Ex Parte Sreedhar

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 25, 2011

09925580 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 25, 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.
09/925,580 08/09/2001 Vugranam C. Sreedhar YOR920010262US2 2877
48062 7590 10/26/2011
RYAN, MASON & LEWIS, LLP
1300 POST ROAD
SUITE 205
FAIRFIELD, CT 06824
EXAMINER
VO, TED T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2011 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 VUGRANAM C. SREEDHAR
___________

Appeal 2009-014825
Application 09/925,580
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
JULIE K. BROCKETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROCKETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014825
Application 09/925,580

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of
claims 4, 12, and 18. Claims 1-3, 5-11, 13-17, 19 and 20 have been cancelled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 4 under appeal reads as follows:
4. A method executed by a processor for programming a software
component, said method comprising the steps of:
defining properties of said software component, including at least one input
port and at least one output port;
providing a software mechanism for instantiating said software
component; and
utilizing an attach command to attach at least one of said at least one input
port to a class.

Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Edward J. Posnak, et al., Adaptive Configuration an Object
Structural Pattern for Adaptive Applications, 3
rd
Pattern Languages of
Programming Conference, Monticello Illinois, (September 1996), pp. 1-10.
(Hereinafter: Lavender).

Appellants’ Contentions

Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims because:
“Lavender does not utilize an attach command to attach an input port to a class.”
(Reply Br. 3).
Appeal 2009-014825
Application 09/925,580

3

Issues on Appeal

Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 4, 12, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) because Lavender does not disclose utilizing an attach command to attach
an input port to a class?
ANALYSIS

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in the Appeal and Reply Briefs that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has erred.
The Examiner asserts that the “Attach()” instruction used in Lavender and
the programming instruction “bool attached” is the same as the “…attach
command…” in Appellant’s program (Ans. 4). We disagree. Appellant’s attach
command is used to attach an input port to a class as seen in the command “attach
xin BoolClass ; //attach input port xin to class BoolClass” (Reply Br. 3). The
attach command in Lavender is used to attach an output port of one module to an
input port of another module (Lavender pg. 3). Furthermore, we find that the
instruction contained within the class Port referenced by “int input Port //input
port attached to this port” just states that an input port is attached to a port, not a
class (Lavender pg.6). We also find the instruction “bool attached” also contained
within the class Port is merely a test to determine whether or not a module is
attached to the class Port (Lavender pg. 6). While both of these commands are
contained with the class Port, neither of these commands attaches an input port to
the class Port itself. Therefore, we do not find that Lavender discloses using an
attach command to attach an input port to a class.

Appeal 2009-014825
Application 09/925,580

4
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 12,
and 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
(2) On this record, claims 4, 12, and 18 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims is reversed.

REVERSED

dw