Ex Parte MALCOLM - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2001-1934                                                        
          Application 08/977,749                                                      


               analyzing a data structure for a plurality of request and              
          response objects to identify a set of data fields within the data           
          structure;                                                                  
               retrieving rule data from a rule database for property                 
          naming rules governing selection of property names assigned to              
          each data field within the set of data fields; and                          
               generating a test page for each request or response object             
          associated with the data structure, the test pages each including           
          an instance of the respective object and a set of property names            
          and associated data names for the respective object.                        
               The following references are relied on by the examiner:                
          Nilsson et al. (Nilsson)      5,555,418      Sep. 10, 1996                  
          Kolawa et al. (Kolawa)        5,784,553      July 21, 1998                  
                                        (filing date Apr. 30, 1997)                   
          Ghiassi et al. (Ghiassi), "An integrated software testing system            
          based on an object-oriented DBMS," System Sciences, Vol. 2, ppg.            
          101-109 (Jan. 1992).                                                        
               All claims on appeal, claims 1-21, stand rejected under                
          35 U.S.C. § 103.  In an initially stated rejection of claims 1-3,           
          8-10 and 15-17, the examiner relies upon Kolawa alone.  To this             
          rejection the examiner additionally relies upon Ghiassi as to               
          claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, 19.  In the third stated rejection, the            
          examiner considers claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20 and 21 obvious over              
          Kolawa in view of Nilsson.                                                  
               Rather than repeat the positions of the appellant and the              
          examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the                 
          respective details thereof.                                                 

                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007