Ex Parte WasonDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 22, 201410827748 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAMES R. WASON ____________ Appeal 2011-004078 Application 10/827,748 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JEAN R. HOMERE, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19-23, and 27-30.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16-18, and 24-26 have been canceled. Appeal 2011-004078 Application 10/827,748 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to a method and computer program product for editing Java Bean property values within an Integrated Development Environment (IDE). (See Spec. ¶ [0001]). Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows. 1. A method for editing Java Bean properties, comprising: assigning a plug-in loader to a Java Bean code editor; accessing code from a plurality of classes of Java Bean code loaded by the plug-in loader-for a Java Bean encloser in a workspace using the plug-in loader, wherein the plug-in loader loads the code using a base loader; determining editable Java Bean property values from the accessed code for the Java Bean encloser in the workspace by determining a class type of a bean in the Java Bean encloser based on an actual value of the bean and determining a bean information class for the bean based on the class type, such that the bean information class is used to determine the property values and the bean information class provides what property values can be edited by defining the property as a visible property of the Java Bean encloser, and wherein the editable Java Bean property values are displayed in a property sheet; editing the Java Bean property values that can be edited using the Java Bean code editor, wherein the Java Bean property values are edited within an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) that is based on an Eclipse standard by invoking a property editor developed under a Java Bean standard with a property editor developed under the Eclipse standard, and applying the edited Java Bean property values to the accessed code for the Java Bean encloser; and storing results of the editing as updates to Java source code or as updates to an extensible markup language (XML) file. Appeal 2011-004078 Application 10/827,748 3 Rejection Claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19-23, and 27-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Timbol (US 6,237,135 B1) and Bigus (US 2004/0083454 A1). (See Ans. 3-34). Appellant’s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because: (a) The relied-on portions in column 29 of Timbol are not related to the Java Bean property values of claim 1 (Br. 9). (b) The listing of the properties in the bean, as described in column 4 of Timbol, is not the same as the property values displayed in the property sheet of claim 1 and therefore, does not teach or suggest the claimed determining editable Java Bean property values (Br. 10). (c) The plugin disclosed in Bigus is not used to edit or customize Java Bean property values (Br. 11). 2. With respect to claim 6, Appellant contends that the property (locator) engine cited in column 4 of Timbol is not the same as the claimed Java Bean encloser because the property engine is not loaded into the workspace (Br. 12). 3. With respect to the remaining claims, Appellant argues their patentability by repeating the same arguments raised for claims 1 and 6, or relying on their dependency from their base claims (Br. 11-23). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 6 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations? Appeal 2011-004078 Application 10/827,748 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the above-noted contentions raised by Appellant. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 35-48). We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 19-23, and 27-30 is affirmed. 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 dw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation