Appeal 2007-1416
Application 09/881,791
and parameter lists. We are not sure what “conversant” means in this
context of conversant textual description (it is not in the Webster’s
International Dictionary, MPCD, or www.dictionary.com) but we find those
elements very similar to those in the Pavela source file. We thus find
sufficient support in the Pavela reference to render obvious the claimed
“computer specification including a plurality of sentences describing the
computer program”.
Appellants next contend that “Pavela does not teach an operation for
determining whether anything is a testable assertion.” (Reply Br. 9 l. 8 from
bottom). In Pavela, column 6, line 45 the lines of the source file are
“scanned to identify system elements 132 that are tested by the test case, and
to generate a text index . . .”. In the source file #318, virtually all of the
configuration section invokes tests (as opposed to the objectives section,
which does not). We do not find Appellants’ objection supported, as the
operation in Pavela to find the testable assertions is to look at the
configuration section of the source file.
Appellants contend that the lines to be tested are not marked. (Reply
Br. 10, bottom). We note that they are marked by being labeled :h4
Procedure (Figure 6), but regardless would support the Examiner’s
conclusion. (Answer, page 4 top).
As Appellants appreciate that the remarks made with regard to claim 1
apply equally to independent claims 8 and 14, (Reply Br. 11, top) we will
affirm the rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013