Ex Parte Purcell

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2013

10733037 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

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. 10/733,037 12/11/2003 Keith J. Purcell RSW920030159US1 8444 46320 7590 09/18/2013 CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP STEVEN M. GREENBERG 7900 Glades Road SUITE 520 BOCA RATON, FL 33434 EXAMINER CHEN, QING ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/18/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte KEITH J. PURCELL1 ________________ Appeal 2011-003787 Application 10/733,037 Technology Center 2100 ________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 International Business Machines Corporation is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2011-003787 Application 10/733,037 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4 – 9, 12 – 19, and 21 – 26. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 20, and 27 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Invention Appellant invented a method, system, and computer program product for automatically developing objects using a plurality of context derived models residing within a computational grid. See Spec., Abstract. Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added) 1. A method for automatically generating computer program code comprising the steps of: receiving from an author over a computer communications network a description of a computing application in a web service executing in memory by a processor in a computer; parsing said description in by-said web service to identify object parameters for said computing application; locating a coding module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters within a node contained within the computational grid coupled to the web service over a computer communications network, the computational grid comprising a plurality of computers sharing computational resources, said computational grid further comprising a plurality of coding modules; supplying said description to said node contained within the computational grid; Appeal 2011-003787 Application 10/733,037 3 applying said description to said located coding module to generate at least one output object corresponding to the identified object parameters; and returning said at least one output object to the author over the computer communications network. Rejection The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4 – 9 , 12 – 19, and 21 – 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hejlsberg (US 2004/0088688 A1; May 6, 2004) and Ferstl (US 7,185,046 B2; Feb. 27, 2007). Ans. 3 – 14. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hejlsberg and Ferstl teaches or suggests “locating a coding module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters within a node contained within the computational grid,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Hejlsberg teaches most of the recitations of claim 1, including parsing a received description to identify object parameters and applying the description to a located coding module to generate at output object corresponding to the identified object parameters. See Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Hejlsberg, ¶ [0035]). The Examiner further relies on Ferstl’s computing grid teachings to teach or suggest “locating a coding module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters within a node contained within the computational grid,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5 (citing Ferstl, col. 1, ll. 52 – 59, col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2, l. 8, and col. 12, ll. 25 – 31). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because the “Examiner Appeal 2011-003787 Application 10/733,037 4 provided NO discussion of a teaching in Ferstl that directly maps to the location of a coding module corresponding to one or more object parameters within a node contained within a computational grid.” App. Br. 9 – 10. In particular, Appellant contends the Examiner does not include significant analysis as to the Examiner’s construction of “critical claim limitations such as a ‘coding module’ or ‘locate’ or ‘object parameters,’” id. at 9, and the Examiner’s findings “do not attempt to account for the location of a CODING MODULE that corresponds to OBJECT PARAMETERS within a node of a computational grid,” id. at 12. Appellant’s argument attacks Ferstl individually without persuasively showing error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of Hejlsberg and Ferstl. See id. at 8 – 12. The Examiner relies on Hejlsberg’s use of a code generator to teach or suggest a coding module, as claimed. See Ans. 4 (citing Hejlsberg, ¶ [0035]). The Examiner further relies on the parsing of a blueprint to teach or suggest the identification of object parameters. See Ans. 4 (citing Hejlsberg, ¶ [0035]). However, the Examiner relies on Ferstl for the teaching or suggestion of the coding module being within a node contained within a computational grid (i.e., “a hardware and software infrastructure serving to handle computing jobs submitted by a user”). See Ans. 5 (citing, e.g., Ferstl, col. 1, ll. 52 – 59). That is, the Examiner finds that an artisan of ordinary skill would have recognized handling Hejlsberg’s code generation computer job could have been performed on a node within a computational grid. See Ans. 16 – 17. The Examiner further relies on Ferstl to teach or suggest locating the coding module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters. See Ans. 6 (citing Ferstl, col., 12, ll. 25 – 31). Specifically, the Examiner relies Appeal 2011-003787 Application 10/733,037 5 on Ferstl’s teaching that a “selection section may identify a suitable job handler matching the selection information in association with the job request.” Ans. 6 (citing Ferstl, col., 12, ll. 25 – 31) (emphasis omitted). This identification of a suitable job handler teaches locating a job handler (e.g., a coding module as taught or suggested by Hejlsberg). Because the selection matches a suitable job handler with the selection information, the job handler located corresponds to the selection information (e.g., one of the object parameters taught or suggested by Hejlsberg). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Hejlsberg and Ferstl teaches or suggests “locating a coding module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters within a node contained within the computational grid,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4 – 5. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 4 – 9, 12 – 19, and 21 – 6, which are not argued separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 6 and 13. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1, 4 – 9, 12 – 19, and 21 – 26. TIME PERIOD No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke