Ex Parte Weaver

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2013

10041743 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte SCOTT JAMES WEAVER
_____________

Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LARRY J. HUME,
Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 17-33. Claims 1-16 have been cancelled. Br. 2.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to method of building software components
with reduced or eliminated software changes when integrating software
components. Spec. ¶ [001].
Claim 17 is representative of the invention and reproduced below
(bracketed matter and paragraphing added):
17. A computer-implemented method of storing and
translating data between a format of a first data model of a first
software component and a format of a second data model of a
second software component, the method comprising:
[a] creating a first schema comprising the first data model
of the first software component;
[b] creating a second schema comprising the second data
model of the second software component;
[c] creating a third data model and a data storage in a
data wedge by integrating the first schema and the second
schema into the data wedge;
[d] receiving a data element in the format of the first data
model of the first software component, translating the data
element from the format of the first data model of the first
software component to the format of the third data model in the
data wedge and
[e] storing the translated data element in the data storage,
by the data wedge; and
[f] retrieving the data element from the data storage and
translating the data element into the format of the second data
model of the second software component by the data wedge
after receiving a request for the data element from the second
software component.
Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 17-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Ans. 3-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 17, 19, 21-25, and 28-32 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Worden (US 2003/0149934 A1,
Aug. 7, 2003). Ans. 6-11.
The Examiner rejected claims 18, 20, 26, 27, and 33 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Worden. Ans. 11-12.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112
Appellant argues on pages 6-9 of the Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph is in error. This argument
presents us with the issue: did the Examiner err in finding that the originally
filed Specification demonstrates that the Appellant possessed the limitations
of elements [a], [b], and [c] as recited in exemplary independent claim 17?

We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments. We
agree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred in finding that the
originally filed Specification fails to demonstrate that Appellant possessed
the limitations of creating first and second schemas, and creating a third data
model and a data storage in a data wedge by integrating the first schema and
the second schema into the data wedge, as recited in independent claim 17.
Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743

4

Appellant cites to paragraphs 0022, 0024, 0036, 0037, and 0038 of the
originally filed Specification as evidence that the Appellant possessed the
limitations of elements [a], [b], and [c]. Br. 6-9; see also Spec. Figures 1
and 2. We concur and will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
17-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 first paragraph.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) - Claims 17, 25, and 32
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the briefs (Br. 9-11), the principal
and dispositive issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 17
and claims 19, 21-25, and 28-32 turns on whether Worden describes first
and second software components, and “storing the translated data element
in the data storage” (hereinafter “storing/data storage” feature).

We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.

With regard to software components, Appellant contends that “[a]
language is not a software component.” Br. 10. But Appellant has not
provided an explicit definition of “software components” in the
Specification. The Examiner finds that Worden teaches that
Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743

5

the transaction-related applications for which the XML or MDL
structured language is created reads on first/second data model
or schema whose source are ‘software components’ since the
pertinent business user’s XML schemas as submitted to the
schema-mapping framework or XMULator are used for or
support model mappings against equivalent class components -
Fig. 2, Fig. 58-68 - in order to implement user’s application.

Ans. 19-20 (citing Worden, ¶¶ 0006-0016, and 0090-0097). In other words,
we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Worden discloses programming
language (XML or Java code), corresponding to the “software components.”
Id. at 20.
Consistent with the Examiner’s stated position (Ans. 19-20) and based
on the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellant’s
disclosure, programming language (XML or Java code) is not precluded by
the claim language. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
With regard to the “storing/data storage” features, Appellant admits
that Worden discloses “an intermediate file (para. 38) where Worden stores
mappings information in the file.” Br. 10. Paragraph 0038 of Worden
explicitly discloses that “[i]nformation about the mappings may be stored in
an intermediate file.” Appellant’s Specification does not provide any
definition giving special meaning and thereby limiting the scope of “storing
the translated data element in the data storage.” Therefore, the phrase
“storing/data storage” is to be given its plain meaning unless inconsistent
with the Specification. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989);
Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743

6

The Examiner has found the phrase “storing/data storage” to
encompass storing in an intermediate file. Ans. 20-21. We find that this
construction of the “storing/data storage” claim elements to be both
reasonable and consistent with the Specification. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d
1393, 1404-05 (CCPA 1969) and In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (stating that during examination of a patent
application, pending claims are given their broadest reasonable construction
consistent with the specification).
Appellant has not presented any persuasive evidence to convince us
that the Examiner’s interpretation of “storing/data storage” is in error.
Given the above construction, the Examiner correctly points out that Worden
explicitly discloses the “storing/data storage” phrase (Ans. 21).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claim 17 and claims 19, 21-25, and 28-32 which are grouped with claim 17.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - Claims 18, 20, 26, 27, and 33
Appellant asserts that the rejection of claims 18, 20, 26, 27, and 33 is
in error for the same reasons as discussed with respect to claims 17, 25, and
32. As we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 17, we
similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18, 20, 26, 27, and 33.

CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 17 and claims 19, 21-
25, and 28-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and the rejection of claims 18, 20,
26, 27, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We do not sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2010-008835
Application 10/041,743

7

rejection of claims 17-31 under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The decision of the
Examiner to reject claims 17-33 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc