Ex Parte LIDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 26, 201410285989 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/285,989 10/31/2002 Jin Li CA920020017US1 3673 48916 7590 06/27/2014 Greg Goshorn, P.C. 9600 Escarpment Suite 745-9 AUSTIN, TX 78749 EXAMINER RUTTEN, JAMES D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2197 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/27/2014 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 JIN LI ____________ Appeal 2012-001577 Application 10/285,989 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN A. EVANS, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the 1 The Real Party in Interest is International Business Machines Corporation. 2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2012-001577 Application 10/285,989 2 Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1-7 and 11-163 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.4 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a semantic verification feature of a programmer editor in a software development tool which provides semantic verification of supporting programming artefacts. Such supporting programming artefacts include program documentation and output messages. The semantic verification may include spell-checking, grammar checking and checking that the supporting programming artefacts adhere to company policies related to format and structure. Additionally, the feature may isolate and identify an inconsistency between documentation comments and program code. See Abstract. Claims 1, 12, 13, 14, and 15 are independent. Claims 8-10 are canceled.5 An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method of providing a semantic verification feature in an editor for programing code comprising: recognizing a supporting programming artefact; 3 App. Br. 5. 4 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Supplemental Appeal Brief filed October 21, 2010 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 2, 2007 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed July 21, 2006 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed October 31, 2002 (“Spec.”). 5 App. Br. 17-20. Appeal 2012-001577 Application 10/285,989 3 accessing programming artefact rules specifying artefact format and consistency requirements; verifying semantics of said supporting programming artefact by applying said programming artefact rules to said programming artefact; and where said semantics of said supporting programming artefact are in error, emphasizing a display of said supporting programming artefact. References and Rejections The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Fein US 6,012,075 Jan. 4, 2000 McFarland US 6,154,753 Nov. 28, 2000 IBM, Spell Checking in a Development Edit System, IBM Technical Disclosure Bulletin, July 1, 2000, 3 pages (hereinafter “SCDES”). Sun Microsystems, “Checking API Documentation Comments with the Doc Check Doclet,” archived on 9/9/2001, accessed and printed on 12/9/05 at , 8 pages (hereinafter “DocCheck”). The claims stand rejected as follows: 1. Claims 1, 12, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over SCDES and DocCheck. Ans. 5-8. 2. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over SCDES, DocCheck, and Fein. Ans. 8. 3. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over SCDES, DocCheck, and McFarland. Ans. 8-10. Appeal 2012-001577 Application 10/285,989 4 ISSUES ON APPEAL Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 10-12), the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding that asserted combinations of references teach or suggest the disputed claim limitations including the claimed “artefact format” and “consistency requirements.” 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. Independent Claims 1, 12, 13, 14, and 15 Appellant contends that neither SCDES, nor DocCheck, teaches or fairly suggests “accessing programming artefact rules specifying artefact format and consistency requirements,” as recited in independent Claims 1, 12, and 13. Appellant alleges the Examiner explicitly finds that SCDES “does not appear to disclose, teach or suggest any ‘consistency requirements.’” App. Br. 10. Appellant contends that DocCheck neither teaches nor suggests this element. DocCheck is directed to a system that identifies errors in programming code, including “identif[ying] missing, invalid and extraneous . . . tags . . .” DocCheck 7. Appellant contends that this functionality, which is relied upon by the Examiner, is merely another way to describe a formatting check rather than a consistency check. Appellant contends that his claims describe both format and consistency Appeal 2012-001577 Application 10/285,989 5 checking and, under the doctrine of claim differentiation, there must be a difference between the two. Appellant distinguishes format checking from consistency checking. Consistency checking involves comparing at least two objects, whereas format checking involves only a single object, e.g., whether an object is valid, missing, or extraneous. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds that DocCheck works with the Javadoc tool (described in Appellant’s Specification), which is used for generating source code documentation. Ans. 10. DocCheck generates comment templates and identifies errors in comments related to Java program elements. Programming elements are described in the comments through the use of special tags. For example, DocCheck teaches an example: “@param foo an int that . . .” DocCheck 7. The tag “@param” is used in the comments to describe the use of an integer variable named “foo.” DocCheck provides consistency checks at least by identifying “missing . . . @param . . . tags.” Ans. 10-11(citing DocCheck, p. 7, bullet 12; p. 8). The Examiner finds that: [f]urther consistency checks are evidenced on page 7 bullet 16 which recites “. . . so the file can be inspected to see if the comments need to be added.” It should be noted that when a program element does not have an associated tag in the comments, DocCheck flags a missing tag, i.e. indicates an inconsistency between the source code and the comments. Ans. 11. The record does not include a Reply Brief. In the absence thereof, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in finding that DocCheck teaches or suggests a “consistency requirements,” as recited in independent Claims 1, 12, and 13. Appeal 2012-001577 Application 10/285,989 6 Appellant contends that independent Claims 14 and 15 are patentable for the reasons advanced in favor of Claims 1, 12, and 13. App. Br. 12, 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting Claims 14 and 15. Dependent Claims 2-7, 11, and 16 Appellant traverses the rejection of dependent Claims 2-7, 11 and 16. App. Br. 9. Appellant specifically enumerates and argues the patentability of dependent Claims 2 (App. Br. 12), 3 and 5-7 (App. Br. 13), 4 (App. Br. 14), 11 (App. Br. 11), and 16 (App. Br. 15). Appellant argues these claims are patentable by virtue of their dependence from Claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1-7 and 11-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation