Ex Parte Stclair et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2017

14568026 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2017)

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.
14/568,026 12/11/2014 William Gryffyth STCLAIR 0070302-000046 1033
21839 7590 09/15/2017
BUCHANAN, INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC
POST OFFICE BOX 1404
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22313-1404
EXAMINER
MILLER, VIVA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/15/2017 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):
ADIPDOCl@BIPC.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM GRYFFYTH and SUMNER AUGUSTINE
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and SCOTT B.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention electronically manages requirements for
software development using automated techniques and tools to integrate
distributed requirements traceability and software testing and verification.
See generally Abstract; Spec, 1—2. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for ensuring traceability between software
requirements and test cases, comprising:
storing, in a testing database, a plurality of test case data
entries, wherein each test case data entry includes at least a test
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
case associated with a software program and one or more test
attributes associated with the test case;
receiving, by a receiving device, a plurality of software
requirements, wherein each software requirement is a
requirement associated with the software program;
generating, by a processing unit, one or more source code
files based on architectural and implementation artifacts linked
to the received plurality of software requirements, wherein each
source code file is mapped to software requirements linked to
associated architectural and implementation artifacts and
includes source code for the software program;
identifying, by the processing unit, at least one test case
data entry for each software requirement of the plurality of
software requirements associated with the respective software
requirement based on the one or more test attributes included in
each of the associated at least one test case data entry;
executing, by the processing unit, the test case included
in each of the plurality of test case data entries using the
software program including the generated one or more source
code files, wherein executing each test case produces a pass or
fail result; and
transmitting, by a transmitting device, data associated
with the at least one test case data entry associated with each
software requirement of the plurality of software requirements,
wherein the transmitted data includes at least the pass or fail
result produced for the included test case.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Savage (US 2007/0038977 Al, published Feb. 15, 2007),
Lin (US 2008/0098349 Al, published Apr. 24, 2008), Using Rational
RequisitePro®, Ver. 2000.02.10, Rational Software Corp. (2000)
2
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
(“Rational”), and Englehart (US 7,689,970 Bl, published Mar. 30, 2010).
Final Act. 3—14.1
CONTENTIONS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Savage discloses, among
other things, (1) storing test case data entries; (2) receiving software
requirements; and (3) executing test cases to produce a pass or fail result.
See Final Act. 3—5. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Savage does
not generate one or more source code files based on architectural and
implementation artifacts linked to the received requirements, where each
source code file is mapped to those requirements, the Examiner adds Lin and
Englehart to Savage for collectively teaching that element. See Final Act. 5—
7, 9-11. The Examiner also cites Rational for teaching the test case data
entry identification step. Final Act. 8. Based on these collective teachings,
the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act.
3-11.
Appellants argue that neither Lin nor Englehart teaches or suggests
generating source code linked to software requirements as claimed, but
rather uses source code that references a graphical model. App. Br. 7—10;
Reply Br. 2—3. According to Appellants, Lin’s source code generates a
graphical model, but the code generated from that model is not source code
as claimed. App. Br. 8—9; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellants add that Englehart’s
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed April 7,
2016 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed August 18, 2016 (“App.
Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 1, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
(4) the Reply Brief filed January 12, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
generated source code is also deficient because it references the graphical
model itself, and is unrelated to the recited requirements and linked artifacts.
App. Br. 7-8.
ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Savage, Lin, Rational, and Englehart collectively would have taught or
suggested generating source code files based on architectural and
implementation artifacts linked to received software requirements?
ANALYSIS
We begin by construing the term “source code.” The Specification
does not define this term, unlike other terms whose concrete definitions
leave no doubt as to their meaning. See, e.g., Spec. 30, 39, 42, 46
(defining various terms explicitly). The Specification, however, lists
exemplary source code in paragraph 31.
Although this example informs our understanding of the recited
source code, it is not limiting. Rather, we construe the term “source code”
as the term is understood in the art, namely “[a] set of programming
instructions and statements that are expressed in a form suitable for input
into an assembler, compiler, or translator, which in turn transforms said code
into machine code.” Steven M. Kaplan, Wiley Electrical & Electronics
Engineering Dictionary 730 (2004). Notably, “[sjource code is usually
written in a high-level or assembly language which is understandable by
humans, while only machine code can be directly executed by the CPU.” Id.
4
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
Therefore, the Examiner’s finding that Lin’s code 550 in Figure 5A is
pre-compiled source code (Ans. 6) is reasonable, for it is not only consistent
with the plain meaning of “source code” noted above, it comports with the
code shown in Lin’s Figure 5A that uses statements that are understandable
by humans, including an “if’ statement—one of the very statements used by
Appellants in line 76 of their source code listing in paragraph 31.
As Appellants acknowledge, Lin’s code 550 is not only linked to
requirements, but is also generated from graphical model 500. Reply Br. 2
(citing Lin 1104); accord Lin 1112 (noting that a user can develop a
graphical model based on requirements and generate code from that model).
As shown in Lin’s Figure 5A, this code is generated using the generate code
option 510, and information pertaining to associated generated files is shown
in generated files section 588. See Lin H 103-04.
Although Appellants contend this generated code is not source code,
but rather “non-deterministic” code that is not traced to functional
requirements (Reply Br. 3), this code is nonetheless linked to requirements
as Appellants acknowledge. See Reply Br. 2. Notably, Lin’s generated code
can include links to a requirements document in step 1325 of Figure 13B as
the Examiner indicates. Ans. 7 (citing Lin 1135).
Given this functionality, and the fact that Lin’s code generating tool
can generate source code in paragraph 71, we see no error in the Examiner’s
reliance on Lin for at least suggesting the recited source code file generation
step, particularly when considered in light of the teachings of Savage and
Englehart. See Ans. 6 (citing Englehart col. 3,11. 9-14; col. 1,11. 7—14;
Savage 123). Given these collective teachings, we see no reason why
source code files could not be generated from a graphical model, such as that
5
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
in Lin, where these files are at least based on architectural and
implementation artifacts linked to received software requirements. That
Engleharf s very title indicates that source code is generated from a
graphical model is telling in this regard. In short, skilled artisans would
understand that generating source code from a graphical model, such as that
in Lin, would have been at least an obvious variation even assuming,
without deciding, that source code is also used to create the graphical model
itself as Appellants contend. See App. Br. 9. To the extent that Appellants
contend that such source code generation functionality would have been
beyond the level of ordinarily skilled artisans, there is no persuasive
evidence on this record to substantiate such a contention. Nor do we find
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Engleharf s and Lin’s individual
shortcomings pertaining to linking generated source code to software
requirements (App. Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 2—3) availing where, as here, the
rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 2—21 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—21 under § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—21.
6
Appeal 2017-004304
Application 14/568,026
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