Ex Parte LI

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2014

10285989 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2014)

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