application in response to user input, wherein the control includes pre-
existing first functionality for determining the steps in the test executive
sequence,” b) “configuring a binding between the GUI element and the
control” to enable the GUI element to automatically display the steps
determined by the control, “during execution of the run-time operator
interface application” and c) “executing the run-time operator interface
application, wherein said executing comprises the control executing to
automatically determine the steps” and the binding causes the GUI
element to automatically display the steps, as required by claim 76, and
as similarly required by claims 94, 95, 96, 113, and 114?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Grey
1. Grey discloses a “test executive program which provides greatly
improved configurability and modularity, thus simplifying the creation,
modification and execution of test sequences.” (Abstract.)
2. Grey teaches a test sequence that “comprises a series of steps, wherein
a step is typically a test performed on an instrument.” (Col. 4, ll. 47-48.) A
step may have a type (i.e., a step type). (Col. 4, ll. 47-50.) A step type
includes a “custom set of properties and/or operations associated with a
step.” (Col. 4, ll. 65-66.) More particularly,
In a test sequence with a number of steps, in many
instances the user will desire a number of steps that have some
commonality of functionality and/or properties. A primary
purpose of a step type is to define common properties and/or
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

5
operations associated with a plurality of steps in a single
location, referred to as the step type, thereby eliminating the
need for the user to define these common properties and/or
operations with each of the respective steps.
(Col. 4, l. 51-59.)
3. Grey discloses a “Test Stand Engine that executes sequences, wherein
sequences contain steps.” (Col. 4, ll. 59-62).
Grey also discloses a sequence editor. (Fig. 4.) The main tab of the
sequence editor displays the steps in a test sequence. (Fig. 4). The sequence
editor executes test sequences: “In the TestStand sequence editor 212, the
user can start multiple concurrent executions. Multiple instances of the
same sequence can be executed and different sequences can be executed at
the same time.” (Col. 12, l. 65- col. 13, l. 1.) “[T]he sequence editor …
interface[s] to the test executive engine.” (Col. 3, ll. 16-18.)

Stutz
4. Stutz discloses a “method and system for dynamically generating
object connections.” (Abstract.)
5. In Stutz, “a visual programmer specifies the visual components . . . .
[and] also the interconnections between various ports.” (Col. 10, ll. 46-49.)

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears an initial burden of factually supporting an
articulated rejection. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Under
§ 103, “‘there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int’l
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

6
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citation omitted).

ANALYSIS
Appellant asserts that the combination of Grey and Stutz does not
teach “the limitation of, ‘including a control in the run-time operator
interface application in response to user input, wherein the control includes
pre-existing first functionality for determining the steps in the test executive
sequence.’” (App. Br. 11.) Appellant argues that the passages of Grey cited
by the Examiner do not teach this claim limitation because they pertain to
the processing of step types instead of steps. (Id. at 11-13.) For example,
Appellant argues that the cited passages teach “nothing whatsoever about a
control that includes pre-existing first functionality for determining the steps
(not the step types!) in the test executive sequence. (Id. at 11 (emphasis
omitted).)
Appellant’s arguments, however, are not persuasive. Grey teaches a
test sequence comprising a sequence of steps. (FF 1 and 2.) A step in the
test sequence may have a step type. (FF 2.) A step type includes a set of
steps. (FF 2.) Furthermore, a step in a step sequence may be an instance of
a step type and therefore, a step in a test sequence may include a series of
operations or smaller steps.
Moreover, Grey discloses a TestStand engine as a control that
determines the type of a step and therefore, determines the set of operations
or smaller steps associated with the step in the test sequence. (FF 4.) The
TestStand engine also executes test sequences. (FF 4.) Accordingly,
Appellant has not shown that Grey fails to disclose a control in a run-time
operator interface that determines the steps in the test executive sequence.
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

7
Appellant also asserts that Grey does not disclose “configuring a
binding between a GUI element and the control” to enable the GUI element
to automatically display the steps determined by the control “during
execution of the run time operator interface application.” (App. Br. 14
(emphasis omitted.)) Appellant argues that Grey does not teach anything
“whatsoever about any steps of the sequence being displayed during
execution of the run-time operator interface application.” (App. Br. 13.)
More specifically, Appellant argues that the Grey’s sequence editor does not
display steps during execution of the run-time operator interface application.
(Id. at 14-15.)
Appellant’s arguments, however, are not persuasive. The main tab of
the sequence editor displays the steps in a test sequence. (FF 3.) Moreover,
contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Grey’s sequence editor does execute test
sequences. (FF 3.) Moreover, the sequence editor is configured to interface
or to be bound to the test executive engine. (FF 3.) Moreover, Stutz teaches
that GUI elements and controls can be bound by a user. (FF 5 and 6.)
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the combination of Grey and
Stutz fails to disclose a binding between a GUI element and control to
enable the GUI element to display the steps of a test sequence during
execution of the run time operator interface application.
Appellant asserts that Grey does not disclose the limitation of
“executing the run-time operator interface application, wherein said
executing comprises the control executing to automatically determine the
steps.” (App. Br. 15-16.) To support this assertion, Appellant presents the
same argument as set forth for the claim limitations discussed above. As
explained supra, these arguments are not persuasive.
Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

8
Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not established a proper
motivation to combine Stutz with Grey because Stutz operates at a different
level of programming than Grey. (App. Br. 16.) As explained by the
Examiner, however, Stutz discloses the binding of a GUI element with a
control and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
motivated to use the binding disclosed in Stutz in the system of Grey while it
was being developed. (Ans. 23; accord FF 5 and 6.)
For these reasons, Appellant has not shown that the combination of
Grey and Stutz fails to render obvious independent claim 76. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 76. For the
reasons expressed above as well as the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s
answer, we will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
94, 95, 96, 113, and 114 and dependent claims 77-86, 88-93, 97-107, and
109-112 because Appellant either did not present separate arguments for
those claims or presented arguments that are similar to those set forth for
claim 76. (See App. Br. 19-29; Reply Br. 3-4; Ans. 5-15, 25-29.)

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 76-86, 88-107,
and 109-114.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Appeal 2009-012553
Application 10/649,903

9

ELD