Ex Parte Marum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12650445 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
12/650,445 12/30/2009 MATTHEW G. MARUM CAM920090056US1 7288
37945 7590 02/01/2017
DTTKFW YFF
EXAMINER
YEE AND ASSOCIATES, P.C. AGUILERA, TODD
P.O. BOX 802333
DALLAS, TX 75380 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2196
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
ptonotifs @yeeiplaw.com
mgamez @ yeeiplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW G. MARUM, NIRAV S. SHETH,
STEVEN K. SPEICHER, and MICHAEL J. TABB
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to “computer program product
analysis and, more particularly, to including defect content in source code
and producing quality reports from the same.” Spec. 11. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for producing computer program product
quality reports comprising:
storing defect content, which comprises defect
information or a reference to defect information, for a computer
program product within source code of the computer program
product;
wherein the defect content comprises at least one of a
debugging data, and a runtime error data;
providing a computer program product analysis tool
having a graphical user interface;
specifying search criteria for defects in the computer
program product via the graphical user interface;
searching the stored defect content of the source code of
the computer program product based on the search criteria;
generating quality metrics based on the matching results
of the searching of the defect content, wherein the defect
content comprises at least a testing output for the source code,
wherein the quality metrics comprise at least a number of
defects found per source code file; and
producing a computer program product quality report for
the computer program product based on one or more of the
quality metrics.
2
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Wygodny et al.
Tittizer et al.
Leonard et al.
Boissy
US 6,282,701 B1
US 2007/0250810 Al
US 7,516,438 B1
US 8,336,030 B1
Aug. 28, 2001
Oct. 25, 2007
Apr. 7, 2009
Dec. 18, 2012
John Ferguson Smart, Maintain Better Coding Standards with Ease Using
Checkstyle, http://www.devx.com/architect/Article/31071 (last visited Jan.
23, 2017) (hereinafter “Smart”)
Computer Associates International, Inc., eTrust InoculatelTfor Linux (2001)
(hereinafter “eTrust”)
Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 7—12, and 14—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Tittizer and Smart. Final
Act. 5—20.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Tittizer, Smart, and Leonard. Final
Act. 21-23.
Claims 4 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Tittizer, Smart, and eTrust. Final
Act. 23-26.
Claims 5, 6, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Tittizer, Smart, eTrust, and Leonard.
Final Act. 26—33.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Tittizer, Smart, and Wygodny. Final
Act. 33-34.
3
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
ANALYSIS
Appellants state independent claims 1,16, and 17 recite substantially
similar limitations that were rejected on similar grounds and direct their
arguments to independent claim 1, which is representative of the claims on
appeal. Br. 11. Appellants set forth no independent arguments with respect
to dependent claims 2—15 and 18—20. Br. 14. Accordingly, claims 2—20
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—34; Ans. 2—6. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tittizer and
Smart teaches or suggests “wherein the defect content comprises at least one
of a debugging data, and a runtime error data,” as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Tittizer and Smart teaches or suggests the disputed limitation because
Tittizer does not teach or suggest storing at least one of debugging data and
runtime error data, as required by claim 1. Br. 11—12. Appellants contend
claim 1 requires storing a specific type of defect content which “is not the
same as simply indicating a defect, as taught by Tittizer.” Br. 12 (citing
Spec. H40-42). Appellants further contend Tittizer’s compiler detecting a
defect does not teach or suggest the claimed “runtime error data” because:
4
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
[A]s one of ordinary skill well knows, a compiler merely
converts source code into machine code. The machine code is
executed (i.e. “run”) by a processor (not the compiler). Thus,
runtime errors are, as one of ordinary skill knows, errors that
occur when the machine code is run. Defects found by a
compiler are, for example, syntax errors, unterminated loops,
and so on, that prevent the compiler from producing machine
code.
Br. 12 (citing Tittizer H 75, 76) (internal citation omitted).
We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. During
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad, of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although Appellants
contend “debugging data” refers to a specific type of defect content (Br. 12
(citing Spec. H 40-42), the Specification does not provide an express
definition of “debugging data.” Instead, the Specification merely describes
debugging data as being produced during a build and debug process (Spec.
140), which is described as a “software development phase” (Spec. 141),
and indicates debugging data “can include, but is not limited to, debugger
output, watch lists, stack watch snapshots, and the like” (Spec. 142
(emphasis added)). Further, Appellants do not point to any type of general
purpose or technical dictionary as interpretive guidance, nor do Appellants
provide any evidence as to the particular meaning given to the term
“debugging data” by those of ordinary skill in the art. Under such
circumstances, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of
the words for guidance in determining the ordinary and customary meaning
of the claim terms as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010). As
found by the Examiner (Ans. 2), “debug” is defined as “to find and remove
5
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
errors in something, especially a computer program.” See Microsoft
Encarta Dictionary 225 (2001). Thus, based on the plain and ordinary
meaning of the term “debug,” the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“debugging data,” in light of Appellants’ Specification, includes data
produced during a software development phase and related to finding and
removing defects in the software being developed.
Tittizer relates to “[mjethods and arrangements to manage comment
data that is associated with computer executable code.” Tittizer, Abstract.
Tittizer teaches “during the programming procedure, source code is
displayed to a user by a programming tool and comments can be added
adjacent to lines of code.” Tittizer 19. Tittizer teaches “[w]hen a
programmer fixes a problem he or she may add additional comments
regarding what was learned, how an improvement was made, why a line of
code was added or modified and what problems were fixed by the added
line(s) of code.” Tittizer 17 (emphasis added). Tittizer teaches “[t]he
comment data can be stored, and a tag can be assigned to the comment data
to further classify, describe or provide information about the comment data.”
Tittizer 114. As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 5—6), and acknowledged
by Appellants (Br. 11), Tittizer teaches storing the tags in the code (Tittizer
176). Tittizer further teaches “[s]uch tags can provide descriptive attributes
for lines of code and for the comments” and “tags can indicate . . . past or
present syntax or execution problems in the code[,] a defect, a person
assigned to the defect, or person assigned to a portion or line of code to
name a few.” Tittizer 115 (emphasis added). As such, Tittizer teaches or
suggests producing data (e.g., comments and tags) during a software
development phase and related to: finding and removing defects from the
6
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
software being developed (e.g., comments regarding what problems were
fixed, tags indicating a defect); and runtime error data (e.g., tags indicating
execution problems in the code (see Br. 12 (describing runtime errors as
errors that occur when the machine code is executed or run))). As such, we
are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in finding Tittizer teaches or suggests
“wherein the defect content comprises at least one of a debugging data, and
a runtime error data,” as recited in claim 1.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Tittizer and
Smart teaches or suggests “generating quality metrics based on the matching
results of the searching of the defect content, wherein the defect content
comprises at least a testing output for the source code, wherein the quality
metrics comprise at least a number of defects found per source code file”
and “producing a computer program product quality report for the computer
program product based on one or more of the quality metrics,” as recited in
claim 1?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Tittizer and Smart teaches or suggests the disputed limitations because the
output of Smart’s Checkstyle is “unrelated to debugging or runtime errors,
but rather goes to ensuring that code is written in a way that facilitates other
code developers to understand and follow code.” Br. 13. Appellants further
contend “nothing in Smart. . . shows or suggests the production of
debugging or runtime error data,” as required by claim 1. Br. 13.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
7
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
1986). Here, the Examiner finds Smart teaches or suggests “generating
quality metrics based on the matching results of the searching of the defect
content, wherein the defect content comprises at least a testing output for the
source code, wherein the quality metrics comprise at least a number of
defects found per source code file” and “producing a computer program
product quality report for the computer program product based on one or
more of the quality metrics.” Final Act. 7 (citing Smart 9, 16; Fig. 6). As
discussed supra, the Examiner finds Tittizer teaches or suggests the defect
content comprises at least one of a debugging data, and a runtime error data.
Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes the combination of Tittizer
and Smart teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Final Act. 7—8.
Appellants’ contention fails to address the combined teachings of the
references and, therefore, is unpersuasive of error.
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in combining Tittizer and Smart?
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in combining Tittizer and
Smart because one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to
make the combination. Br. 14. In particular, Appellants contend:
The problem solved by Appellants’] claimed invention
is that of producing quality metrics based on defect content
stored in the source code, where that defect content specifically
includes debugging or runtime error data. Conversely, both
Tittizer and Smart are concerned with maintain [ing] code in a
way that allows code developers to more quickly and easily
understand and follow the code. Tittizer does this by use of
tags that are associated with comment data, where the tags are
searchable. Smart accomplishes this by use [of] a tool that
enforces compliance with a coding standard. Neither of these
references, however, produce debugging or runtime error data.
Accordingly, one looking to solve the problem addressed by the
8
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
claims would not be motivated to combine them since neither
of them produce the required defect content.
Br. 14.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. A motivation to
combine can be found in “any need or problem known in the field of
endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent.” KSR Int 7
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420 (2007). “[T]he analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Here, the Examiner finds:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to modify the method of Tittizer,
which searches source code files for defects and displays a
report, by incorporating displaying the number of defects for a
plurality of files as taught by Smart, as Smart would provide the
advantage of project wide defect reports.
Final Act. 7—8 (citing Smart 3 (para. 2)). As such, the Examiner has
provided articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 2—20, which fall therewith.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
9
Appeal 2016-000473
Application 12/650,445
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).
AFFIRMED
10