Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 29, 2016

12501016 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 29, 2016)

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.
12/501,016 07/10/2009 Cheng Wang OR08-48801 3481
51067 7590 01/03/2017
PVF - ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
JEON, JAE UK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2193
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2017 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):
j eannie @parklegal. com
syadmin@parklegal.com
wendy@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHENG WANG, KEVIN R. WALSH, and PASCAL P. SERO
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC B. CHEN, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1,4—7, 9, 12—15, 17, 20-23, 25, and 26. Claims 2, 3, 8, 10, 11, 16,
18, 19, and 24 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a system that facilitates identifying
objects rendered on a graphic user interface (GUI) in a non-markup
language-presented software application. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A computer-executed method for identifying
objects rendered on a graphic user interface (GUI), comprising:
identifying, by a computer system, a set of target GUI
objects in a non-markup-language-presented application,
wherein a respective GUI object of the target GUI objects is not
represented in a markup language;
generating a markup-language-based structure which
includes one or more markup-language nodes that each specifies
distinguishing attributes of a target GUI object in the application;
generating addressing queries for selecting, from the
markup-language based structure, nodes corresponding to GUI
objects that are to be identified;
generating an updated markup-language structure and an
association map that reflect changes to the application’s GUI
objects; and
generating an object identification script for identifying
the target GUI objects, which involves:
responsive to a target GUI object being operated
on, issuing a respective addressing query to the updated
markup-language structure to select a markup-language
node corresponding to the target GUI object being
operated on;
identifying the GUI object based on an entry of the
association map corresponding to the selected markup-
language node; and
recording, in the object identification script, the
addressing query and user actions performed on the target
GUI object.
Claims 1, 4—7, 9, 12—15, 17, 20-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kuehner (US 2006/0015816 Al;
Jan. 19, 2006), Doughan (US 2005/0273768 Al; Dec. 8, 2005), Vikram (US
2
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
2006/0156287 Al; July 13, 2006), and Day (US 2008/0126390 Al; May 29,
2008). (Final Act. 2-13.)
ANALYSIS
First, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 19-23) that
the combination of Kuehner, Doughan, Vikram, and Day would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation
“generating addressing queries for selecting, from the markup-language
based structure, nodes corresponding to GUI objects that are to be
identified.”
The Examiner found that Doughan, in which a query (e.g., an XPath
query) can be made to select information from an XML catalog of CDs, and
in which its “Example 2” shows mapping of software objects to XML
related to GUI requests, teaches the limitation “generating addressing
queries for selecting, from the markup-language based structure, nodes
corresponding to GUI objects that are to be identified.” (Ans. 14, 17; see
also Final Act. 4.) We agree with the Examiner.
Doughan generally relates to computer and database technology and,
in particular, to “converting between Object-oriented classes and markup
languages.” (Abstract.) Figure 7 of Doughan illustrates an algorithm for
mapping data that “correlate[s] the received XML data with the desired Java
object.” (| 80.) Doughan explains that “[f]or each mapping, the algorithm
executes an XPath query ... to collect data relative to the current XML
record” and that “XPath queries are used to specify locations in XML trees,
and to collect information from those locations.” (| 83.) In one example of
Doughan for an XML document containing lists of CDs (| 84), “an XPath
3
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
query catalog/cd/price executed against the document will select all of the
price nodes from the XML document” (1 85). Furthermore, “Example 2” of
Doughan explains that a user makes a request for an employee search using
a GUI for the Object “Employee firstName = ‘Jane’ lastName = ‘Doe.’”
(11 122—23.) In other words, Doughan’s “Example 2” teaches that the user
searches for employee Objects. Doughan also explains that the XPath query
selects a CD based upon price. In view of these teachings, we agree with the
Examiner that Doughan teaches the limitation “generating addressing
queries for selecting, from the markup-language based structure, nodes
corresponding to GUI objects that are to be identified.”
Appellants argue that “[tjhis XPath query [of Doughan] merely
traverses another XML tree of the same structure to obtain data for the Java
data object” and “[t]he XML record in Doughan merely specifies a Java
Object that is to be updated, and not a GUI object that has been operated on
and needs to be identified.” (Br. 21.) Other than providing a conclusory
statement that it is the “Java Object that is to be updated, and [is] not a GUI
object that has been operated on” {id.), Appellants have not provided any
persuasive arguments as to why the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed
“GUI object” as encompassing the employee object of “Example 2” is
unreasonable. Moreover, Appellants have not pointed to any special
definition of “GUI object” from the Specification that would require a
different interpretation.1
1 We also note the Examiner relies on Kuehner as teaching GUI objects.
(Final Act. 3^1 (citing Figs. 4A, 7A-D, 8A-B, H 32, 46-A7, 53-54, 64, 72-
74, 79-80).) A focus of Kuehner is on “the mapping and synchronization of
XML ... to user interface components.” (Abstract; see also 112-10.)
Further in support of the Examiner’s findings, we note an ordinarily skilled
4
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
Appellants further argue that “Vikram . . . does not go as far as to
disclose the step of generating an addressing query for selecting, from the
markup-language-based structure, nodes corresponding to GUI objects that
are to be identified in a non-markup-language-presented application”
(Br. 22) and “the Day cited art does not disclose the step of generating an
addressing query for selecting, from the markup-language-based structure,
nodes corresponding to GUI objects that are to be identified in a non­
markup-language-presented application” {id. at 22—23 (emphases omitted)).
However, the Examiner cited to Doughan, rather than Vikram or Day, for
teaching the limitation “generating addressing queries for selecting, from the
markup-language based structure, nodes corresponding to GUI objects that
are to be identified.” (Ans. 14, 17; see also Final Act. 4.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kuehner,
Doughan, Vikram, and Day would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “generating addressing queries for
selecting, from the markup-language based structure, nodes corresponding to
GUI objects that are to be identified.”
Second, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 23—24)
that the combination of Kuehner, Doughan, Vikram, and Day would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, based on the limitation
artisan would, especially in view of Kuehner, understand in general that
Doughan’s teachings related to mapping XML to software objects
encompasses such mapping for GUI software objects. When a rejection is
based on a combination of references, the relevant inquiry is whether the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in
the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
5
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
“responsive to a target GUI object being operated on, issuing a respective
addressing query to the updated markup-language structure to select a
markup-language node corresponding to the target GUI object being
operated on.”
The Examiner found that the change to the XML document of
Doughan when an Object is converted to XML and incorporated into the
XML document, along with “Example 2” of Doughan, collectively teach the
limitation “responsive to a target GUI object being operated on, issuing a
respective addressing query to the updated markup-language structure to
select a markup-language node corresponding to the target GUI object being
operated on.” (Ans. 17—18; see also Linal Act. 5.) We agree with the
Examiner.
Lor “Example 2” of Doughan, an object to XML conversion, Doughan
explains that “[wjhen an Object is converted to an XML document, it may
be necessary to change the structure of the XML document from what an
arbitrary conversion process would generate.” (1121.) In particular,
Doughan explains that “[djuring the Object to XML process an instance of
the employee Object. . . would be passed to [an] algorithm” to “start a new
XML document” as a result of which, “[b]ased on the Employee descriptor a
new document will be started with the root element ‘employee.’” (1132.)
As discussed previously, “Example 2” of Doughan explains that a user
searches for an employee using a GUI for the Object “Employee firstName
= ‘Jane’ lastName = ‘Doe.’” (H 122—23.) Because Doughan explains that in
“Example 2,” the user searches for employee Objects and the algorithm
starts a new XML document based on the employee descriptor, Doughan
teaches the limitation “responsive to a target GUI object being operated on,
6
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
issuing a respective addressing query to the updated markup-language
structure to select a markup-language node corresponding to the target GUI
object being operated on.”
Appellants argue “that these ‘Objects’ disclosed in Doughan are
merely data objects, which are not GUI objects being operated on in a non­
markup-language-presented application” (Br. 23) and “detecting a name
change in a Java data object’s class is not the same as detecting a GUI object
that has been operated on in GUI of a non-markup language-presented
application” {id. at 24). Again, other than providing a conclusory statement
that “these ‘Objects’ disclosed in Doughan ... are not GUI objects” (Br. 23),
Appellants have not provided any persuasive arguments as to why the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed “GUI object” as encompassing the
objects as taught by Doughan is unreasonable. As mentioned previously,
Appellants have not pointed to any special definition of “GUI object” from
the Specification that would require a different interpretation.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kuehner,
Doughan, Vikram, and Day would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “responsive to a target GUI object
being operated on, issuing a respective addressing query to the updated
markup-language structure to select a markup-language node corresponding
to the target GUI object being operated on.”
Third, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 24—25) that
the combination of Kuehner, Doughan, Vikram, and Day would not have
rendered obvious independent claim 1, based on the limitation “identifying
the GUI object based on an entry of the association map corresponding to
the selected markup-language node.”
7
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
The Examiner found that the mapping tools of Doughan, which
convert between XML and Objects, along with the “Example 2” of
Doughan, collectively teach the limitation “identifying the GUI object based
on an entry of the association map corresponding to the selected markup-
language node.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 18—19.) We agree with the
Examiner.
As discussed previously, Doughan explains that “[f]or each mapping,
the algorithm executes an XPath query ... to collect data relative to the
current XML record” and that “XPath queries are used to specify locations
in XML trees, and to collect information from those locations.” (| 83.)
Also discussed previously, for “Example 2,” Doughan explains that “[wjhen
an Object is converted to an XML document, it may be necessary to change
the structure of the XML document from what an arbitrary conversion
process would generate” (1121) and explains that a user searches for an
employee search using a GUI for the Object “Employee firstName = ‘Jane’
lastName = ‘Doe.’” flflf 122—23.) Thus, as also discussed previously,
Doughan teaches mapping between XML and GUI objects, and,
accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Doughan teaches the
limitation “identifying the GUI object based on an entry of the association
map corresponding to the selected markup-language node.”
Appellants argue that the “Doughan ‘mapping’ tools are merely used
to convert data between an XML data structure and a Java Object data
structure” and “[njowhere does Doughan disclose an association map that
identifies an existing GUI object that is associated with a markup language
node.” (Br. 24 (emphasis omitted).) Again, other than providing a
conclusory statement that “[njowhere does Doughan disclose an association
8
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
map that identifies an existing GUI object” (id.), Appellants have not
provided any persuasive arguments as to why the Examiner’s interpretation
of the claimed “GUI object” as encompassing Doughan’s objects, such as
the employee object of “Example 2,” is unreasonable, and Appellants have
not pointed to any special definition of “GUI object” from the Specification
that would require a different interpretation.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Kuehner,
Doughan, Vikram, and Day would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitation “identifying the GUI object based on
an entry of the association map corresponding to the selected markup-
language node.”
Last, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 26—28) that
the Examiner improperly combined Kuehner, Doughan, Vikram, and Day.
The Examiner found that the application under test (AUT) tool of
Vikram corresponds to the limitation “generating an object identification
script for identifying the target GUI objects” and “recording, in the object
identification script, the addressing query and user actions performed on the
target GUI object.” (Final Act. 6.) The Examiner concluded that “it would
have been obvious ... to add generating an object identification script for
identifying the target GUI objects [of Vikram] . . . because this modification
can help create a script for testing the user actions performed on the target
GUI objects by identifying the target GUI objects and recording the user
actions on the target GUI object. (Id. at 7.) We agree with the Examiner.
Vikram relates “to an automated system for software test script
conversion from a current software test script to new software test script.”
(12.) Vikram explains that an application under test (AUT) is a tool for
9
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
“recording user actions provided through a graphical user interface (GUI)
during a ‘learning phase’ and later playing them back automatically” and
“[djuring recording, the tool captures user actions such as [a] mouse click on
a certain GUI object, keyboard input etc.” (161.) Figure 2 of Vikram
illustrates an object map created by a GUI (148) in which “tree() is a
function call to access one of the GUI objects generated by XDE TESTER™
in the object map created while recording the above ‘click’ action” (173).
Because the AUT of Vikram records user actions, including generation of a
GUI object map, in addition to the particular claim requirements for which
the Examiner cites it, Vikram also teaches the limitation “identifying the
GUI object based on an entry of the association map corresponding to the
selected markup-language node.”
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that
incorporating the AUT of Vikram with Kuehner and Doughan, would
improve Kuehner and Doughan by providing the advantage of testing a
script. See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 6—
7) that modifying Kuehner and Doughan to incorporate the AUT of Vikram
would have been obvious.
Appellants argue “that it is not possible for the modified combination
of Doughan and Kuehner to perform ‘identifying the GUI object based on an
entry of the association map corresponding to the selected markup-language
node’” and “neither the Kuehner system nor the Doughan system is designed
10
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
to detect an operation on a GUI object in a non-markup-language-presented
application, and to identity this GUI object.” (Br. 27 (emphasis omitted).)
Similarly, Appellants argue that “[mjore specifically, in the Doughan
system, the identity of the data object is already known, and the Doughan
system merely performs an XPath query to obtain data associated with the
data object” and “[t]he Doughan system does not ‘identify’ a GUI object that
a user has operated on in a non-markup-language-presented application.”
{Id. at 28.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, as discussed previously, the
Examiner cited to Doughan for teaching the limitation “identifying the GUI
object based on an entry of the association map corresponding to the
selected markup-language node.” (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 18—19.)
Therefore, the Examiner has properly combined Kuehner, Doughan,
Vikram, and Day to reject independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 4—7 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 4—7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 9 and 17 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 17, as well as dependent claims 12—
15, 20-23, 25, and 26, for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
11
Appeal 2015-004108
Application 12/501,016
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4—7, 9, 12—15, 17, 20-23,
25, and 26 is affirmed.
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
12