Ex Parte Betts et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 10, 2012

11091102 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER BETTS and TONY ROGERS
____________

Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, CAROLYN D. THOMAS and CARL
W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2007) from a final rejection
of claims 1-30 are appealed. Appeal Brief 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2007).
We affirm.

Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to converting a schema to a
non-executable data repository and converting the non-executable data
repository to an executable application. Appeal Brief 7-10.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A method for converting a schema to a software data
structure, comprising:

automatically converting the schema to the software
data structure, the software data structure being a
non-executable data repository; and

converting the software data structure from the
non-executable data repository to an executable application by
merging a shadow software functionality with the automatically
converted software data structure to form a merged software,
the shadow software functionality comprising one or more
extension class source files operable to extend functionality of
the software data structure.

Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102

3
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sharma (WO 99/33006; published July 1, 1999) and Lim
(U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0064826 A1; published
April 1, 2004). Answer 3-12.

Issue on Appeal
Do Sharma and Lim, alone or in combination, disclose “converting
the software data structure from the non-executable data repository to an
executable application” as recited in claim 1?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Appellants argue that, “Claim 1 is patentable at least because the cited
references fail to teach or suggest ‘converting the software data structure
from the non-executable data repository to an executable
application.’” Appeal Brief 13.
The Examiner finds that:
Sharma does not explicitly teach: converting the software
data structure from the non-executable data repository to an
executable application by... However, this limitation is taught
by Lim. (e.g. Lim Paragraph [0056] In one aspect, the present
invention is an object generator capable of compiling a data
model specification such as XML Schema into code (e.g., a
programmer-friendly API) that defines at least one DMS
object class, which permits serialization and/or
deserialization of a corresponding object instance. The
object generator which generates the DMS object class is at
least one executable program. The executable program
Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102

4
itself may be created using any of a variety programming
languages. In addition, it may be a compiled program or it
may be a program that uses an interpreter, or a hybrid.
Typically, a compiled program is faster. However,
programs written in languages such as Visual Basic or Java,
which use interpreters at least to some extent, may also have
advantages. In a preferred embodiment, the object
generator of the present invention is written in Java because
of its good adaptability to different platforms, e.g., UNIX
and Windows.")
Answer 4-5.

Appellants disclose in their Specification the definition of an
XML schema:

An XML document may have an accompanying XML
schema. The schema may define one or more object classes
that objects within the XML document may conform to. The
attributes that may be associated with an object class may be
specified within the schema. The schema may establish the
hierarchy between objects and define the attributes that may
appear in the XML document.
Specification 2.

Appellants’ Specification further discloses, “[w]hen converting XML
documents to a more convenient format, for example Java, it may be
necessary to convert XML schemas to software data structures, for example
Java classes.” Specification 3.
Lim compiles a data model specification such as XML schema into
code (such as application programming interface) that defines a DMS object
class wherein the object generator that compiles the XML Schema into code
is “at least one executable program.” Lim, ¶ [0056]. Appellants argue that,
“[w]hether or not the object generator itself is an executable application does
Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102

5
not change the fact that the object generator does not convert a software
data structure from a non-executable data repository to an executable
application.” Appeal Brief 14. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be
persuasive.
An object generator is basically a compiler that converts programming
language into code that a computer’s processor uses. In fact, Lim further
discloses, “[u]sing model specifications such as XML Schema as input, the
object generator of the present invention generates, i.e., effectively compiles
or ‘writes,’ DMS object classes which contain the code necessary to define
respective object classes in a target object oriented program.” Lim, ¶
[0058]. Therefore, Lim discloses converting a non-executable data
repository, XML schema, to an executable application.
Appellants also argue that “the cited references certainly do not teach
or suggest converting a non-executable data repository to an executable
application by merging it with shadow software functionality as required
by Claim 1.” Appeal Brief 14. We do not find this argument to be
persuasive because Appellants’ Specification discloses that the shadow class
source files may be Java extension class source files (Specification 7-9) and
since Sharma discloses “merging the source code based on content” (Sharma
3-4) and Java is merely source code, Sharma similarly discloses the
“merging a shadow software functionality . . . . a merged software” claim
limitation.
Therefore the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 is
sustained, as well as, the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 11 and
21 which recite limitations commensurate in scope to claim 1. The
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2-5, 7-10, 12-20 and 22-30,
Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102

6
whose merits were not separately argued, are also sustained for the same
reasons as above. In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

Claim 6
Appellants argue that claim 6 is patentable because:

Page 8 of Sharma discloses tagging source code items
such that "[i]tems identified with the preserved tag will be
saved.., while items identified with the overridden and
inconsistent tags will be deleted." However, saving
existing items and deleting items does not teach or suggest
adding characteristics, and certainly does not teach or
suggest "adding the one or more characteristics determined
to be present in the parsed shadow software functionality
that are not present in the software data structure to the
software data structure."
Appeal Brief 15.
We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because
Sharma also discloses:

The object-relational mapping tool then merges the
customized source code with the schema-modified source
code and creates a new version of the source code that
contains both the customizations made to the source code
and the modifications to the database. This new source
code is referred to as the merged source code. The
integration of the customized source code and the schema-
modified source code is governed by a merge algorithm.
Sharma 8.
Sharma does not only discloses overriding or deleting items but also
discloses the integration of codes and thus subsequently adding items that
were not previous incorporated within the software structure.
Appeal 2010-000292
Application 11/091,102

7
Therefore the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 is sustained for reasons
stated above.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-30 are 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb