Appeal 2006-3430
Application 10/178,439
FINDINGS OF FACT
Group I: Findings with respect to the rejection of claims 3, 4, 8-9,
13-14, 17-20, 23, 25-28, 31, 33-36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for
being anticipated by Morales:
1. Morales teaches a method and program on a medium for developing
software that executes business rules using a rules engine. Ruleflow
templates associate a task with a group of rule templates created by
users not necessarily skilled in programming using user interfaces to
edit the rules. (Morales, col. 2).
2. Appellants contend that Morales does not teach the claimed reading of
a script file, converting it to a source code file, compiling the source
code file to generate an executable rule, and storing the executable
rule in a repository. (Br. 6). The Examiner counters that contention
in his Answer, page 11, reading the claimed limitations on the
disclosure of Morales. We do not find error in this reading. Of
special note is the issue of whether the rule in its executable form is
stored in repository 108, as claimed. Examiner correctly points out
executable Rule Group 828 (col. 9, ll. 12-13) is stored in Rules
element 128 as shown in Figure 8. In Figure 1A of Morales it is
clearly shown that Rules element 128 is stored in Repository 108. We
thus find that the claimed limitation “placing the generated executable
rule into the repository” is anticipated by Morales.
3. In the Reply Brief, page 5, Appellants indicate that indeed executable
rules 828 are stored in repository 108, but the reference is obviated
because “source code” rules 128 are also stored in the repository, and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013