Ex Parte WenDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 201912539502 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/539,502 08/11/2009 102383 7590 05/30/2019 Trellis IP Law Group/ Sony Corp. 1900 Embarcadero Road, Suite 109 Palo Alto, CA 94303 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert Chun Wen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 020699-106200US 9452 EXAMINER OBERLY, ERIC T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2184 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/30/2019 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): docket@trellislaw.com megan@trellislaw.com ann@trellislaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT CHUN WEN Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 1 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. Claims 7 and 14 have been cancelled. See Br. 16, 18 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellant identifies Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics, Inc. as the real parties in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 THE INVENTION The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to "a method for implementing a build engine includes receiving at least one menu that includes one or more sections, wherein each of the one or more sections indicates one or more libraries, and wherein each of the one or more libraries is associated with one or more software components." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for implementing a build engine, the method compnsmg: receiving a menu including a plurality of sections and information identifying, from amongst a plurality of computing platforms, a subset of said plurality of computing platforms and multiple groups of libraries, with each group of libraries corresponding to one of the plurality of sections that is different from the sections to which the remaining libraries of the multiple groups of libraries correspond; parsing the information to determine from among a plurality of data sets, data sets compatible with the subset of said plurality of computing platforms, defining compatible data sets; building, by a computer processor, executable software code based on the compatible data sets, with the compatible data sets including data identifying one or more of the groups of multiple libraries, defining library data, and software component data; and associating component configuration files with the library data, defining associated component configuration files, wherein the menu and associated component configuration files are independent of a location of source code associated with the one or more software components. 2 Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Albrecht Cohen us 5,950,011 US 6,487,713 Bl REJECTION Sept. 7, 1999 Nov. 26, 2002 Claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Cohen and Albrecht. Final Act. 2---6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant. We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding the pending claims. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-13, and 15-20 The Examiner finds Cohen teaches "associating component configuration files with the library data, defining associated component configuration files, wherein the menu ... [is] independent of a location of source code associated with the one or more software components," as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3--4, 7; Ans. 3-5. Specifically, the Examiner finds Cohen is not silent on the location of the source files, the database item 600 of figure 1, indicated in the rejection, references figure 6 which depicts the respective database 1800 which contains data obtained from scans source code files ( col. 12, lines 5-10) of an initial component source code library 1200 (fig. 12, col. 23, lines 53-55). Furthermore, Fig. 1 depicts the 3 Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 user interface 200, or "menu", as a portion of the IDE which is separate from the database access block 600 which is reference to fig. 6 and database 1800, and the GUI also provides icons "associated" with "component.inf' file ( col. 25, lines 1-5), therefore Fig. 1 provides that the GUI and icons representing "associated" component files are "independent of a location of source code associated with the one or more software components." Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 3-5. The Examiner further finds Albrecht teaches "a software development system which uses individual component configuration files." Final Act. 4 (citing Albrecht 10:30-35); see also Ans. 6 (finding "Albrecht teaches the editor is able to extract and edit the pages of configuration information for the components" ( citing Albrecht, 7: 15-25) ). The Examiner further finds a person of ordinary skill in the art would have modified "Cohen to include the configuration files of Albrecht because the configuration files of a configured platform, make it possible to extract the actual configuration of the platform, which means that the pages of configuration information for the components of the platform can be edited." Final Act. 4; see also Ans. 8. Appellant argues claim 1 "includes a feature neither disclosed by, nor made obvious in view of the prior art references." Br. 10. We address Appellant's three arguments in the order they were made. First, Appellant argues both Cohen and Albrecht teach away from using individual component configuration files. Br. 11. For example, Appellant argues that "the library database 600 is not 'independent' of a location of a source code associated with the one or more software components." Id. Instead, Appellant argues that Cohen teaches "the contents of the component source code library A includes files A and B of component A, where 'within this root directory are shown two 4 Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 [subdirectories], one allotted to component A 1202 and one allotted to component B 1206. '" Id. Appellant also argues Albrecht teaches away from the claimed invention. According to Appellant, Id. Albrecht merely refers to a configuration system that is "designed to allow the integration of configured components using configuration files." Furthermore, column 10, lines 42- 45, of Albrecht teaches that "in conformity with the preceding rules, the instrumentation of a functional group for UNIX platforms using configuration files is completely defined ( and thus stored in the knowledge base)." Accordingly, with respect to location, Albrecht also teaches away from component configuration files being "independent of a location of source code associated with the one or more software components." Appellant has not established that the prior art teaches away from the claimed invention because Appellant has not demonstrated that "a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant." In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551,553 (Fed Cir. 1994). Even if Appellant's characterization of the prior art is correct, the passages cited above by Appellant "does not teach away ... [as] it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not 'criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage' investigation into the invention claimed." DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Second, Appellant argues "Cohen does not teach or suggest that a menu is 'independent of a location of source code associated with the one or 5 Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 more software components,' as recited in independent claim 1." Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant argues that although the Examiner refers to GUI 200, "Cohen is silent on any independence of GUI 200 and a location of source code." Id. at 11-12. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred. As the Examiner finds, Cohen Figure 1 shows that GUI 200 is part of Integrated Development Environment 102, which is separate from Database Access 600. Cohen, Fig. 1. Furthermore, Database Access 600 includes database 1800, which contains data obtained from scans source code files. Id. at 12:5-10, Figs. 6, 12. Accordingly, Cohen teaches a menu (200) that is "independent of a location of source code associated with the one or more software components," ( 600) as recited in independent claim 1. Although Cohen does not recite the language of claim 1, "the reference need not satisfy an ipsissimis verbis test." In re Gleave, 560 F.3d 1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Third, Appellant argues the Examiner "does not provide any support in the cited references or any rationale for why it purportedly would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the cited references to achieve independent claims 1, 8, and 15." Br. 12. We are disagree. As discussed above, the Examiner explicitly provided a reason to combine the references in both the Final Action and the Answer. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 8. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 along with the rejections of independent claims 8 and 15, which are argued collectively with claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 4---6, 9-13, and 16-20, which are not argued separately. 6 Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 Claim 3 The Examiner finds Cohen teaches the additional limitations recited in claim 3. See Final Act. 5, 8; Ans. 8-9. Specifically, the Examiner determines that "[a] proper definition of parse is 'examine or analyze minutely.'" Final Act 8; see also Ans. 9. The Examiner finds that "[t]he 'X' of Fig. 19 is described as indicating a selected item (col. 34, lines 30-35) these items are retrieved because of this indicator (col. 12, lines 25-30) and dependencies may be determined depending on what has been selected ( col. 10, lines 30-35)." Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 9. Therefore, according to the Examiner, "the 'voting square' and respective 'X' taught by Cohen provides the mechanism, or 'indicator', to bring about examination or analysis of the selected item." Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 8. Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Cohen teaches "wherein the core section comprises: a parse indicator that indicates if the core section is to be parsed," as recited in claim 3: The Examiner referred to element 1922 of Fig. 19, and to column 34, lines 25-60, of Cohen. However, element 1922 of Fig. 19 of Cohen merely shows a voting square. Column 34, lines 25-60, of Cohen merely describes a "voting square with or without an 'X' to indicate whether a given component is selected or not selected for inclusion in the finished product." Column 34, lines 25-60; column 21, line 55, to column 22, line 10; and column 24, lines 20-25, of Cohen are silent on a core section that includes a "parse indicator that indicates if the core section is to be parsed." Br. 12. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the Examiner erred. Cohen's Figure 19 shows a box which can be selected using an "X." Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation to the term "parse indicator" 7 Appeal2018-000854 Application 12/539,502 we agree that the claim limitation "a parse indicator that indicates if the core section is to be parsed" is broad enough to encompass a selectable box indicating whether the selected core section should be parsed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-20. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation