Ex Parte Bauman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 2, 2014

11335443 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIAN DANIEL BAUMAN, AMANDA JANE BURTON, MICHAEL PIERRE CARLSON, and TRAVIS M. GRIGSBY ____________ Appeal 2012-005302 Application 11/335,443 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN A. EVANS, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–20. We reverse. INVENTION The invention relates to readme text inside an application. (Spec., Title). Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method for incorporating late-binding documentation into an application, the method comprising: initiating startup, by a processor, for an application; reading, by the processor, a documentation file having late-binding documentation content for the application, wherein the documentation file includes at least one indicator that Appeal 2012-005302 Application 11/335,443 2 associates a portion of the late-binding documentation content with an application component of the application, wherein the documentation file is a readme text file; identifying, by the processor, a first indicator within the at least one indicator, wherein the first indicator associates a given portion of the late-binding documentation content with a given application component, wherein the first indicator comprises a markup language tag identifying a graphical user interface control of the application using a unique identifier that identifies the application component; identifying, by the processor, a second indicator within the at least one indicator, wherein the second indicator associates a given portion of the late-binding documentation content with the given application component, wherein the second indicator comprises a markup language tag identifying that the application component has associated readme information within the readme text file; and modifying, by the processor, the given application component based on the given portion of the late-binding documentation content at runtime. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 4–6, 8, 10–12, 14, and 16–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reynar et al. (US 2003/0229608 A1, published Dec. 11, 2003) ("Reynar”) and Kaminsky et al. (US 2004/0117783 A1, published June 17, 2004) (Ans. 5). Claims 7, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Reynar, Kaminsky, Harris (US 7,162,717 B1, issued Jan. 9, 2007), and Mah et al. (US 2003/0014745 A1, published Jan. 16, 2003) (“Mah”) (Ans. 9). Appeal 2012-005302 Application 11/335,443 3 ISSUES Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding Reynar and Kaminsky teach or suggest a readme text file including a second indicator that associates a given portion of the late-binding documentation content with the given application component, where the second indicator comprises a markup language tag identifying that the application component has associated readme information within the readme text file, as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We agree the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Reynar and Kaminsky teach or suggest: identifying, by the processor, a second indicator within the at least one indicator, wherein the second indicator associates a given portion of the late-binding documentation content with the given application component, wherein the second indicator comprises a markup language tag identifying that the application component has associated readme information within the readme text file as recited in claim 1. (See App. Br. 20–21, Reply Br. 2–3.) As Appellants argue: neither Reynar nor Kaminsky teaches that a second indicator “identifying that the application component has associated readme information within the readme text file” is contained within a same readme text file as a first indicator that “associates a given portion of the late-binding documentation content with a given application component,” Appeal 2012-005302 Application 11/335,443 4 as recited in claim 1. (See Reply Br. 2, App. Br. 21) (emphasis added). Instead, Reynar’s look-up table, which the Examiner identifies as including the “second indicator” (Ans. 7), is distinct from Reynar’s schema, (see Reynar, ¶ 97) which the Examiner identifies as the documentation file (Ans. 12). Therefore, information within Reynar’s “look-up table” (Reynar, ¶ 97) does not teach or suggest “a second indicator within the at least one indicator,” as recited in claim 1, because the at least one indicator is in the documentation file, yet the look-up table is not within that file. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 4–7, which depend from claim 1. The Examiner’s rejections of independent claims 8 and 14 are similarly deficient. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–20.1 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4–8, 10–14, and 16–20 is reversed.2 REVERSED 1 Because we are persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue, which is dispositive of the rejection over Reynar and Kaminsky, we do not reach the additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments. 2 In the event of further prosecution of this application (including any review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent-eligible subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al.” Memorandum from Andrew H. Hirshfeld, USPTO, to Patent Examining Corps (June 25, 2014), available athttp://www.uspto.gov/patents/announce/alice_pec_25jun2014.pdf. Appeal 2012-005302 Application 11/335,443 5 tj