Ex Parte Couchot et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10448549 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOHN T. COUCHOT and DAVID V. COLLINS
____________________

Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, DAVID M. KOHUT, and BRYAN F. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-14, and 16-20, all the claims pending in the application.
Claims 3, 7, and 15 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part.
Exemplary Claims
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claims 1 and 6, which are reproduced below with emphases
added:
1. A method for translating between a first data object model and a
second data object mode, which data object models include incompatible
data structures, comprising the steps of:
receiving a first recordset object call for obtaining a recordset object
from the first data object model;
translating the first recordset object call into a dataset object call,
said dataset object call for obtaining a dataset object;
transmitting the dataset object call to the second data object model;
and
receiving said recordset object as a plurality of navigational methods
for navigating within a universal web-based active server page framework.

6. A method for using an active server page program operating in an
active server page framework in a universal web-based active server page
framework, said active server page program having associated recordset
objects within an active server page framework, and said universal web-
based active server page framework having associated dataset objects, said

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed June 29, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed October 21, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed August 21, 2009).
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

3
dataset objects having data structure requirements that are incompatible with
data structure requirements associated with said recordset objects,
comprising the steps of:
communicating recordset objects between the active server page
program and a recordset-dataset translation mechanism;
communicating dataset objects between the universal web-based
active server page program environment and the recordset-dataset translation
mechanism;
translating dataset objects to corresponding recordset objects in the
recordset-dataset translation mechanism for transmitting data within said
dataset objects to the active server page program within the active server
page framework; and
communicating said recordset object as a plurality of navigational
methods for navigating within said universal web-based active server page
framework.

The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Steve Busby & Edward
Jezierksi, Microsoft .NET/COM Migration and Interoperability, MSDN
Library, pp. 1-14 (Aug. 2001),
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee817653.aspx (hereinafter,
“Busby”) in view of Kurowski (US 2002/0019844 A1).
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Busby and Kurowski, further view of Jason Lefebvre &
Paul Bertucci, Sams Teach Yourself ADO.NET in 24 Hours, pp. 38-43
(2002) (hereinafter, “Lefebvre”).
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

4
Appellants’ Contentions2
(1) Appellants contend (App. Br. 14-25; Reply Br. 1-5) that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-12, 14, and 16-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Busby and
Kurowski for numerous reasons, including:
(a) Busby fails to teach or suggest translating a first recordset object
call into a dataset object call, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14-18);
(b) Busby fails to teach or suggest translating data object calls, as
recited in claim 1 (Reply Br. 3); and
(c) the combination of Busby and Kurowski fails to teach or suggest
communicating a recordset object as a plurality of navigational methods for
navigating within a universal web-based active server page framework, as
recited in claims 6 and 14 (App. Br. 20-22);
(d) even if Kurowski’s EnRecordset is considered to be a recordset
object, it is not received as a plurality of navigational methods for navigating
within a universal web-based active server page framework, as recited in
claims 6 and 14 (App. Br. 22); and
(e) Haley’s properties are not the same as “‘properties objects
associated with said active server page program,’” as recited in claims 9 and
17 (App. Br. 23-24).

2 We recognize that Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Many
of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive;
nonetheless we were persuaded of error by this issue and as such we do not
reach the additional issues as this issue is dispositive of the appeal.
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

5
(2) Appellants contend (App. Br. 26) that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Busby, Kurowski, and Lefebvre because:
(a) Lefebvre fails to teach any recordset objects are translated onto
dataset objects for calling the DataRelation objects (App. Br. 26); and
(b) Lefebvre fails to teach that DataRelation objects are called within
the universal web-based active server page framework, as claimed (App. Br.
26).
Claim Grouping - 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
Appellants present arguments on the merits with regard to
independent claim 1 (see App. Br. 14-18). We find the arguments for claim
1 persuasive, and thus claims 2, 4, and 5 stand with independent claim 1.
Appellants present arguments on the merits with regard to
independent claims 6 and 14, grouped together (see App. Br. 20-22). Claims
8 and 16 are not considered argued separately, because the arguments
presented are merely conclusory (see App. Br. 22-23). Claims 9 and 17 are
argued separately, as discussed supra (see App. Br. 23-24). Claims 11 and
19 are not considered as argued separately, because the arguments presented
are merely conclusory (see App. Br. 24).3, 4 Claims 12 and 20 are not
considered as argued separately, because the arguments presented are merely
conclusory (see App. Br. 25). Claim 13 is argued separately (see App. Br.

3 Also, the arguments for claims 11 and 19 are not commensurate in scope
with the claimed subject matter because claims 11 and 19 neither recite a
recordset object call, nor a dataset object call.
4 A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability. 37 C.F.R.
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

6
26).
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we group
the claims as follows:
(1) claim 1 as representative of the group of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5;
(2) claim 6 as representative of the group of claims 6, 8, 10-12, 14,
and 16, and 18-20;
(3) claim 9 as representative of the group of claims 9 and 17.
Issues on Appeal
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Busby and
Kurowski because Busby fails to teach or suggest translating a “recordset
object call into a dataset object call,” which in turn is “for obtaining a dataset
object,” as recited in claim 1?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9 and 17 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Busby and
Kurowski because one of ordinary skill in the art, upon viewing Haley’s
paragraph [0008], would not understand that a recordset object is inherently
the same as a plurality of properties objects?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 6, 8-14, and 16-20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Busby,
Kurowski, and Lefebvre because the combination of references fails to teach
or suggest “navigating within said universal web-based active server page
framework,” as recited in claims 6 and 14?

Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

7
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contention in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 14-26) and the Reply Brief (Reply
Br. 1-5) that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ above contentions (App. Br. 14-18; Reply
Br. 1-5) that the combination of Busby and Kurowski, and specifically
Busby, fails to teach or suggest translating a recordset object call into a
dataset object call, as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 2, 4,
and 5 which depend therefrom. However, we note that claims 6 and 14 do
not require such a translation of object calls. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5, and we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claim 6, 8, 10-14, 16, and 18-20.
With regard to claims 9 and 17, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 10
and 18-19) that Haley (see ¶ [0008]) provides evidence that a recordset
object is the same as plural properties objects. Appellants have not rebutted
the Examiner’s findings with probative evidence. Rather, only attorney
argument was presented regarding whether or not the properties in Haley are
the same as the properties recited in claims 9 and 17 (see App. Br. 23-24).
Attorney argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405
(CCPA 1974). Nor can it take the place of evidence lacking in the record.
Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Accordingly, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 17.
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 20-22) that (i) the combination of
Busby and Kurowski fails to teach or suggest communicating a recordset
object as a plurality of navigational methods for navigating within a
universal web-based active server page framework, as recited in claims 6
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

8
and 14, and (ii) Kurowski’s EnRecordset is not received as a plurality of
navigational methods for navigating within a universal web-based active
server page framework, as recited in claims 6 and 14, are unpersuasive.
Paragraphs [0093] and [0094] of Kurowski disclose a universal web-based
active server framework, and paragraphs [0306] and [0307] of Kurowski
disclose navigation using recordset objects. Furthermore, Busby discloses
translation of a “recordset into a dataset” (Busby, bottom of p. 12), as well as
converting datasets into recordsets (Busby, top of p. 13). Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8-11) that the combination of Busby and
Kurowski meets the salient limitations of claims 6 and 14 on appeal.
With regard to claim 13, Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 26) that
Lefebvre fails to teach (i) any recordset objects are translated onto dataset
objects for calling the DataRelation objects, and (ii) that DataRelation
objects are called within the universal web-based active server page
framework, are not persuasive in light of our findings as to Kurowski supra,
regarding navigation within a universal web-based active server framework
using recordset objects.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
combination of Busby and Kurowski because Busby fails to teach or suggest
translating a “recordset object call into a dataset object call,” which in turn is
“for obtaining a dataset object,” as recited in claim 1.
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6, 8-14, and 16-20 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combination of Busby,
Appeal 2010-003279
Application 10/448,549

9
Kurowski, and Lefebvre because Appellants have not established that the
combination of reference teaches or suggests “navigating within said
universal web-based active server page framework,” as recited in claims 6
and 14.
(3) On this record:
(i) claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 have not been shown to be
unpatentable; and
(ii) claims 6, 8-14, and 16-20 are not patentable.

DECISION
(1) The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 5 is reversed.
(2) The Examiner's rejections of:
(i) claims 6, 8-12, 14, and 16-20 over Busby and Kurowski; and
(ii) claim 13 over Busby, Kurowski, and Lefebvre are affirmed.

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

tj