Ex Parte Wason

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 22, 2014

10827748 (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2014)

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