Ex Parte Bauman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 20, 2012

11037772 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2012)

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.
11/037,772 01/18/2005 Brian Bauman AUS920041043US1 1204
48916 7590 11/21/2012
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
COYER, RYAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/21/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN BAUMAN, JEFFREY ALAN MCAFFER,
DAVID S. KLEIN, and WASSIM MELHEM
____________

Appeal 2010-004460
Application 11/037,772
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2010-004460
Application 11/037,772

2
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claim 1. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention relates generally to software
development and, more specifically, to a method for managing project
library dependencies. (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A method for developing a computer executable
module, the computer executable module accessing one or more
packages of executable code, the method comprising:

storing a reference to one or more libraries into a project
library list, wherein each library contains a plurality of
packages of computer executable code;

determining if a package corresponding to a package
reference associated with the library reference is used by the
computer executable module;

appending a library reference in the project library list to
a project buildpath to make the library available for
development;

adding the package reference to a bundle manifest for the
computer executable module if the package corresponding to
the package reference is used by the computer executable
module and not adding the package reference to the bundle
manifest if it is determined that the package is not used by the
computer executable module;
Appeal 2010-004460
Application 11/037,772

3
providing notification that the package corresponding to
the package reference is used by the computer executable
module; and

generating the executable module based upon the bundle
and the bundle manifest; wherein the determining if a package
is used by the computer executable module is recursive.

REFERENCES and REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable based upon the teachings of McLain (U.S. Patent Number
5,956,513, issued September 21, 1999) and Araki (U.S. Patent Application
Publication Number 2003/0154319 A1, published August 14, 2003). (Ans.
3-5.)

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 over the combination of McLain and Araki. (App. Br. 9-10).
Appellants contend that the Examiner's interpretation of the McLain
reference and the claim limitation "determining if a package … is used by a
computer executable module," is incorrect. (App. Br. 9). Appellants attempt
to distinguish between a “reference” and a “use.” However, Appellants'
Specification at page 3, paragraph [0007], appears to interpret a “use” or
“reference” similarly, since this determination is made prior to actual use
during run time. Therefore, we find Appellants' argument to be unavailing.
The Examiner has relied upon various locations within the McLain
reference at columns 3, 4, 5, and 7-9. We agree with the Examiner that the
relied upon portions of the McLain reference teach and fairly suggest a
Appeal 2010-004460
Application 11/037,772

4
process of compilation where the inclusion of libraries in the compilation
process is based on a determination that the libraries are "used" and that all
necessary and required libraries are available during compilation and
linking. (Ans. 3-5 and 6-7). We agree with the Examiner's rejection and
responsive arguments, and we conclude Appellants' arguments are
unpersuasive of error in the obviousness rejection of independent claim 1.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1 under § 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1 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)(2010).

AFFIRMED

tkl