Ex Parte Sharma et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

12546008 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/546,008 08/24/2009
72058 7590 09/21/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ravish Sharma
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
58083/394894 (B415Cl) 2610
EXAMINER
BELOUSOV, ANDREY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAVISH SHARMA and HEMANT JAGGI
Appeal2017-008358
Application 12/546,008
Technology Center 2100
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-008358
Application 12/546,008
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 4--6, 11-13, 15, 16, 21, and 28-35. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
receiving input applied to an editable document displayed
in an application window for a text editor presented on a
display screen;
based on a plurality of text received as part of the input
applied to the editable document, detecting creation of a file
path from a subset of the text in the editable document as the
subset of the text is received, the file path being a selectable
reference to content stored according to a hierarchical tree in a
repository; and
during creation of the file path:
(i) initiating display of a view related to the
hierarchical tree in a preview window, wherein the view
includes a graphical representation of possible resources
of the hierarchical tree that correspond to the file path in
the editable document; and
(ii) as the file path is modified within the application
window for the editable document, updating the possible
resources of the hierarchical tree in the preview window
to correspond to the modified file path in the editable
document, wherein the preview window indicates an
error when the file path no longer corresponds to a
defined path in the hierarchical tree.
Prior Art
Explorer (Windows Explorer, Microsoft Copyright© 1981-2001).
Word (Microsoft word, Microsoft Copyright© 1983-2003).
2
Appeal2017-008358
Application 12/546,008
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 4---6, 11-13, 15, 16, 21, and 28-35 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Explorer and Word.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "during creation of the file path: initiating display ...
in a preview window ... wherein the preview window indicates an error
when the file path no longer corresponds to a defined path in the hierarchical
tree." Appellants contend that the error generated by the prior art only
occurs after the file path is completed and a user attempts to use the
completed path. App. Br. 13-14. The Examiner finds that indicating an
error after the file path is completed as taught by the prior art still occurs
during creation of the path, because creation of the path ends when the user
is satisfied with the file path. Ans. 5---6. The Examiner does not cite
evidence to support the finding that the scope of "during creation of the file
path" as claimed encompasses after creation of a file path has been
completed but the user is not satisfied.
The Examiner's interpretation of "during creation of the path" is
inconsistent with the language of the claim as a whole. The claimed
"preview window" that "indicates error" is displayed "during creation of the
file path," which occurs "as the subset of text is received." (Emphasis
added). In contrast, the error shown in Figure 3 of Windows is displayed
after the text for the entire file path has already been received.
The Examiner's interpretation of "during creation of the file path" is
also inconsistent with Appellants' Specification, which discloses that
"conventional methods provide no indication (as the user creates the [file
3
Appeal2017-008358
Application 12/546,008
path]) whether the file path currently entered by the user is correct either in
terms of text or format." Spec. 3:9--12. (Emphasis added). Rather,
according to conventional methods, the "user must complete the file path
from memory and then explicitly click on the file path in order to attempt to
open the file to learn whether the recently entered file path is even correct."
Spec. 3:12-14. (Emphasis added).
In contrast to such conventional methods, one embodiment of the
invention provides that "a preview window can allow the user to
dynamically verify a correct file path as the file path is typed." Spec. 5 :24--
25. (Emphasis added). For example, a "preview window generator 150
initiates display of an error message in preview window 170 to notify a user
108 of error in the file path." Spec. 19:25-27. "Thus, if the user enters [an
incorrect] file path ... preview window 170 is updated to include an error
message that informs that user that the file path that is currently being
entered is erroneous." Spec. 20:2-5. (Emphasis added).
We find that Appellants' Specification distinguishes conventional
methods of indicating an error after the file path has already been completed,
from the claimed method of indicating an error "during creation of the file
path" which occurs "as the subset of text [ for the file path] is received." The
scope of "during creation of the file path," read in light of the claim as a
whole and the rest of the Specification, does not encompass any time after
the file path has been completed, even if the completed file path contains an
error, and even if the user is not satisfied. See Phillips v. A WH Corp., 415
F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
The Examiner has not persuasively shown that the prior art teaches
"during creation of the file path: initiating display ... in [a] preview window
4
Appeal2017-008358
Application 12/546,008
[ ofJ an error when the file path no longer corresponds to a defined path in
the hierarchical tree" as recited in claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 11-13, 15, 16, 21,
and 28-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 4--6, 11-13, 15, 16, 21, and 28-35 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5