George, William Brandon. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2020

13335648 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020)

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.
13/335,648 12/22/2011 William Brandon George 058083-0857843(B1438US01) 7886
72058 7590 10/05/2020
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Adobe
Adobe Systems, Inc. 58083
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309-4530
EXAMINER
YUN, CARINA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2020 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM BRANDON GEORGE and KEVIN G. SMITH
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–18, 20, 21, 23, 24, and 26–
39. See Final Act. 1. Claims 3, 8, 19, 22, and 25 have been cancelled. See
Appeal Br. 21–26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Systems, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
2 We note the Appeal Brief is not paginated. We number the pages starting
with page 1 on the first page after the Table of Contents.
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods relating to
unsupported user interface actions. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by an application hosted on a computing device,
a user interface event at a user interface of the application,
wherein the application uses an event handling hierarchy of an
unsupported event module and event handlers, wherein the
unsupported event module is installed in the application as a
plug-in;
determining, by the unsupported event module, whether
any of the event handlers is capable of supporting the user
interface event;
in response to determining that the event handlers are
incapable of handling the user interface event, identifying, by the
unsupported event module, that the user interface event is an
unsupported event, wherein operations of the user interface of
the application are unaffected by the unsupported event;
generating, by the unsupported event module, one or more
records comprising information about the user interface event
and an indication that the user interface event is unsupported; and
storing, by the unsupported event module, the one or more
records at the computing device;
transmitting the one or more records from the computing
device to a collection server;
modifying the application on the computing device based
on an analysis of the one or more records and of a plurality of
records collected at the collection server and associated with
instances of the application on a plurality of computing devices,
the modifying comprising an update to the event handling
hierarchy to include an event handler configured to handle the
user interface event and support an additional operation of the
application corresponding to the user interface event.
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wu US 6,741,967 B1 May 25, 2004
Larsson US 2004/0107387 A1 June 3, 2004
Golde US 6,951,022 B1 Sept. 27, 2005
Yavilevich US 7,941,525 B1 May 10, 2011

Brereton, R. G. (1994). Tutorial review. Object oriented programming on
personal computers. The Analyst, 119(10), 2149-2160.
doi:10.1039/an9941902149 (Brereton)

REJECTIONS

Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
37, 38 112 Written Description
1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 15–
17, 20, 21, 23, 33–39
103(a) Brereton, Larsson
Golde, Wu,
6, 11–14, 18 103(a) Brereton, Larsson,
Golde, Wu, ClickTale,
24, 26–32 103(a) Yavilevich, Brereton,
Golde, Wu, Larsson

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
With the exception of the written-description rejection of claim 37, we are
persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

4
Written-Description Rejections
Claim 37
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide written-
description support for the phrase “an attribute updatable by the plurality of
event handlers” as recited in claim 37. Final Act. 3; see also id. at 22;
Ans. 27. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “although the specification
describes an attribute associate with the user interface event may indicate
that the event has been handled, it does not state that these attributes are
updated by the plurality of event handlers.” Ans. 27 (emphasis in original).
The Examiner further finds that although “[t]he attributes may be checked
once . . . this does not mean they are updated by the event handlers.” Id.
Rather, the Examiner finds that “[t]here is no way to determine if the
attributes are updated by the event handlers or if it is the same attribute
being checked.” Id.
Appellant argues paragraph 35 of the Specification “describes in part
that ‘an attribute may be associated with the user interface event to indicate
that the user interface event has been handled. In such an embodiment, an
unsupported event handler may check this attribute to determine whether or
not the application handled the event.’” Appeal Br. 7 (quoting Spec. ¶ 35).
Appellant further argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have easily understood that associating an attribute with a
user interface event to indicate that the user interface event and
subsequently checking this attribute to determine whether or not
the application handled the event means that an attribute
indicating that a certain user interface event has not been handled
may later be updated to indicate that the user interface event has
been handled, when applicable.
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

5
Id. (emphasis in original) Appellant also argues that the claims do not
require the attributes to be updated, just that it is “updatable.” Reply Br. 2.
To satisfy the written-description requirement, the disclosure must
reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed
invention as of the filing date. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). Specifically, the
description must “clearly allow persons of ordinary skill in the art to
recognize that [the inventor] invented what is claimed.” Id. (alteration in
original) (quoting Vas-Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563 (Fed.
Cir. 1991)). Thus, an applicant complies with the written-description
requirement “by describing the invention, with all its claimed limitations,
not that which makes it obvious,” and by using “such descriptive means as
words, structures, figures, diagrams, formulas, etc., that set forth the claimed
invention.” Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, (Fed. Cir.
1997). The claimed invention need not be recited in haec verba in the
original specification in order to satisfy the written-description requirement.
Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1352.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. Paragraph 35 of the Specification states that
In such an embodiment, locating one or more unsupported event
handlers at the end of the application’s event handling hierarchy
is sufficient to indicate that the event was not otherwise handled.
In other embodiments where events may be further propagated
after being handled in the application, an attribute may be
associated with the user interface event to indicate that the user
interface event has been handled. In such an embodiment, an
unsupported event handler may check this attribute to determine
whether or not the application handled the event.
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

6
Spec. ¶ 35 (emphasis added). Although the Specification describes an
attribute indicating whether an event had been handled, the Specification is
silent as to how that attribute is associated with the user interface event.
Although it might have been obvious for the event handler to update the
attribute, that is not sufficient for written-description support. See
Lockwood, 107 F.3d at 1572.
Nor do we give any weight to Appellant’s assertion regarding how a
person having ordinary skill in the art would have understood that
paragraph. Appellant cites no evidentiary support for that argument. See
Appeal Br. 7. It is well settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. See Johnston v. IVAC Corp., 885 F.2d 1574, 1581 (Fed.
Cir. 1989) (“Attorney’s argument is no substitute for evidence.”); see also In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not
evidence).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 for
failure to comply with the written-description requirement.

Claim 38
The Examiner finds that the Specification does not provide written-
description support for “the user interface event is received at a location on
the user interface corresponding to a user interface object” and “that the
plurality of event handlers are incapable of supporting the user interface
event” as recited in claim 38. Final Act. 3, 22; Ans. 27–28. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that “[i]ncapable and not handling an event
for recording are different.” Final Act. 22. According to the Examiner, the
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

7
Specification only discloses “events that do not have a corresponding event
handler” but that “does not mean that those handlers are incapable of
supporting the event if they were programmed to handle the event.” Ans.
27–28.
With regard to the location of user interface event, Appellant directs
us to paragraph 36 of the Specification. Appeal Br. 38; Reply Br. 3. With
regard to incapable, Appellant directs us to paragraph 22 of the
Specification. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellant, “if an
application includes event handlers designed to support various user
interface events, but none of those event handlers corresponds to a particular
type of user interface event” as described in paragraph 22, “it follows that
the included event handlers are not capable of supporting that particular type
of event.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant also argues that “the mere possibility of
programming an object in a different way does not mean that the object is
capable of performing a particular action without such programming being
present.” Reply Br. 3.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
Paragraph 36 of the Specification describes clicking a button on interface.
The button is at a specific location on the interface and the click is a user
interface event that takes place at that location. Accordingly, the
Specification provides written-description support for “the user interface
event is received at a location on the user interface corresponding to a user
interface object” as recited in claim 38.
Additionally, paragraph 22 of the Specification provides sufficient
support for “user interface events” that are not supported by the application.
The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how an event which is not
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

8
supported by the application is different from having a “plurality of event
handlers are [that] incapable of supporting the user interface event” as
recited in claim 38. Although the Examiner hypothesizes that in an alternate
version the application described in the Specification could be modified such
that it no longer provided support for the claim limitation, we focus on our
analysis on the Specification as written.
Additionally, it is inapposite that the Specification does not use the
word “incapable.” The claimed invention need not be recited in haec verba
in the original specification in order to satisfy the written-description
requirement. Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1353.
Accordingly, based on the current record, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 38 for failing to comply with the written description
requirement.

Obviousness Rejections
Claim 1 recites “determining, by the unsupported event module,
whether any of the event handlers is capable of supporting the user interface
event” and “in response to determining that the event handlers are incapable
of handling the user interface event, identifying, by the unsupported event
module, that the user interface event is an unsupported event, wherein
operations of the user interface of the application are unaffected by the
unsupported event.” Appeal Br. 21. The Examiner finds Brereton teaches
those limitations. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Brereton 2154). Alternatively, the
Examiner finds Brereton teaches an “unsupported event” and Larsson
teaches “the ability to store and capture events.” Ans. 28–29 (citing
Brereton 2154; Larsson ¶ 9). According to the Examiner, “it is the
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

9
combination of references which yield the claimed invention, as Larsson
captures all the exception, including unhandled ones, which is consistent
with applicant’s specification.” Id. at 29.
Appellant argues “Brereton generally explains the concept of an
event, but makes no mention of an ‘unsupported event module.’” Appeal
Br. 10 (emphasis in original) (discussing Brereton 2153). Appellant further
argues that “Brereton explains that an event is passed along through a
hierarchy of event handlers until the appropriate event handler recognizes
and services the event. If an event is not recognized by any event handler, it
is simply ignored.” Id. (emphasis in original) (discussing Brereton 2154).
Appellant further argues that Larsson does not cure Brereton’s
deficiency. See Appeal Br. 11–13. More specifically, Appellant argues
Larsson describes a database that stores “unhandled
exceptions.” These exceptions relate to exceptions and bugs in
the code that result in the crash of an application. In other words,
the systems and methods disclosed by Larsson cannot record and
report these “unhandled exceptions” unless a crash of the
application occurs, i.e., the application stops working and its user
interface becomes inoperable. For example, Larsson at [0012]-
[0013] describes how the information recorded by the system is
used to generate error reports and that “[]the error reports may
assist the developer in correcting errors occurring within the
client computer 2.”
Id. at 11–12 (footnotes omitted). According to Appellant, “[t]he system of
Larsson is not designed to and is not capable of detecting and taking action
upon unsupported user interface events that occur with no change to the
operations of the software application.” Id. at 12.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred
in finding Brereton alone or Brereton in combination with Larsson teaches
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

10
the recited “unsupported event module.” Specifically, we agree with
Appellant that Brereton simply teaches ignoring unsupported user interface
events and does not teach or suggest an unsupported event module that
determines “whether any of the event handlers is capable of supporting
the user interface event” and identifies unsupported events as recited in
claim 1. See Brereton 2154 (“Some objects do not have associated event
handlers. . . . Note that if there is no event handler for a given action at
higher levels of the hierarchy, the event is ignored.” (emphasis added)).
We similarly agree with Appellant that Larsson does not cure that
deficiency. Although the Examiner finds that “Larsson teaches the ability to
store and capture events, such as the unsupported events” (Ans. 29 (citing
Larsson ¶ 9)), the Examiner does not sufficiently explain how Larsson,
either alone or in combination with Brereton, teaches all of the requirements
of the unsupported event module recited in claim 1. Specifically, the cited
portion of Larsson is silent as to how an unsupported event is determined.
That is, the cited portion of Larsson is silent as to whether an unsupported
event is determined because it is ignored (like in Brereton) or that an
unsupported event modules “determin[es] . . . whether any of the event
handlers is capable of supporting the user interface event” as recited in
claim 1. Accordingly, the Examiner has not supplied a sufficient factual
basis to support the rejection. See In re Caveney, 761 F.2d 671, 674 (Fed.
Cir. 1985) (Examiner’s burden of proving non-patentability is by a
preponderance of the evidence); see also In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017
(CCPA 1967) (“The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the
factual basis for its rejection. It may not, because it may doubt that the
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

11
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or
hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.”).
Therefore, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 10 and 16, which
recite limitations commensurate in scope to the disputed limitations
discussed above, and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17, 20, 21, 23, and
33–39.
Moreover, because the Examiner has not shown that Yavilevich or
ClickTale cures the foregoing deficiencies regarding the rejection of the
independent claims, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 6, 11–14, 18, 24, and 26–32 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 37 for failing to comply with the
written description requirement is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 38 for failing to comply with the
written description requirement is reversed.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–7, 9–18, 20, 21, 23, 24,
and 26–39 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
37, 38 112 Written
Description
37 38
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
9, 10, 15–
17, 20, 21,
23, 33–39
103(a) Brereton, Larsson,
Golde, Wu
1, 2, 4, 5, 7,
9, 10, 15–
17, 20, 21,
23, 33–39
Appeal 2019-003362
Application 13/335,648

12
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
6, 11–14, 18 103(a) Brereton, Larsson,
Golde, Wu,
ClickTale
6, 11–14, 18
24, 26–32 103(a) Yavilevich,
Brereton, Golde,
Wu, Larsson
24, 26–32
Overall
Outcome
37 1, 2, 4–7, 9–
18, 20, 21,
23, 24, 26–
36, 38, 39

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART