Ex Parte WeaverDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 1, 201310041743 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2013) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation