Ex Parte Rose et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 11, 2014

11014158 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2014)

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. 11/014,158 12/16/2004 Daniel Alan Rose CA920030114US1 4664 48916 7590 03/12/2014 Greg Goshorn, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 EXAMINER SPOONER, LAMONT M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2657 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/12/2014 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 DANIEL ALAN ROSE and BALDEV SINGH SOOR ____________ Appeal 2011-009497 Application 11/014,158 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-10 and 14-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.1 1 Each of claims 6 and 7 recites a computer readable medium. If the prosecution reopens, we recommend the Examiner determine whether such claims should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2011-009497 Application 11/014,158 2 In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments that Appellants actually raised. Arguments that Appellants did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to localization values in a computer source file. See generally Spec., 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for creating a locale source file on demand suitable for use by an application in a computer, said .method comprising: receiving, from the application, a request submitted for a specific locale; obtaining, in response to the receiving, a plurality of localization values related to said specific locale; determining a category containing elements therein within said plurality of localization values and selecting process routines dependent upon said category and said element therein; selectively extracting said localization values pertaining to said category by said selected routines; assembling said extracted localization values into said locale source file, wherein the locale source file is solely for the use of the application; and storing the locale source file on a computer-readable memory for said application. Appeal 2011-009497 Application 11/014,158 3 THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Miller (US 5,835,768), and Internationalization Support in Java (ISJ, IEEE, 1997).2 ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding Miller teaches “assembling said extracted localization values into said locale source file” and “storing the locale source file on a computer-readable memory for said application” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1, 6-8 and 14-16 On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Appellants assert the Examiner mistakenly maps Miller’s stack file to the recited locale source file, and such stack file is different from Miller’s locale source 20 and the recited locale source file. See App. Br. 14-16. Appellants contend while Miller may employ a locale source file to generate files that stores in the stacks, that is not “assembling said extracted localization values into said locale source file” and “storing the locale source file on a computer-readable memory for said application.” See App. Br. 15. Appellants point to a Miller passage in column 7 and assert Miller “does not store a locale source file but rather stack files.” App. Br. 15. 2 Vartan Piroumian, Internationalization Support in Java, IEEE Micro, Vol. 17, No. 3, 20-29 (May/June 1997). Appeal 2011-009497 Application 11/014,158 4 We disagree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 14-16), and agree with the Examiner’s conclusions. We adopt the Examiner’s reasoning and findings on pages 6-9 and 21-27 of the Answer as our own. We emphasize the following: The Examiner correctly maps Miller’s locale source file (that is within locale source 20) to the recited locale source file. See Ans. 7; Miller 5:25-60. Appellants’ argument that Miller does not teach “assembling said extracted localization values into said locale source file” and “storing the locale source file on a computer-readable memory for said application” is similarly unpersuasive, because Appellants do not provide adequate analysis as to why none of the cited Miller passages teaches the disputed claim limitations. Finally, because the Examiner maps “storing the locale source file on a computer-readable memory” to Miller’s columns 5 and 10, Appellants’ argument against Miller’s column 7 does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 6-8 and 14-16 for the same reason. Claims 2-5, 9, 10 and 17 Appellants argue these claims are patentable because they depend from allowable independent claims. Therefore, for reasons similar to those discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-5, 9, 10, and 17. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-10 and 14-17 is affirmed. Appeal 2011-009497 Application 11/014,158 5 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 msc