12269859 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

Ex Parte Michelsen

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 13, 2016

12269859 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/269,859 107194 7590 Patent Capital Group 2816 Lago Vista Lane Rockwall, TX 75032 11112/2008 06/15/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John J. Michelsen 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ITK0006 1129 EXAMINER CHAU,DUNGK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2169 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/15/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): patbradford@patcapgroup.com PAIR_107194@patcapgroup.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN J. MICHELSEN Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, CATHERINE SHIANG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention tests software systems by automatically generating a spreadsheet template that stores information used to generate data transfer objects (DTOs) for input to a system under test. See generally, Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: identifying properties of a data transfer object to be input to and operated upon by a particular module of a software system during tests of the software system, wherein the identifying includes: inspecting, using a processor device, structure of the particular module to identify one or more structural requirements of the particular module relating to operations of the particular module on data objects input to the particular module, and determining that the one or more properties satisfy the identified one or more structural requirements of the at least one particular module of the software system; automatically generating a spreadsheet template corresponding to the data transfer object, wherein the spreadsheet template comprises a respective grouping of cells for each of the determined one or more properties of the data transfer object, and wherein the spreadsheet template is configured to store information representing one or more versions of the data transfer object; and providing the information of the spreadsheet template for use in generating a particular one of the versions of the data transfer object for use as an input to the particular module during a particular test of the software system. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, and 13-19 under 2 Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dubovsky (US 2003/0055836 Al; Mar. 20, 2003) and Srinivasan (US 2004/0128400 Al; July 1, 2004). Final Act. 2-7. 1 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 12, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dubovsky, Srinivasan, Hao et al. (US 7,363,306 Bl; Apr. 22, 2008), and Barnett (US 2008/0059625 Al; Mar. 6, 2008). Final Act. 8-10. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Dubovsky, Srinivasan, and Boilen (US 2004/0199818 Al; Oct. 7, 2004). Final Act. 10-11. THE REJECTION OVER DUBOVSKY AND SRINIVASAN The Examiner finds that Dubovsky discloses many recited elements of claim 1 including (1) identifying properties of a DTO to be input and operated upon by a particular module of a software system during tests of that system, and (2) automatically generating a spreadsheet template corresponding to the DTO. Final Act. 3. For both features, the Examiner cites Dubovsky' s environment definition file (EDF), and also cites Dubovsky's test data file (TDF) in connection with the spreadsheet template. Id.; Ans. 2-3. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Dubovsky lacks the recited inspection step, the Examiner cites Srinivasan as teaching this 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed April 4, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) the Appeal Brief filed September 5, 2013 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer mailed January 7, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) the Reply Brief filed March 7, 2014 ("Reply Br."). 3 Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 feature in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Final Act. 3- 4. Appellant argues, among other things, that Dubovsky does not identify properties of a DTO to be input and operated upon by a particular module during its testing, let alone automatically generate a spreadsheet template whose information is used to generate a particular DTO version to input to the module during testing. App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 2--4. According to Appellant, the Examiner's reliance on Dubovsky's EDF is misplaced because this file, which is said to correspond to the DTO, is not input to nor operated upon by modules tested by Dubovsky's test engine. Reply Br. 2-3. Rather, Dubovsky' s test engine is said to consume the EDF. Id. at 3. ISSUE UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Dubovsky and Srinivasan collectively would have taught or suggested (1) identifying properties of a DTO to be input to and operated upon by a particular module of a software system during tests of that system; (2) automatically generating a spreadsheet template corresponding to the DTO; and (3) providing the template's information for use in generating a particular DTO version to use as an input to the particular module while testing the system? ANALYSIS A key aspect of the recited DTO is that it is inputted to and operated upon by a particular module of a software system during tests of that system. 4 Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 That is, the module that accepts the DTO as an input is the module under test. Turning to the rejection, the Examiner's mapping of these key recited elements is not a model of clarity. Apart from merely citing various passages from Dubovsky in connection with the limitations of claim 1, the Examiner does not specify what elements in Dubovsky correspond to the recited DTO, let alone the particular module that accepts the DTO as an input. Accord App. Br. 9 (noting that the Examiner never clarified what elements of Dubovsky read on or suggest the recited features, including the DTO). On pages 2 and 3 of the Answer, the Examiner refers principally to Dubovsky's EDF in connection with the recited DTO property identification step. We, therefore, presume-as does Appellant-that the Examiner intends to map Dubovsky's EDF and its constituent elements and parameters to the recited DTO. Accord Reply Br. 2 (understanding the Examiner's position to mean that Dubovsky's EDF allegedly discloses or suggests the recited DTO). Turning to Dubovsky, Dubovsky uses a scriptable graphical user interface (GUI) test tool 10, namely WinRunnerÂ®, which is a tool that tests GUI applications by recording user actions. Dubovsky i-fi-1 7-8, 44; Fig. 1. To this end, the tool generates a (1) GUI map 12; (2) EDF 14 for each GUI application feature; (3) TDF 16; and (4) automated test engine 18, where a single test engine script is provided for each tested GUI application. Id. i-fi-144--48. Notably, the test engine reads from the EDF and TDF, and calls upon the GUI map and EDF during execution as shown in Dubovsky's Figure 1 below. Id. i1 48. 5 Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 .. i ,//' ' .-(-;[-).; ,-~P-l'~'-,~,-~,,,-i;,-,;,-,Â«-!I,....Â· ~-,, --r/ "1 Mf~f>tl. i-t-.~{-~S ~;i.l~:'?tl !i1"JS ~(~;:!'}}~ Wi~~-}:r~Â·~ J~ Grn c-~~:~ ri .... ~~) . {it~ t .. ,fo;~ ~-- Â·~~~-1,:-~-;,:;r-... -iJN;)l_~~.1} ( .!'l>y>i<'fillW>'ll>:J!t~ \\ Gtl1 Â£.'S:.''~\tl'!J;~N tk"J3.:~i-::0l~~ '89-~ (E .â€¢ :(} ;~~1.:t"-1m }?.i---:.vjnK1.i~K"~ ~:kfi~~a~~r:~ \.\ M"'" M~1~~ \Â¥i~i~"'"~~ ]'&;j~fÂ«~ Mi~'1:'3SL~"<.:r:~:- \~a.-:~~~~~ ,,,.,i(;:i;,;Jl) Jl:nxâ€¢.fft~â€¢~f: AttKi:r:f f\1~qmbk. A1-:r\....~".! ~:,>.:PÂ«~~d ;:a{B'5;1 }{"5i~ c~w C:<~':.ro~Â· Â·iÂ·o.:~~ (.'l:;;,t,~ ' GU!{~'~""; I (Rfl.-t~('-!::l'1 . . : .......... __ ,,_ .. _ .. GUE C~~~~ :r~ Dubovsky's Figure 1 showing test engine 18 reading from EDF and TDF Given this functionality, the Examiner's position that Dubovsky's EDF corresponds to the recited DTO is problematic. As noted above, claim 1 requires that the DTO is input to and operated upon by module of a software system during tests of that system. But as shown above, the EDF (whose elements and parameters presumably correspond to the DTO) is not input to a module of a system under test; rather, the EDF is input to a module that runs the test. Accord App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2-3 (noting this point). 6 Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 So even assuming, without deciding, that the EDF spreadsheet file in Dubovsky's Figure 4 is derived from an automatically-generated spreadsheet template as the Examiner seems to suggest (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3), information from this template is not used to generate a particular DTO version used as an input to a particular module of a software system under test, as claimed. At best, Dubovsky's EDF is used by an engine that runs the test. Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) independent claim 1; (2) independent claims 11 and 19, which recite commensurate limitations; and (3) dependent claims 3-7, 9, 10, and 13-18 for similar reasons. Because this issue is dispositive regarding our reversing the rejection of these claims, we need not address Appellant's other arguments. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Because the Examiner has not shown that the other cited prior art cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of the independent claims, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2, 8, 12, and 2 0 (Final Act. 8-11) for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 underÂ§ 103. 7 Appeal2014-004990 Application 12/269,859 DECISION The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 8