Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 29, 2021

2020000692 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 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.
15/160,938 05/20/2016 Abraham M. Muchnick P6057-US 3464
108982 7590 06/29/2021
FIG. 1 Patents
116 W. Pacific Avenue
Suite 200
Spokane, WA 99201
EXAMINER
VY, HUNG T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/29/2021 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 ABRAHAM M. MUCHNICK, ERIC A. GEORGE, OLIVER I.
GOLDMAN, ERIC P. SNOWDEN, and JULIAN R. WIXSON
________________

Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
The invention relates to using an action registry to match applications
for editing data. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below with emphases denoting the disputed limitations:
1. A method implemented by a computing device to
match applications for editing content, the method comprising:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Adobe Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

2
presenting, in a first application and via a first editing
interface, content that is edited according to user input received
via the first editing interface;
responsive to an input requesting applications that are
capable of editing a type of the content being presented in the
first application, generating a query that requests identification
of the applications from an action registry, the action registry
configured to maintain information indicating types of content
different applications are capable of editing;
receiving an answer from the action registry that includes
a list of the applications capable of editing the type of content
based on the maintained information;
presenting one or more application indications that
correspond to applications listed in the answer and are different
from the first application; and
responsive to selection of an application indication,
automatically launching a second application corresponding to
the selected application indication to edit the content presented
in the first application, the launching including presenting the
content for editing in the second application via a second editing
interface.
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–12 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
as being anticipated by Yu (US 2013/0326377 A1; published Dec. 5, 2013).
Non-Final Act. 2–7.
The Examiner rejects claims 13–16 and 18–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Yu and Lynch (US
2014/0229839 A1; published Aug. 14, 2014). Non-Final Act. 7–10.
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

3
ANALYSIS
I. Claims 1–10 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
The Examiner finds Yu discloses memory 12 storing a content
presentation application and a content creator uses the content presentation
application to launch a content editing application out of a plurality of
content editing applications, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
“generating a query that requests identification of the applications from an
action registry, the action registry configured to maintain information
indicating types of content different applications are capable of editing”
recited in claim 1. Ans. 12–14 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Yu ¶ 31, Fig. 2B). Moreover, the Examiner finds that
Yu discloses a content creator launching different editing applications
depending on the types of content being edited, which the Examiner maps to
the limitation “receiving an answer from the action registry that includes a
list of the applications capable of editing the type of content based on the
maintained information” recited in claim 1. Ans. 12–14 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21,
27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Yu, Fig. 2B).
Appellant argues that Yu merely discloses presenting a secondary
application via a menu of a primary application rather than the limitations
from the preceding paragraph. Appeal Br. 8–10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 95–97);
Reply Br. 5. We disagree with Appellant.
At the outset, from the cited portions of Appellant’s Specification, we
do not discern any definition of “action registry” that precludes Yu’s
memory 12 from disclosing the limitation “action registry.” Compare Ans.
12–14 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B), with Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec.
¶¶ 95–97). Yu discloses memory 12 (i.e., action registry configured to
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

4
maintain information) storing a content presentation application and a
content creator using the content presentation application to launch (i.e.,
generating a query) a content editing application out of a plurality of content
editing applications, which corresponds to the limitation “generating a query
that requests identification of the applications from an action registry, the
action registry configured to maintain information indicating types of
content different applications are capable of editing” recited in claim 1.
Ans. 12–14 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing
Yu ¶ 31, Fig. 2B). Also, Yu discloses a content creator launching (i.e.,
receiving an answer from the action registry) different editing applications
depending on the types of content being edited, which discloses the
limitation “receiving an answer from the action registry that includes a list of
the applications capable of editing the type of content based on the
maintained information” recited in claim 1. Ans. 12–14 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21,
27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Yu, Fig. 2B).
Appellant does not argue claims 2–10 separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 7–16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
(1) independent claim 1; and (2) dependent claims 2–10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1).
II. Claims 11–16 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
The Examiner finds Yu discloses memory 12 storing a content
presentation application and a content creator uses the content presentation
application to launch a content editing application out of a plurality of
content editing applications wherein the content creator launches different
editing applications depending on the types of content being edited, which
the Examiner maps to the limitation “maintaining information, by an action
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

5
registry, that describes actions that applications registered with the action
registry are capable of performing on different types of data” recited in
claim 11. Ans. 15–18 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act.
3–4 (citing Yu ¶ 31, Fig. 2B).
Appellant argues Yu merely discloses a content creation application
identifies a separate editing application rather than the limitation from the
preceding paragraph. Appeal Br. 10–12 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 95–97); Reply Br.
3. We disagree with Appellant.
Yu discloses memory 12 (i.e., maintaining information, by an action
registry) storing a content presentation application and a content creator uses
the content presentation application to launch a content editing application
out of a plurality of content editing applications wherein the content creator
launches different editing applications depending on the types of content
(i.e., capable of performing on different types of data) being edited, which
discloses the limitation “maintaining information, by an action registry, that
describes actions that applications registered with the action registry are
capable of performing on different types of data” recited in claim 11. Ans.
15–18 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 3–4 (citing Yu
¶ 31, Fig. 2B).
Appellant does not argue claims 12–16 separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 7–16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
(1) independent claim 11; and (2) dependent claims 12–16 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
III. Claims 17–20 Rejected Under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(a)(1) and 103
The Examiner finds Yu discloses memory 12 storing a content
presentation application and a content creator uses the content presentation
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

6
application to launch a content editing application out of a plurality of
content editing applications, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
“maintain the obtained information in the action registry, the maintained
information being usable to answer queries from a primary application”
recited in claim 17. Ans. 18–19 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-
Final Act. 3 (citing Yu ¶ 31, Fig. 2B). Furthermore, the Examiner finds Yu
discloses a content creator launching different editing applications
depending on the types of content being edited, which the Examiner maps to
the limitation “obtain information about editing capabilities of a plurality of
applications for registration with the action registry, the obtained
information indicating different types of data the plurality of applications are
capable of editing” recited in claim 17. Ans. 18–19 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31,
Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Yu, Fig. 2B).
Appellant argues Yu merely discloses a separate editing application is
stored in the content creation application as a predefined data structure such
that the content creation application itself identifies the separate editing
application rather than the limitations from the preceding paragraph. Appeal
Br. 13–15 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 95–97); Reply Br. 2. We disagree with
Appellant.
Yu discloses memory 12 (i.e., maintain the obtained information in
the action registry) storing a content presentation application and a content
creator uses the content presentation application to launch a content editing
application (i.e., the maintained information being usable to answer queries)
out of a plurality of content editing applications, which discloses the
limitation “maintain the obtained information in the action registry, the
maintained information being usable to answer queries from a primary
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

7
application” recited in claim 17. Ans. 18–19 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs.
1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 3 (citing Yu ¶ 31, Fig. 2B). In addition, Yu discloses
a content creator launching different editing applications depending on the
types (i.e., obtain information about editing capabilities) of content being
edited, which discloses the limitation “obtain information about editing
capabilities of a plurality of applications for registration with the action
registry, the obtained information indicating different types of data the
plurality of applications are capable of editing” recited in claim 17. Ans.
18–19 (citing Yu ¶¶ 21, 27, 31, Figs. 1, 2B); Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Yu,
Fig. 2B).
Appellant does not argue claims 18–20 separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 7–16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner rejection of
(1) independent claim 17; and (2) dependent claims 18–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102(a)(1) and 103.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to
make, in the Briefs, have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 17 102(a)(1) Yu 1–12, 17
13–16, 18–
20
103 Yu, Lynch 13–16, 18–
20

Overall
Outcome
1–20
Appeal 2020-000692
Application 15/160,938

8
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED