Ex Parte O et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 16, 2017

13614167 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 16, 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. 13/614,167 09/13/2012 William G. OEarrell CA920060081US2 1495 (057CON) 66912 7590 CRGO LAW 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, EL 33434 EXAMINER BOURZIK, BRAHIM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2017 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): docketing@crgolaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WILLIAM G. O’FARRELL, MARIANO CONSENS, and JOHN (WEN SHENG) LIU Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 Technology Center 2100 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1— 3, 6—12, and 15—17.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 4, 5, 13, and 14 have been canceled (Final Act. 2). Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 The invention relates to debugging extensible markup language (XML) path (XPATH) expressions as they are applied to XML documents (Spec. 1, 5). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An extensible markup language (XML) path (XPATH) expression debugging method comprising: receiving an XPATH input expression in a portion of a graphical user interface (GUI) of a debugger tool executing in memory of a computer; parsing the XPATH input expression to produce a plurality of subexpressions; ordering the plurality of sub-expressions in a model for the XPATH input expression by associating each sub-expression with a node in the model; receiving a selection of an XML document from a second portion of the GUI of the debugger tool; applying each of the ordered sub-expressions in the model to the XML document; rendering a visual representation of the model in a third portion of the GUI of the debugger tool; responsive to receiving a selection of one of the sub expressions rendered as a node in the model in the third portion of the GUI, differentially visually emphasizing each portion of the XML document corresponding to a result set resulting from the application of each of the sub-expressions to the XML document. 2 Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Nakamura et al. US 2003/0163285 A1 Aug. 28, 2003 Lauzonetal. US 2004/0117769 Al June 17, 2004 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1—3, 6—12, and 15—17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Lauzon. Claims 1—3 and 6—12 stand rejected under the non-statutory ground of obviousness-type double patenting over US Patent 8,321,845.2 ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection Appellants contend Lauzon fails to teach receiving a selection of a sub-expression of an XPATH expression, or visually emphasizing a portion of an XML document corresponding to a result of applying a selected sub expression to an XML document, as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 11—12). Appellants also contend Nakamura fails to teach receiving a selection of a sub-expression of an XPATH expression (see App. Br. 12—13). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Nakamura describes a system for efficiently evaluating multiple XPATH expressions with respect to an XML document by determining 2 The obviousness-type double patenting rejection is stated in the Non-Final Action dated April, 6, 2015. 3 Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 whether there are common parts of the XPATH expressions (see Nakamura 15—17). Specifically, this XPath evaluation method is characterized by including the steps of generating a data structure that has a common part of a plurality of XPath expressions to be evaluated as a common node in a tree structure, evaluating the generated data structure in a node-by-node basis with respect to a data file to be an objective of processing, and obtaining an evaluation result for each XPath expression by combining the evaluation results for each of the nodes. (Nakamura 116). Moreover, the step of generating a data structure includes the steps of decomposing an operation expression or function into subexpressions . . . .And the step of evaluating an XPath expression includes . . . sharing an evaluation result among a plurality of XPath expressions for a subexpression common to a plurality of XPath expressions. Then, for individual subexpressions, a data structure that has a common part as a common node in a tree structure can be generated as mentioned above, and the data structure can be used to perform an evaluation. (Nakamura Tflf 19-20). Accordingly, we find Nakamura discloses decomposing an XPATH expression into subexpressions, which are represented as nodes in a tree data structure, and evaluating the XPATH expressions with respect a data file, such as an XML document, on a node- by-node, i.e. subexpression-by-subexpression, basis. As the Examiner concedes, however, Nakamura does not disclose a GUI for visually differentiating portions of an XML document corresponding to evaluated XPATH sub-expressions (see Final Act. 9). Lauzon discloses a visual debugger for XSL stylesheets operable such that as a “user steps through the script, the user may highlight transformation 4 Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 rules as the rules are fired. Thus, the user may be shown the relationship between each rule and the source document.” (Lauzon, 122). The visual debugger includes a view 306 for displaying an XSL stylesheet, a view 308 for displaying the source document, such as an XML document, and a view 304 for showing the evaluation result of a currently selected XSL element, for example, an XPATH expression (see Lauzon, Fig. 3; 26—29). Specifically, “the Current XSL Element View 304 has column headings for Property, XSL Expression and Actual Value so that the evaluated values of the properties of the template may be displayed. These evaluated properties include XPath expressions.” (Lauzon, 128). Further, a “user may visually step through an XSL transformation script, highlighting the transformation rules as the rules are fired. To step forward, the user may click the Trace forward button 312. To step backwards, the user may click the Trace backward button 314.” (Lauzon, | 51). Accordingly, we find Lauzon discloses a visual debugger, i.e., a GUI that allows a user to select a particular XPATH expression in an XSL stylesheet in order to be shown a visual emphasis of the result of evaluating the XPATH expression with respect to a source XML document. We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that, in light of Lauzon’s visual debugger, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide visual debugging of Nakamura’s evaluated XPATH sub expressions (see Final Act. 11). This combination would have required adapting Lauzon’s visual debugger to allow for a user to select the more granular sub-expression level of detail for visual emphasis in the evaluated results shown in Lauzon’s Current XSL Element View 304. However, Appellants do not contend such modification would have been beyond the level of ordinary skill in the art. In fact, Appellants do not present specific 5 Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 arguments challenging the propriety of the Examiner’s combination of Lauzon with Nakamura. Rather, Appellants’ arguments focus on the references individually (see App. Br. 11—13; Reply Br. 4—6). Here, where the Examiner relies on the combination of Nakamura’s decomposition of an XPATH expression into sub-expressions with Lauzon’s GUI for visually emphasizing selected XPATH expressions as applied to an XML document, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that neither reference alone discloses the claim 1 feature of receiving a selection of an XPATH sub expression (see id.). We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 6—12, and 15—17 not specifically argued separately. The Double Patenting Rejection Appellants do not provide specific arguments regarding the non- statutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection (see App. Br. 15). Therefore, we pro forma affirm the double patenting rejection. CONCLUSIONS The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—3, 6—12, and 15—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3 and 6—12 for non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 6—12, and 15—17 is affirmed. 6 Appeal 2016-006342 Application 13/614,167 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 7