Ex Parte Voliter

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 6, 2017

12350416 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 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.
12/350,416 01/08/2009 Robert Tyler Voliter 58083/368266 B909 6868
72058 7590 02/08/2017
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
HUDA, MOHAMMED NURUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2191
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2017 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):
ipefiling @ kilpatrickstockton .com
jlhice@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT TYLER VOLITER
Appeal 2015-0079861
Application 12/350,416
Technology Center 2100
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—20, 23—26, 28—33, and 35—39, which are all of
the pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction over these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Claims 2, 21, 22, 27, and 34 have been canceled. (Final Act. 2.)
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
Introduction
According to Appellant, the invention allows “a runtime environment
to link to an editing environment.” (Abs.) In particular:
An object or other feature may be identified for editing in a
runtime environment using a specific tool or gesture. Given an
identified object, an appropriate source object and/or editing
application may be identified and the editing application may be
launched for editing the identified object or source object.
Similarly, given an identified state, an editing application may be
launched to provide the application for editing in the identified
state. In some cases, after any editing of an application feature,
the runtime environment receives and incorporates the edited
feature. The user then sees the revised features in the runtime
without having to re-launch and manually return to the specific
application state, object, or other feature that was edited. The
ability to edit the features of a running application provides
various benefits and can facilitate testing of an application’s
features.
(Id.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer implemented method comprising:
identifying, by an editing application executed by a
processor, a feature of a runtime version of a first application for
editing in response to receiving a selection of the feature,
wherein the feature is a part of the first application running in a
runtime environment and the selection of the feature is received
in the runtime environment, wherein the first application running
in the runtime environment receives inputs and performs
operations in response to the inputs;
identifying, by the editing application, a second
application of a development environment for editing the feature
2
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
in response to identifying the feature in the runtime version of
the first application;
providing, by the editing application, the identified feature
to the second application; and
receiving, by the editing application, an edited version of
the identified feature from the second application and
incorporating the edited version of the identified feature into the
first application that is running in the runtime environment.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Evans et al. US 2005/0028137 A1 Feb. 3, 2005
Eldrige et al. US 2006/0206866 Al Sept. 14, 2006
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3—13, 16, 19—20, 23—26, 28—33, and 35—39 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Eldrige. (Final Act. 3—24.)
Claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Eldrige and Evans. (Final Act. 24—29.)
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Eldrige discloses all of
the limitations of independent claim 1.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding Eldrige discloses all of
the limitations of dependent claims 35, 37, and 38.
3
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3—
33) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. (Ans. 3—43.) We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we highlight the following for
emphasis.3
A. Claims 1, 3—20, 23—26, 28—33, 36, and 39
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because Eldrige
“fails to disclose a runtime environment and a development environment.”
(App. Br. 8 (emphasis added).) In particular, Appellant argues “[njothing in
Eldrige discloses that the object is selected for editing via a runtime
environment for editing in a development environment,” because according
to Appellant “the editors and the objects are in the same environment."
(App. Br. 9-10 (emphasis added).) In the Reply Brief, Appellant does not
dispute that Eldrige discloses editing an object “at runtime,” but argues “the
object and the editor are in the same environment and the object is edited by
the editor in that same environment (e.g., at runtime).” (Reply Br. 4
(emphasis added).) In other words, Appellant’s challenges to the Examiner’s
findings are premised on reading Eldrige as failing to disclose both a
“runtime environment” (which Appellant does not dispute is disclosed by
3 Only those arguments made by Appellant have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellant did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
Eldrige) and a “development environment for editing the feature in response
to identifying the feature in the runtime version of the first application,” as
recited in claim 1.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error because it is
premised on an unduly narrow reading of Eldrige. As the Examiner finds,
and we agree, Eldrige discloses that a user selects “an object of interest. . .
at runtime, for editing by an external process . . . wherein the “external
process used for editing the feature constitutes the second application in a
development environment represented by the configuration apparatus or
Configurator . . . (Ans. 31—32 (emphasis added).) In particular, Eldrige
discloses:
A configuration apparatus, according to further aspects of the
invention, maintains a model made up of objects that represent
entities in the control system or the system controlled by it.
Among the objects are composite objects made up of other
objects of types suitable for inclusion in the model independent
of the composite objects. The composite objects are defined by
definition objects that can be changed, e.g., using an editor or
other applications program. These changes carry through to the
composite object, regardless of whether the changes are made
after the composite objects are created.
(Eldrige 1 56 (emphasis added).) Eldrige further discloses that a user may
make a change to an object wherein “the online version is edited via an
external process.” (Eldrige 1779 (emphasis added).) Appellant
acknowledges this disclosure in Eldrige, but argues that it merely discloses
“a check in (online) and check out (offline) process to control versions of an
object,” wherein “both the offline version and the editor exist in the same
environment.” (Reply Br. 6.) We disagree that Eldrige’s disclosure is as
limited as Appellant argues. As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Eldrige
5
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
discloses that “the user is able to change the object(s) in the running, or
online, database via the external process . . . (Eldrige 1779; Ans. 33—34.)
Eldrige also discloses that “changes can be made simultaneously to both the
online and offline versions of an object.” (Eldridge 1781; Ans. 33—34.)
In short, Appellant does not offer persuasive argument that the
Examiner erred in finding that Eldrige’s disclosure of an “external process”
for editing objects identified at runtime falls within the scope of
“identifying, by the editing application, a second application of a
development environment for editing the feature in response to identifying
the feature in the runtime version of the first application,” as recited in claim
1. We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s additional argument that the
Examiner’s findings are based on “combining] isolated features and
ignoring] the connections between the claimed elements.” (App. Br. 11.)
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, the Examiner has “cited the apparently
isolated but relevant paragraphs of Eldrige, as they teach the limitations
arranged and combined in the same way as recited by [Appellant] in the
claims.” (Ans. 35—36; see also Ans. 37—38.)
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and we,
therefore, sustain that rejection. Appellant argues independent claims 16,
26, and 33 collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 8—14.) Accordingly, we also
sustain the rejection of independent claims 16, 26, and 33 for the reasons
stated above with regard to independent claim 1. Separate patentability is
also not argued for dependent claims 3—13, 19, 20, 23—25, 28—33, 36, and
39, which also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Eldrige. (App.
6
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
Br. 14.) Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those
claims.
Dependent claims 14, 15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Eldrige and an additional reference (Evans). Appellant does
not, however, argue these claims separately from independent claims 1 and
16, from which they depend. (App. Br. 14.) Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above with regard to
independent claims 1 and 16.
B. Claims 35, 37, and 38
Claims 35 and 37 each depend from claim 1, and add recitations that
“the second application is identified using a mapping accessible via the first
application . . . .” (App. Br. 24 (Claims App’x).) As to both claims,
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because “any mapping
Eldrige may use relates to a source object and a destination object, rather
than a mapping between applications or between an object and an
application.” (App. Br. 15, 16.) We disagree. As the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Eldrige discloses “a mapping of object type to the appropriate
editor”:
Eldrige (e.g., pars [0076] and [0295]-[0297]) teaches a specific
control type is used to edit the value attribute by any application,
whether it is display in a property sheet, or in a spreadsheet
format. Also, Eldrige (e.g., par [0633]) teaches each editor
provides a graphical user interface (GUI) to allow the user to edit
one or more objects, each object being associated with one or
more object types. A central view registry keeps a list of views
for each object type, and for each view, the name of the editor
that implements the GUI for it.
(Ans. 40.)
7
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
Eldrige further discloses:
A configuration apparatus, according to further aspects of the
invention, maintains objects that represent entities in the control
system, the system controlled by it, a control level hierarchy
and/or the configuration apparatus itself. At least a selected
object includes an edit control type identifier. An editor or other
functionality permits editing of at least the selected object. To
this end, it presents the object for editing using an edit control
that is based on the edit control type identifier. An edit control,
according to aspects of the invention, includes a dialog box, list
box, edit box, check box, or a combo box. It can also include a
cell in a spreadsheet or property sheet.
(Eldrige 1 64 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 41^42.)
Appellant, however, argues Eldrige’s disclosure of an edit control
“that can include a cell in a spreadsheet” is just about “transferring
parameters and not about identifying an editor.” (App. Br. 8.) We disagree.
Appellant does not address the portion of Eldrige that discloses an “edit
control type identifier” that allows an object to be presented for editing using
the appropriate edit control. (Eldrige 1 64.) Eldrige further discloses
“[wjhen a user designates an object of interest, e.g., via a mouse click or
other selection mechanism, an aspect of it is presented for editing using an
edit control based on the edit control type identifier provided with the
object.” (Eldrige 1 66 (emphasis added).)
Claim 38 also depends from claim 1, and adds a limitation similar to
those stated in claims 35 and 37—namely, “wherein the second application
is identified using a mapping is stored in metadata for the first application.”
(App. Br. 25 (Claims App’x).) The Examiner finds Eldrige discloses the
limitation of claim 38:
Specifically, Eldrige (e.g., par [0076]) teaches
mappings/conversions stored in a database. Furthermore,
8
Appeal 2015-007986
Application 12/350,416
Eldrige (e.g., par [0633]) teaches each editor provides a graphical
user interface (GUI) to allow the user to edit one or more objects,
each object being associated with one or more object types. A
central view registry keeps a list of views for each object type,
and for each view, the name of the editor that implements the
GUI for it. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention would recognize the above teaching of Eldrige
as a mapping of object type to the appropriate editor being stored
in a database.
(Ans. 43.)
In arguing the Examiner’s findings are in error as to claim 38,
Appellant presents the same argument presented for claims 35 and 37 (App.
Br. 16), which we have found unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 35, 37, and 38, and we,
therefore, sustain that rejection.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3—20,
23—26, 28—33, and 35—39 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9