Ex Parte Pendergrass et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 17, 2017

13559255 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 17, 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.
13/559,255 07/26/2012 Eric Addkison Pendergrass 83037627 4811
56436 7590 01/19/2017
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
LYONS, ANDREW M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/19/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC ADDKISON PENDERGRASS,
and KLAUS MUEHLBRADT
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,2551
Technology Center 2100
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1,2, and 4—19, which constitute all of
the claims pending in this appeal. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims
App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard
Development Company, LP. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and apparatus for allowing a manager
node (102) to distribute localization codes to client nodes (103, 104) at
runtime over a network to thereby perform a translation from a selected
native language to an identified language. Spec. 9, 10, 20, Fig. 1. In
particular, the manager node (202) utilizes a preprocessor (210) to search for
a number of localization codes/tags or tokens in a computer program code,
to select a native language, and to determine a unique identification of the
tokens or tags defining the language into which the tags are to be translated.
Id., Fig. 2. The manager node (202) then stores in a message catalog (212)
the current target tags/tokens, and subsequently sends the localized
executable codes to client nodes, which update the message catalog by
replacing current tags/tokens with new tags/tokens thereby allowing the
message catalog to perform a current translation from a first language to a
second language. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method of localizing a computer program code
comprising, with a manager node:
updating a message catalog, the message catalog
comprising a dictionary to translate a first language into a
second language;
localizing code at the manager node at run-time; and
distributing the localized code to a number of client
nodes,
in which updating the message catalog comprises
correcting a number of errors in the message catalog.
2
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
Prior Art Relied Upon
Atkin
Apte
US 6,490,547 B1 Dec. 3, 2002
US 2008/0189096 A1 Aug. 7, 2008
US 2009/0111585 A1 Apr. 30, 2009
US 7,957,954 B2 June 7, 2011
US 8,001,178 B2 Aug. 16,2011
US 2013/0085927 A1 Apr. 4, 2013
EP 1 315 086 B1 July 5, 2006
Sakashita
Chen
Hauduc
Scott
Fuhrmann
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 6, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. Ans.
Claims 6, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Ans. 3^4.
Claims 6, 8, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA),
second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out the
subject matter which Appellants regard as the invention. Ans. 4—5.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 7, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, and Atkin.
Ans. 5—14.
Claims 4 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, Atkin, and
Fuhrmann. Ans. 15—17.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, Atkin, and Chen.
Ans. 17—18.
2-3.
3
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
Claims 8—12 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, and Scott. Ans.
18-28.
Claims 13—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, and Chen. Ans.
28-33.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, Chen, and Atkin.
Ans. 33—34.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 8—22, and the Reply Brief, pages 2—7.2
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejections
Appellants argue because the limitation “a unique language
identification associated with tag, the unique identification defining a
language into which the tags are to be translated” as recited in claims 6, 8,
and 13 is fully supported by Appellants’ Specification, the Examiner’s
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are in error. App. Br. 8—15; Reply Br. 2—5.
This argument is persuasive.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 3, 2015), the Reply Brief (filed
January 14, 2016), and the Answer (mailed November 20, 2015) for their
respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those
arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed
to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
4
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
At the outset, we note the Examiner’s acknowledgment that the
Specification describes “tags” as “portions of code that need translation,
and/or are entries in the message catalog, and/or indicate or reference one of
the two” and that “the tag’s unique identification will allow the module to
select (block 504) the native language to be used.” Ans. 38 (citing Spec.
H 43—45). However, the Examiner submits it is not especially clear in the
Specification what the “tag’s ID” and the “unique language identification
associated with the tag” are. Id. at 38-40 (citing Spec. 9, 12, 13, 20, 44).
Further, the Examiner submits that although the Specification may describe
the current language of the tag, it does not describe the target/destination
language of the tag (i.e., the language into which the tag will be translated).
Id. at 40-41. Accordingly, the Examiner concludes the following:
[T]o the extent that the language of claims 6, 8 and 13 suggests
that the native language into which the tag will be translated is
included in a unique language identifier coded directly into the
executable code of software being run, that functionality is not
supported in the Specification. The source or original language
of the tag may be included in the code as a way to partially look
up the tag in the message catalog, but the native language of the
user is determined in other ways.
Id. at 41.
We do not agree with the Examiner. As persuasively argued by
Appellants, the cited claims do not recite that the “unique language
identification” is contained in the executable code, but instead require a
“unique language identification” associated with the tag. Reply Br. 2. We
thus agree with Appellants that the recitation in paragraph 20 of the
Specification wherein “a unique language identification is associated with
each tag” explicitly supports the required limitation. Id. at 3. Likewise, we
agree with Appellants that paragraph 44 of the Specification also supports
5
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
that for each found tag, “the tag’s unique identification” is used by the
preprocessor to select the native language of the tag. Id. Additionally, we
agree with Appellants that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the cited portions of the Specification, one of ordinary skill would
have readily ascertained that the “tag’s ID” refers to the unique identifier of
the tag, and it is used in determining/selecting the native language of the tag.
Id. at 4 (citing Spec. Tflf 9, 10, 20, 44). Similarly, the ordinarily skilled
artisan would also recognize that the “unique language identification” refers
to an identifier associated with the tag to identify/determine a language for
replacing the current tag or token according to the tag’s identification
associated with its language environment [i.e. a target language]. Id.; App.
Br. 11 (citing Spec. 110). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejections of
claims 6, 8, and 13 as failing to comply with the enablement requirement,
the written description requirement, and as being indefinite.
Obviousness Rejections
Regarding the rejection of claim 1, Appellants argue the proposed
combination of Hauduc, Sakashita, and Atkin does not teach or suggest a
message catalog. App. Br. 15. In particular, Appellants argue Hauduc’s
disclosure of a language pack is used to convert or localize string elements
in an application into a particular language, and thereby does not teach or
suggest the message catalog, which stores localization code, tags or tokens,
as described in the Specification. Id. at 16. This argument is not persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, the claim does not require that the
message catalog store the localization code, tags or tokens. Ans. 47. We
thus agree with the Examiner that to construe the message catalog, as argued
by Appellants, would require us to import limitations from the Specification
6
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
into the claim. Id. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Hauduc’s language pack teaches the message catalog. Id. at 48
(citing Hauduc 6:46—64, 5:59-64). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 16, and 17, because
Appellants reiterate substantially the same arguments as those previously
discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, the cited claims fall therewith.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the rejection of claims 6, 8, and 13, Appellants argue that
because the Specification supports the cited claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim is not reasonable, and the
Examiner erred in finding Chen’s disclosure of a label associated with a
translation key is merely a pointer indicating where a translation may be
found in code or storage, and thereby does not teach or suggest “defining a
language into which the tags are to be translated.” App. Br. 18—21; Reply
Br. 6. This argument is persuasive. As noted above in our discussion of the
§112 rejections, Appellants’ Specification adequately supports the disputed
language of claim 6. Consequently, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the claim limitation to somehow exclude the
destination language from the token or tag ID is in error. In particular, the
claim clearly requires that the native language selection be based on the
tag’s ID, a unique language ID associated with the tag defining a destination
language. Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that Chen’s disclosure
of a language label teaches or suggests a destination language tags are to be
translated. Ans. 50. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 6, 8, and 13. Likewise, we do not sustain
7
Appeal 2016-002818
Application 13/559,255
the rejection of dependent claims 9—12 and 19, which incorporate the
disputed limitations of claim 8, and claims 14, 15, and 18, which incorporate
the limitations of claim 13.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1,2, 4, 5, 7, 16, and 17. However, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 6, 8—15, 18, and 19.
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-IN-PART
8