10831529 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011)

Ex Parte Schang

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJan 24, 2011

10831529 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 24, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte JEFFREY SCHANG ____________________ Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before: JOHN A. JEFFERY, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 2 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2010). We REVERSE. Introduction According to Appellant, the invention is a system and method for editing environments, such as design and code views, each with its own undo/redo stacks. More specifically, a cross-view undo/redo for multi-view environments is described. (Abstract and Spec. 1 [0002]). STATEMENT OF CASE Exemplary Claim(s) Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method for restoring one or more code view edits while operating in a design view of a dual-view editing environment, said method comprising: encapsulating said one or more code view edits into an edit object, responsive to a user moving from said code view to said design view; associating said edit object with a design edit element stored on a design view edit stack; receiving a command from said user in said design view to restore said one or more code view edits; unpacking said one or more code view edits from said edit object responsive to said command; and Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 3 loading said one or more code view edits into a code view edit stack. Prior Art The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Timbol US 6,237,135 May 22, 2001 Wang Mohamed US 2002/0059345 A1 US 2004/0205663 A1 May 16, 2002 Oct. 14, 2004 (filed June 7, 2002) REJECTIONS Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Mohamed, Timbol, and Wang. (Ans. 3). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1-22 Appellant asserts his invention is not obvious over Mohamed, Timbol and Wang because the combination of references does not teach or suggest (i) encapsulating one or more code view edits into an edit object, responsive to a user moving from a code view to a design view, as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 19, or (ii) means for wrapping at least code view edit into a code edit object when focus of a multi-view editing environment moves from a code view to a design view as recited in independent claim 9 (App. Br. 12-16). Instead, according to Appellant, Timbol does not teach encapsulating code view edits into an edit object (bean component) but instead stores the Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 4 resulting property values that result from edits (App. Br. 12 and Reply 4). Additionally, Appellant argues the encapsulating is not performed “responsive to a user moving from said code view to said design view” (App. Br. 13 and Reply 4). In response, the Examiner maintains that the applied references either alone or in combination teach all of the elements of the appealed claims. Specifically, the Examiner maintains Timbol teaches encapsulating code view edits into an edit object and unpacking view edits from the edit object through the JAVA BEAN encapsulating Code Generation Wizard (Ans. 3, 4, 14, and 15). Specifically, the Examiner finds a user can add and modify properties using an edit wizard (Ans. 15). In response to the user’s selection, the code generation would encapsulate and generate the user selected properties (id.). The properties would be displayed in the design phase of the process (id.). The Examiner then concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine encapsulating an edit object into code as taught by Timbol into the system of Mohamed’s code and design view edits (Ans. 4). Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mohamed and Timbol teaches or suggests “encapsulating said one or more code view edits into an edit object, responsive to a user moving from said code view to said design view,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 9, 11, and 19? Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 5 FINDINGS OF FACT (FF) Timbol (1) Timbol teaches a method and system for maintaining java beans components. A “bean” component is generated by invoking a wizard-based interface that implements methodology that automatically generates and manages the bean. A user, using the wizard, may specify information about the bean. The system then creates a bean and displays the source code generated for the bean. The user may use visual designers to manage the bean’s events. (Abstract). (2) If a user decides to create a new Java bean component, the user starts the code generation wizard 1201. The code generation wizard collects information from the user about the desired bean. The wizard then generates a basic framework for the component. The user then may decide to add new properties and will then invoke the property engine. An interface to a code generator or Jot 1203 is invoked. The user then inputs sufficient information into a wizard 107 to allow a user to populate a new property info structure internally and then writes that change to source code. (Col. 19, l. 64 to col. 20, l. 47). ANALYSIS We agree with Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has not shown Timbol teaches or suggests “encapsulating said one or more code view edits into an edit object, responsive to a user moving from said code view to said design view” (claims 1 and commensurately recited claims 9 and 19) or “means for wrapping at least code view edit into a code edit Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 6 object when focus of a multi-view editing environment moves from a code view to a design view” (claim 11). We find that Timbol’s teaching of modifying properties of the bean (FF 1 and FF 2) is not code view edits being encapsulated into an edit object or code view edits being wrapped into a code edit object. The Examiner has not fully explained how the results of the edits to properties of the Java bean are code view edits. Nor has the Examiner explained how these Java bean property edits are encapsulated or wrapped into an edit object (i) responsive to a user’s movement from a code view to a design view (claims 1 and commensurately recited claims 9 and 19) or (ii) when the focus of the multi- view editing environment moves from the code view to the design view (claim 11). The Examiner points to several sections of Timbol as disclosing the recited limitations, but provides limited explanation as to how these descriptions teach or suggest the recited limitations (Ans. 3, 4, 14, and 15). We find the gap between the disputed claim limitations and the Examiner’s analysis is too great to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. Indeed, we find the Examiner has not fully developed the record and thus, we are left to speculate to bridge that gap. Specifically, it is not clear to us if the Examiner is finding that the user interface into which the user inputs properties about the desired bean is to represent the code view. If so, this is not a code view. Moreover, it is unclear what feature of Timbol the Examiner finds teaches or suggests the edit object. Thus, the Examiner provides a limited analysis which would require us to speculate to affirm the Examiner. We decline to engage in speculation. As a result, the Examiner has not shown the combination of Mohamed and Timbol teaches or suggests (i) “encapsulating said one or more code view Appeal 2009-005862 Application 10/831,529 7 edits into an edit object, responsive to a user moving from said code view to said design view,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 11 and 19 and (ii) “means for wrapping at least code view edit into a code edit object when focus of a multi-view editing environment moves from a code view to a design view” as recited in independent claim 9. The Examiner has not shown that the combination of Mohamed, Timbol and Wang teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 9, 11, and 19. The Examiner did not remedy the noted deficiency in the showing with respect to claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, and 20-22. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 1-22 for obviousness over Mohamed, Timbol, and Wang. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Mohamed, Timbol, and Wang is reversed. REVERSED erc Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta GA 30309-4530