Ex Parte Bischof et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

10233072 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JORG BISCHOF, CHRISTIAN COHRS, CHRISTIAN DENKEL,
MARKUS DINKEL, and MARTIN KOLB
____________

Appeal 2011-001439
Application 10/233,072
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001439
Application 10/233,072

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final decision rejecting claims 1, 3-31, and 33-54, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. Claims 2 and 32 have been canceled. (App.
Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellants’ Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns computer-readable media,
computer program products, systems, and methods for application program
testing utilizing abstract representations of user actions in a platform
independent test script. (Spec. 1:19 to 5:20; Abstract.)1
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting user actions performed in interacting with an
application program executing on a server, the actions
performed through a first user interface session, the first user
interface session operating in a first user interface environment,
the user actions accessing one or more components of the first
user interface environment, the one or more components
implementing user interface elements of the application
program;
recording an abstract representation of the user actions
describing the user actions in a format independent of the
components of the first user interface environment, the abstract

1 We refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.”); Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”)
filed January 21, 2010; and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 4, 2010.
We also refer to the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed April 15, 2010.
Appeal 2011-001439
Application 10/233,072

3
representation adapted for use with an executable multi-
platform test script;
executing, by a client computer, the multi-platform test
script to use the abstract representation of the user actions to
interact with the application program through a second user
interface session, the second user interface session operating in
a second user interface environment, the second user interface
environment not sharing a common programming interface with
the first user interface environment, to recreate results of the
user actions in the application program; and
executing, by the client computer, the multi-platform test
script to use the abstract representation of the user actions to
interact with the application program through a third user
interface session, the third user interface session operating in a
third user interface environment, the third user interface
environment not sharing the common programming interface
with the second user interface environment, to recreate the
results of the user actions in the application program.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-10, 13-21, 23-27, 30, 31, 33-
40, 43-51, 53, and 54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over U.S.
Patent No. 6,099,317, issued Aug. 8, 2000 (“Bullwinkel”); Markus Neifer,
Looking through wxWindows: An introduction to the portable C++ and
Python GUI toolkit, IBM DeveloperWorks library (February 2001),
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/library/1-wxwin.html (last visited
08/15/2006) (“Neifer”); and U.S. Patent No. 6,615,303 B1, issued Sep. 2,
2003 (filed May 19, 2000) (“Endo”).
2. The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 22, 28, 29, 41, 42, and 52
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Bullwinkel, Neifer, Endo, and
Giacomo Cabri et al., XML Dataspaces for Mobile Agent Coordination, 181-
Appeal 2011-001439
Application 10/233,072

4
188, Proceedings of the 2000 ACM symposium on Applied computing, V.1
(2000) (“Cabri”).

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants’
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in concluding that the combination of
Bullwinkel, Neifer, and Endo collectively would have taught or suggested a
“third user interface environment not sharing the common programming
interface with the second user interface environment,” within the meaning of
Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 16, 23, 30,
31, and 46?

ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants that the portions of Endo identified by the
Examiner do not explicitly or inherently disclose the disputed features of
claim 1. Specifically, we agree with Appellants that “[n]othing in Endo . . .
precludes the third user interface environment from sharing a common
programming interface with the second user interface environment.” (App.
Br. 19-20.)
In particular, the portion of Endo cited by the Examiner (col. 1, ll. 22-
30) simply describes multiple operating systems in a single computer –
“execut[ing] a plurality of operating systems simultaneously on the single
computer” (col. 1, ll. 23-25). We find no mention of separate (not shared)
programming interfaces. Thus, it does not necessarily follow that the
Appeal 2011-001439
Application 10/233,072

5
combination of Bullwinkel and Endo necessarily teaches or would have
suggested non-shared interfaces. Specifically, even if Bullwinkel teaches a
second user interface environment not sharing a common programming
interface with a first user interface environment, which is not entirely clear
from the Examiner’s rejection (Ans. 3-4 – see Bullwinkel, col. 5, ll. 7-22)
and Endo teaches multiple operating systems (environments), the
combination fails to suggest, much less teach, a separate interface for each
such environment.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to conclude
that the combination of Bullwinkel, Neifer, and Endo fails to teach or
suggest the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1, and the rejection of claim
1 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants’
independent claims 16, 23, 30, 31, and 46 include limitations of
commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent 3-15, 17-22, 24-29, 33-45, and
47-54 depend on and stand with claims 1, 16, 23, 30, 31, and 46,
respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 3-31, and 33-54.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
3-31, and 33-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-31, and 33-54
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2011-001439
Application 10/233,072

6
REVERSED

llw