Ex Parte Hanson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 28, 2012

10835329 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte STEPHEN MICHAEL HANSON, SUMAN KUMAR KALIA, MATTHEW COLIN LOVETT, EVANGELOS MAMAS, and DAVID ADIEL SPRIET _____________ Appeal 2010-005981 Application 10/835,329 Technology Center 2100 ______________ Before, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DAVID M. KOHUT, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005981 Application 10/835,329 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, computer readable medium, and system for serializing a meta-model by converting logical meta-model information into an XML format and inserting physical meta-model information into the file. Spec. 2-7. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A computer-implemented method of serializing a meta- model, said meta-model comprising logical meta-model information, physical meta-model information and mappings therebetween, said method comprising: converting said logical meta-model information into an XML schema compliant format suitable for storing said logical meta-model information in a file; inserting into said file said physical meta-model information utilizing at least one annotation configured to identify said physical meta-model information. REFERENCES Seki US 2002/0053070 A1 May 2, 2002 Pulley US 2005/0071809 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 (filed Sep. 29, 2003) Nelson1 US 2005/0071750 A1 Mar. 31, 2005 (filed Sep. 30, 2003) 1 Hereinafter referred to as Nelson ‘750. Appeal 2010-005981 Application 10/835,329 3 Nelson2 US 2005/0154976 A1 July 14, 2005 (filed Sep. 30, 2003) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Nelson ‘976. Ans. 4. Claims 3, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson ‘976 and Seki. Ans. 5. Claims 4-8 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson ‘976, Seki, and Pulley. Ans. 6-7. Claims 9, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nelson ‘976, Seki, and Nelson ‘750. Ans. 7-8. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Nelson ‘976 discloses converting said logical meta-model information into an XML schema compliant format suitable for storing said logical meta-model information in a file? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Nelson ‘976 and Seki teaches or suggests placing an annotation identifying said physical meta-model information in a nested configuration relative to its corresponding logical meta-model information? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Nelson ‘976, Seki, and Pulley teaches or suggests converting (i) a name of a target class into a name of an element; (ii) an attribute of a target class into an attribute 2 Hereinafter referred to as Nelson ‘976. Appeal 2010-005981 Application 10/835,329 4 of an element, said attribute of said target class being serialized only if said attribute is set; (iii) an aggregation relationship into a nested element; and (iv) an association relationship into an attribute? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ 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 rejection of the claims and in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. In addition, below we highlight the following arguments for emphasis. Regarding claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, and 20, Appellants argue that while Nelson ‘976 discloses converting standards non-compliant physical meta- model features into standards compliant physical meta-model features, Nelson ‘976 is silent as to converting logical meta-model information, as required by claim 1. App. Br. 5. However, Appellants have not addressed the Examiner’s specific findings that Nelson ‘976 discloses “generating and applying substitute XML script for the associated metamodels (i.e. the physical and logical meta-models)” or that Nelson ‘976 discloses logical- ApplicationTypeView.kmd files which are transformed and implemented in XML. Ans. 9. Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9-10) that the cited portions of Nelson ’976 discloses converting both physical meta-model and logical meta-model information from standard noncompliant to standard compliant format. Appeal 2010-005981 Application 10/835,329 5 Regarding claims 3, 12, and 21, Appellants argue that the words “logical” and “physical,” located in Seki, do not teach “placing an annotation identifying meta-model information in a nested configuration relative to its corresponding logical meta-model information in a file that is generated by converting the logical meta-model information,” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6-7. However, the Examiner finds that Nelson ‘976 teaches an annotation of an XML appInfo that, according to Seki’s Figures 9 and 11, is nested in a hierarchical configuration of an XML schema. Ans. 10-11. Again, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s specific findings. As a result, we agree with the Examiner that Nelson ‘976 and Seki teach the disputed limitation. Regarding claims 4-8 and 13-17, the Examiner points to specific parts of the Pulley reference that teach the disputed limitations. Ans. 11. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s specific findings. Thus, we agree with the Examiner. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that Nelson ‘976 discloses converting said logical meta-model information into an XML schema compliant format suitable for storing said logical meta-model information in a file. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Nelson ‘976 and Seki teaches or suggests placing an annotation identifying said physical meta-model information in a nested configuration relative to its corresponding logical meta-model information. The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Nelson ‘976, Seki, and Pulley teaches or suggests converting (i) a name of a target Appeal 2010-005981 Application 10/835,329 6 class into a name of an element; (ii) an attribute of a target class into an attribute of an element, said attribute of said target class being serialized only if said attribute is set; (iii) an aggregation relationship into a nested element; and (iv) an association relationship into an attribute. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-22 is affirmed. AFFIRMED tj