Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 2, 2021

2019005830 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 2, 2021)

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.
14/549,952 11/21/2014 Anant Gilra P4512-US 8422
108982 7590 03/02/2021
FIG. 1 Patents
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ANANT GILRA
________________

Appeal 2019-005830
Application 14/549,952
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to maintaining a record of
actions taken on object data in a document so that the actions can be undone.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-005830
Application 14/549,952

2

In particular, the claimed subject matter encompasses enabling an object-
based undo in which the last action performed on a selected object is
undone. Abstract.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
(disputed limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. A method comprising:
[1] adding, in response to a user edit to data of a document, a
session to an undo record in a last in first out manner, wherein
the undo record is structured as a modified stack, wherein a
modified stack allows an identified session to be percolated to
the top and removed, the session indicating an action performed
as part of the user edit as well as one or more objects of the data
on which the action was performed, each of the one or more
objects comprising a user-selectable element of the data; and
[2] in response to receiving an object-based undo request,
wherein the object-based undo request comprises an object
selection of the object from a single display of the document in
which the object appears, performing an object-based undo
operation by:
[3] identifying a topmost session of the undo record that
includes a first selected object;
[4] percolating the identified session to the top of the
undo record; and
undoing the action in the identified session.
Appeal Br. 38 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005830
Application 14/549,952

3

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Li US 2004/0068678 A1 Apr. 8, 2004
Bhogal et al. (“Bhogal”) US 8,838,557 B2 Sept. 16, 2014
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Li and Bhogal. Final Act. 2–12.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites [1] “adding . . . a session in an undo record in a last in
first out manner, wherein the undo record is structured as a modified stack
[that] allows an identified session to be percolated to the top and removed”
(emphasis added) and, [2] “in response to receiving an object-based undo
request,” [3] “identifying a topmost session of the undo record that includes
a first selected object” and [4] “percolating the identified session to the top
of the undo record” (emphasis added). The Specification illustrates the
meaning of percolating an identified session in Figure 3 (showing Session C
as below the top of the Undo Record stack) and Figure 8 (showing Session C
has having been moved to the top of the Undo Record stack). The
Specification further teaches that “[p]ercolating the identified session to the
top of the undo record refers to moving the identified session from its current
Appeal 2019-005830
Application 14/549,952

4

location in the undo record to the top of the undo record.” Spec. ¶ 52
(emphasis added).2
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Bhogal’s interface for
displaying a plurality of edited changes associated with an editable file
teaches the “percolated” limitation of recitation [1] by teaching that a user
can “select a set of edits in sequences or related to a particular object and
undo those edits by putting [them] at the top of the stack and removing and
moving [them] to [the] redo [stack].” Final Act. 3 (citing Bhogal 9:27–37,
12:12–29); Ans. 4. The Examiner finds Bhogal’s interface teaches the
“percolating” limitation of recitation [4] by teaching “filtering edits based on
an editable element within the file.” Final Act. 3 (citing Bhogal 3:39–56).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “Bhogal describes a
stack of edits that can be navigated manually[;] no percolation occurs
because the user manually cursors through the stack to select edits.” Appeal
Br. 15. Appellant argues that rather than teaching the claimed percolation,
Bhogal “describes how ‘logical relationships may be established between
sequences of edits.’” Id. (citing Bhogal 3:39–40). This allows related edits to
“be grouped and undone or redone together.” Id. at 16. But, Appellant
argues, “[g]rouping related edits and undoing them together[,] as described

2 In reviewing the Specification, we are unable to find a disclosure for an
algorithm for moving an identified session to the top of an undo record
structured as a modified stack. See, e.g., Spec. 18 (noting a modified stack
“allows certain session information to be percolated to the top of the
modified stack and then popped off the top of the modified stack” without
disclosing how such information is percolated). Therefore, we recommend
that the Examiner ascertain whether there is sufficient written description
support in the Specification for claim 1 to meet the requirements of 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). MPEP § 2161.01(I).
Appeal 2019-005830
Application 14/549,952

5

by Bhogal, has nothing whatsoever to do with the undo records being
structured as ‘modified stack’ that allows for ‘percolating the identified
session to the top of the undo record.’” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not show
that Bhogal teaches the claimed percolating of an identified session.
Appellant accurately characterizes Bhogal’s teachings regarding the
establishment of logical relationships between sequences of edits so that
dependencies among edits can be identified such that related changes can be
reverted (undone) together. Bhogal 3:39–52. Moreover, even when showing
a selected edit in the forefront of the undo history (id. at 9:27–37, Figs. 3–5 )
or filtering the set of edited changes (id. at 14:64–67, Fig. 8B), no identified
session is moved to the top of the stack. Thus, Bhogal does not percolate an
identified session in the manner recited.
The Examiner alternatively finds that Li “teaches any selected object,
in any order, may have its most recent modification undone.” Ans. 5 (citing
Li ¶ 62). But we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not
show that Li cures the noted deficiency of Bhogal. Reply Br. 7. Rather than
teaching the percolation of an identified session to the top of a modified
stack, Li teaches that collected information about a modification and how it
may be undone is “stored in an unbalanced tree structure.” Id.; Li ¶ 11,
Fig. 16. Even though the Examiner is correct that Li allows different objects
to be selected for purposes of having their modifications undone, the
Examiner does not identify any teaching in Li directed to the use of
identified session percolation in carrying out this objective.
Claim 1 recites a particular manner for how an edit to a selected object
can be undone even when it was not the most recent edit in the document
Appeal 2019-005830
Application 14/549,952

6

containing the selected object. But the Examiner does not show that either
Bhogal or Li, even in combination with each other, teach or suggest the
claimed manner of providing for object-centric undo functionality.
Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner’s findings do not
show that the combination of Bhogal and Li teaches or suggests the
percolating limitations of recitations [1] and [4].
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claim 1, or claims 2–20, which contain similar recitations.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Bhogal, Li 1–20
REVERSED