Ex Parte Gall et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 15, 2017

13350252 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 15, 2017)

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.
13/350,252 01/13/2012 Michael Gall 334835.01 5196
69316 7590 11/17/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
RONI, SYED A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL GALL and
MICHAEL FRUERGAARD PONTOPPIDAN
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
Technology Center 2100
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to subscriber-based
event subscription. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of handling events raised
by a publisher, using a computer with a processor,
comprising:
detecting an event raised by the publisher;
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
identifying a program entity, by identifying an event
handler attribute, on the program entity itself, indicative of the
program entity subscribing to the event, as an event handler; and
invoking the identified event handler based on the event.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Newport US 2006/0161907 A1 July 20,2006
Clark US 2011/0219384 A1 Sept. 8,2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 9-12, and 14—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Clark. Final Act. 3—11.
Claims 7, 8, 13, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Clark and Newport. Final Act.
12-18.
ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection
The Examiner cites paragraphs 22, 28, 34—36, and 38-40 of Clark as
disclosing “identifying a program entity, by identifying an event handler
attribute, on the program entity itself, indicative of the program entity
subscribing to the event, as an event handler,” as recited in independent
claim 1 (“the identifying limitation”) and “a search component that searches
the entity store when the publishing entity raises the event to identify the
program entity that has the associated event handler attribute attached to the
program entity itself,” as recited in independent claim 10 (“the search
component limitation”). Final Act. 3—5, 7—9. The cited portion in paragraph
2
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
34 of Clark discloses that “software application 105 may send event 115 to
event listeners X, Y, and Z (116X, 116Y and 116Z, respectively) in cases
where those event listeners are indicated by data store 110 as being
registered to receive notification when event 115 has occurred.” Neither this
portion nor the remaining cited portions of Clark include an explicit
disclosure of an attribute. See generally Clark || 22, 28, 34-40. As such,
we understand the Examiner’s position to be based on the theory that the
claimed “event hander attribute” is inherent in Clark. See generally Final
Act.; see generally Ans.
With respect to the event handler attribute, the Examiner finds that
Clark teaches that
[T]he database stores the event listener of software object
including information indicating the event listener that is
configured to listen/handles a particular event. Thus, the event
listener must have an event handler attribute that indicates that
the particular event listener subscribe to handle the event raised
by the software application!)]
Final Act. 8 (emphasis added). The Examiner further finds that
[T]he event listeners, as disclosed in Clark, are being searched
based on event types that the event listeners registered or
subscribed to handle. For example, there are two even[t]
listeners; event listener A1 and event listener B1 registered or
subscribed in a database to be notified whenever even[t]s i.e.,
event type A1 and event type B1 triggers by an application
respectively. Thus, the event listener A1 must have the event
handler attribute of event type B1 indicative of the event handler
A1 registered or subscribed to handle the event type A1 and the
event listener B1 must have the event handler attribute of the
event type B1 indicative of the event handler B1 registering or
subscribing to handle the event type B1.
Ans. 19 (emphases added).
3
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
Appellants distinguish the claimed inventions recited respectively in
independent claims 1 and 10 by arguing that, “in both Newport and Clark, in
order to subscribe to an event, the subscribing entity must register with a
registration system,” and “when the event is raised, the system looks up, in
the registration system, which different subscribers are to be notified.” Br.
6. Appellants contend that Clark’s event listeners 116 X, Y, and Z are
disclosed as being identified by registration-based systems, and in Newport
as well, which is different from “the program entity . . . ha[ving], itself, an
event handler attribute that indicates that the program entity wishes to
subscribe to a given event.” Id.
As we address anticipation first, we consider only the arguments made
with respect to Clark. Appellants argue that Clark’s event listeners 116 X,
Y, and Z do not have an event handler attribute, nor are they examined to
identify an attribute on the event listener that indicates that the event listener
is subscribing to a particular event. Id. at 7—8.
We agree with Appellants that Clark does not disclose, expressly or
inherently, the claimed “event handler attribute” recited in independent
claims 1 and 10 for the reasons that follow. To establish inherency,
the extrinsic evidence must make clear that the missing
descriptive matter is necessarily present in the thing described in
the reference, and that it would be so recognized by persons of
ordinary skill. Inherency, however, may not be established
by probabilities or possibilities. The mere fact that a certain thing
may result from a given set of circumstances is not sufficient.
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citations and internal
quotations omitted). In relying upon the theory of inherency, the examiner
must provide a basis in fact and/or technical reasoning to reasonably support
the determination that the allegedly inherent characteristic necessarily flows
4
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
from the teachings of the applied prior art. Ex parte Levy, 17 USPQ2d 1461,
1464 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). In the present case, there is insufficient
basis in fact or technical reasoning to support the conclusion that Clark
inherently discloses the claimed “event handler attribute” because the
Examiner does not explain why Clark’s event listeners 116 X, Y, and Z
“must” have an attribute that identifies which event the event listeners are
triggered to handle, particularly in light of the fact that this information is
disclosed in Clark as being registered in data store 110.
Appellants’ contention that Clark is distinguishable because it
discloses a registration based system is persuasive with respect to
independent claim 1. Clark is not demonstrated to necessarily disclose an
event handler attribute on the event listener itself. See Robertson, 169 F.3d
at 745. More particularly, the finding that a listener must have an event
handler attribute is not premised on the requisite basis in fact or technical
reasoning that would eliminate the possibility that Clark’s method could rely
instead on a query of events in the data store to identify an event listener
corresponding to a particular event. See id.', see Levy, 17 USPQ2d at 1464.
Indeed, Clark discloses that, “[a]s a user or developer may change the
associated event listeners for any software module, features or application, at
substantially any time, checking the data store each time the module is
started ensures that the latest indication of event listeners is used.” Clark
134 (emphasis added). Clark further discloses that “because the event
listeners for each software portion are stored in the database, the developers
of the various software portions do not have to include an indication of
which listeners are to listen for given events.” Id. f 40 (emphasis added).
Not only does Clark disclose registering correspondences between events
5
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
and event listeners in a data store, but the cited portions of Clark suggest that
the registration based system would be preferable to an attribute “on” or
“attached” to an event listener itself, which we discuss below in connection
with our analysis of the obviousness rejection.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that Clark does not disclose, expressly or inherently, the “identifying”
limitation recited in claim 1 or the “search component” recited in claim 10.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 10,
nor the rejection of dependent claims 2—6, 9, 11, 12, and 14—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by Clark. We also do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, and 13 for
obviousness over Clark and Newport, as Newport was not applied to cure
the deficiencies noted with respect to independent claims 1 and 10, from
which claims 7, 8, and 13 depend, respectively.
Obviousness Rejection
With respect to independent claim 20, the Examiner relies on
substantially the same portions of Clark cited in connection with the
anticipation rejection to teach or suggest “searching the data store to identify
program entities that have an associated event handler attribute, on the
program entities themselves, that corresponds to the given event detected,”
as recited in claim 20 (“the searching limitation”). Final Act. 15—18 (citing
Clark || 22, 28, 34—36, and 38-40). The Examiner finds that
The event listeners, as disclosed in Clark, are being searched
based on event types that the event listeners registered or
subscribed to handle. Thus, there is querying of the event
listeners for an event handler attribute to handle the triggered
event and the event handler attribute must in the form of a text
comment.
6
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
Ans. 30.
Appellants argue that Clark does not teach or suggest “listeners are
examined for a subscriber characteristic of any type that indicates the events
they wish to subscribe to.” Br. 15. Instead, Appellants argue, “the listeners
in Clark subscribe to an event by registering with data store 110” and “[t]he
software application 105 searches data store 110 to identity which listeners
are registered for which events.” Id. at 15—16. Appellants also argue
Newton fails to cure the deficiencies of Clark, nor was it relied on for the
same by the Examiner. Id.
Appellants’ arguments persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the art
would not have understood Clark to teach or suggest the claimed “event
handler attribute, on the program entities themselves.” See id. As discussed
above in the Anticipation Rejection section, Clark discloses registering
events in correspondence with event listeners in a data store and checking
the data store to ensure the latest indication of event listeners is used, which
would preclude “the developers of the various software portions . . . [from
needing] to include an indication of which listeners are to listen for given
events.'1'’ Clark 34, 40 (emphasis added). Thus, Clark teaches away from
“an associated event handler attribute, on the program entities themselves”
as recited in claim 20 because Clark suggests that registering
correspondences between events and event listeners in a data store would be
preferable to including an event-specific attribute in or on a segment of
software code.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Clark and Newton
teaches or suggests the “searching” limitation recited in claim 20.
7
Appeal 2015-002268
Application 13/350,252
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Clark and Newton.1
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—20 is reversed.
REVERSED
1 The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 7, 8, and 13 is
addressed above in the Anticipation Rejection section as these claims depend
from independent claims 1 and 10.
8