Ex Parte Purcell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 17, 2013

10733037 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
10/733,037 12/11/2003 Keith J. Purcell RSW920030159US1 8444
46320 7590 09/18/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
CHEN, QING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/18/2013 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 KEITH J. PURCELL1
________________

Appeal 2011-003787
Application 10/733,037
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 International Business Machines Corporation is the Real Party in Interest.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2011-003787
Application 10/733,037

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 4 – 9, 12 – 19, and 21 – 26. Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 20,
and 27 are canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellant invented a method, system, and computer program product
for automatically developing objects using a plurality of context derived
models residing within a computational grid. See Spec., Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (Emphasis Added)
1. A method for automatically generating computer program
code comprising the steps of:
receiving from an author over a computer
communications network a description of a computing
application in a web service executing in memory by a
processor in a computer;
parsing said description in by-said web service to identify
object parameters for said computing application;
locating a coding module corresponding to at least one
of the object parameters within a node contained within the
computational grid coupled to the web service over a computer
communications network, the computational grid comprising a
plurality of computers sharing computational resources, said
computational grid further comprising a plurality of
coding modules;
supplying said description to said node contained within
the computational grid;
Appeal 2011-003787
Application 10/733,037

3
applying said description to said located coding module
to generate at least one output object corresponding to the
identified object parameters; and
returning said at least one output object to the author over
the computer communications network.
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4 – 9 , 12 – 19, and 21 – 26 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hejlsberg (US 2004/0088688
A1; May 6, 2004) and Ferstl (US 7,185,046 B2; Feb. 27, 2007). Ans. 3 –
14.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hejlsberg and
Ferstl teaches or suggests “locating a coding module corresponding to at
least one of the object parameters within a node contained within the
computational grid,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Hejlsberg teaches most of the recitations of
claim 1, including parsing a received description to identify object
parameters and applying the description to a located coding module to
generate at output object corresponding to the identified object parameters.
See Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Hejlsberg, ¶ [0035]). The Examiner further relies on
Ferstl’s computing grid teachings to teach or suggest “locating a coding
module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters within a node
contained within the computational grid,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 5
(citing Ferstl, col. 1, ll. 52 – 59, col. 1, l. 65 – col. 2, l. 8, and col. 12, ll. 25 –
31). Appellant contends that the Examiner erred because the “Examiner
Appeal 2011-003787
Application 10/733,037

4
provided NO discussion of a teaching in Ferstl that directly maps to the
location of a coding module corresponding to one or more object parameters
within a node contained within a computational grid.” App. Br. 9 – 10. In
particular, Appellant contends the Examiner does not include significant
analysis as to the Examiner’s construction of “critical claim limitations such
as a ‘coding module’ or ‘locate’ or ‘object parameters,’” id. at 9, and the
Examiner’s findings “do not attempt to account for the location of a
CODING MODULE that corresponds to OBJECT PARAMETERS within a
node of a computational grid,” id. at 12.
Appellant’s argument attacks Ferstl individually without persuasively
showing error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of Hejlsberg and Ferstl. See id. at 8 – 12. The Examiner relies
on Hejlsberg’s use of a code generator to teach or suggest a coding module,
as claimed. See Ans. 4 (citing Hejlsberg, ¶ [0035]). The Examiner further
relies on the parsing of a blueprint to teach or suggest the identification of
object parameters. See Ans. 4 (citing Hejlsberg, ¶ [0035]). However, the
Examiner relies on Ferstl for the teaching or suggestion of the coding
module being within a node contained within a computational grid (i.e., “a
hardware and software infrastructure serving to handle computing jobs
submitted by a user”). See Ans. 5 (citing, e.g., Ferstl, col. 1, ll. 52 – 59).
That is, the Examiner finds that an artisan of ordinary skill would have
recognized handling Hejlsberg’s code generation computer job could have
been performed on a node within a computational grid. See Ans. 16 – 17.
The Examiner further relies on Ferstl to teach or suggest locating the
coding module corresponding to at least one of the object parameters. See
Ans. 6 (citing Ferstl, col., 12, ll. 25 – 31). Specifically, the Examiner relies
Appeal 2011-003787
Application 10/733,037

5
on Ferstl’s teaching that a “selection section may identify a suitable job
handler matching the selection information in association with the job
request.” Ans. 6 (citing Ferstl, col., 12, ll. 25 – 31) (emphasis omitted).
This identification of a suitable job handler teaches locating a job handler
(e.g., a coding module as taught or suggested by Hejlsberg). Because the
selection matches a suitable job handler with the selection information, the
job handler located corresponds to the selection information (e.g., one of the
object parameters taught or suggested by Hejlsberg). Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Hejlsberg and Ferstl teaches or
suggests “locating a coding module corresponding to at least one of the
object parameters within a node contained within the computational grid,” as
recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4 – 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and claims 4 – 9, 12 – 19, and 21 – 6, which are not argued
separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br. 6 and 13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claim 1, 4 – 9, 12 – 19,
and 21 – 26.
TIME PERIOD
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

ke