Appeal 2007-1416
Application 09/881,791
We affirm the rejections.
ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The issue turns on (1)
whether Pavela teaches a specification of a computer program; (2) whether
that specification includes a plurality of sentences describing a computer
program; (3) whether Pavela teaches determining if the sentences are
testable assertions, and (4) whether other claimed limitations are present in
the references.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Appellants have invented a semi-automatic way of testing code
segments in a computer program under development. The method is
to be used with a Technology Compatibility Kit (TCK) test
development process. (Specification 10, l. 10). The method starts
with the specification of the computer program, which is explained as
follows: “The specification 102 can be any specification, such as a
Javadoc specification for a Java technology API [application program
interface]. Preferably, the specification 102 includes a plurality of
assertions that can be tested.” (Specification 11, ll. 16-18). The
specification is processed to generate a list of assertions.
(Specification 11, l. 21). Appellants explain, “The embodiments of
the present invention scan through the specification and split the entire
representative independent claim. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013