Ex Parte O et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 6, 2012

10650906 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 6, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte WILLIAM G. O’FARRELL, EVANGELOS MAMAS,
SHU XIA TAN, and SIMON D. MOSER
____________________

Appeal 2010-000521
Application 10/650,906
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-000521
Application 10/650,906

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 21-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Exemplary Claim(s)
Exemplary claim 21 under appeal reads as follows:
A computing device, comprising a processor and computer
readable memory, said memory storing:
run-time code, which when executed, enables a software
application modelled using a flow paradigm to be executed, the
runtime code being a flow engine that manages co-operation between
processes included in the software application;
a debugging component for debugging said software
application; and
a software portion within said run-time code, which during
execution of the software application, periodically invokes said
debugging component, the debugging component, upon execution,
returning a result for debugging the software application.

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner reject claims 21-41 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Kodosky (US 6,715,139 B1).
Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 21 because Kodosky does not teach the claimed run-time code, the
run-time code being a flow engine. (App. Br. 5-9).
Appeal 2010-000521
Application 10/650,906

3
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claims 24, 30, and 36 because:
Kodoski et al. do not teach inserting at least one debug
command in at least one location into a flow (diagram)
representing a software application. More specifically, Kodoski
et al. do not teach representing a graphical program using a
flow diagram of the program much less the step of inserting a
debug command into a flow diagram of a program.
In addition, Kodoski et al. do not teach the step of
executing the at least one debug command when execution of
the application software reaches the at least one location in the
flow where the at least one software command is inserted.
(App. Br. 10)(Emphasis omitted).
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claims 25, 31, and 37 because:
Kodoski et al. do not teach in that paragraph the limitations
"wherein the at least one debug command is executed during
execution of the program when a debug flag is set to enable
debugging functions" as claimed.
(App. Br. 11).
4. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claims 26, 32, and 38 because:
[Kodosky] does not so much as suggest the limitations "wherein
inserting the at least one debug command in the at least one
location into the flow includes inserting commands to pass
control from the runtime code to a debugger to handle
execution of the debug command" of the claims.
(App. Br. 12).
Appeal 2010-000521
Application 10/650,906

4
5. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claims 27, 33, and 39 because:
[Kodosky] does not so much as suggest, much less teach, the
limitations "wherein when execution of the application software
reaches the at least one location in the flow where the at least
one software command is inserted, control of the execution of
the software application is passed from the runtime code to a
debugger to handle execution of the debug command."
(App. Br. 13).
6. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claims 28, 34, and 40 because:
[Kodosky] does not so much as suggest the limitations, much
less teach, the limitations "wherein the at least one debug
command is a step over source command, the step over source
command inhibiting logic associated with source code to be
executed" of the claims.
(App. Br. 14).
7. Appellants contend that the Examiner also erred in rejecting
claim 29, 35, and 41 because Kodosky “does not so much as suggest, much
less teach, the limitations of the claimed element.” (App. Br. 15).

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 21-41 as being anticipated
because Kodosky fails to teach the argued limitations?

Appeal 2010-000521
Application 10/650,906

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We agree with Appellants’ above contention 6.
However, we disagree with Appellants’ above contentions 1-5 and 7.
With regard to claims 21-27, 29-33, 35-39, and 41, we adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief with the
exception noted below. We concur with the conclusion reached by the
Examiner.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree with Appellants’
arguments. Kodosky explicitly teaches the use of a “run-time engine for
realtime execution of compiled graphical programs.” (Col. 9, ll. 51-53; and
col.11, ll. 44-46).
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree with Appellants’
arguments. Kodosky explicitly teaches the debugger using the “setting
break points in the graphical program.” (Col. 22, ll. 15-16).
As to Appellants’ above contention 7, we disagree with Appellants’
arguments. Kodosky explicitly teaches the debugger using “single stepping
through the graphical program.” (Col. 22, ll. 14-15).
As to Appellants’ above contention 3-5, we disagree with Appellants’
arguments. An artisan would recognize that such limitations are inherent to
the debugger (col. 21, l. 65 through col. 22, l. 58) and execution engine
system of Kodosky.

Appeal 2010-000521
Application 10/650,906

6

CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 28, 34, and 40 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 21-27, 29-33, 35-39,
and 41 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(3) On this record, claims 28, 34, and 40 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
(4) Claims 21-27, 29-33, 35-39, and 41 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 34, and 40 is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-27, 29-33, 35-39, and 41 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-IN-PART

msc