Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2022

2020006792 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2022)

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. 15/813,254 11/15/2017 Amy Leigh Rose RPS920170094- US-NP 18-44 1728 124906 7590 02/11/2022 The Small Patent Law Group LLC 1423 Strassner Dr. Suite 100 Brentwood, MO 63144 EXAMINER DENG, ANNA CHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2191 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/11/2022 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): docket@splglaw.com jleclair@splglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte AMY LEIGH ROSE and JOSHUA MENHAZ RAHMAN ____________ Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, and 13-24. Final Act. 2;2 see infra note 4 (discussing claims 2 and 12). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. Appeal Br. 3. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed February 11, 2020); the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 8, 2019), 1st Advisory Action (“1st Adv. Act.,” filed December 23, 2019), 2nd Advisory Action (“2nd Adv. Act.,” filed February 25, 2020), and the Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 1, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed November 15, 2017). Rather than repeat the Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed methods, systems, and computer program products relate to controlling one or more processors configured with executable instructions to launch a subject application and implement functionality of user interactive (UI) resources defined by the subject application. The methods, systems and program products identify a UI element provided on a first UI resource from the UI resources and a context indicator associated with the UI element. The methods, systems and program products generate one or more examination challenges for the UI element based on the context indicator, tests for vulnerabilities related to the UI element by applying the examination challenges to the UI elements. Spec., Abstr. The Specification discloses, “the terms ‘user interface element’ or ‘UI element’ refer to objects, icons, elements, functionality, and otherwise items that are presented on a UI resource to enable user interaction, selection, navigation, touch functionality and the like in connection with implementing the software application.” Id. ¶ 28 (emphasis added). Claims 1-24 are pending. Final Act. 2. Claims 1, 10, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 45 (claim 1), 46-47 (claim 10), 48 (claim 17) (Claims App.). Claims 2-9, 21, and 22 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 11-16, 23, and 24 depend directly or indirectly from claim 10; and claims 18-20 depend directly from claim 17. Id. at 45-49. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative. Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 3 1. A method, comprising: under control of one or more processors configured with executable instructions; launching a subject application in the environment and automatically implementing functionality of user interactive (UI) resources defined by the subject application; identifying a UI element provided on a first UI resource from the UI resources; identifying a context indicator associated with the UI element; generating one or more examination challenges for the UI element based on the context indicator; and testing for vulnerabilities related to the UI element by applying the examination challenges to the UI elements. Id. at 45 (emphases added). Each of independent claims 10 and 17 recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 46, 48; see Final Act. 10, 24. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name3 Reference Issued/Publ’d Filed Arashin US 2008/0155661 A1 June 26, 2008 Dec. 20, 2007 Muth US 2011/0029961 A1 Feb. 3, 2011 Nov. 18, 2009 Dalcher US 2011/0145926 A1 June 16, 2011 Dec. 15, 2009 Futoransky US 2014/0237606 A1 Aug. 21, 2014 Apr. 2, 2014 Schur US 2014/0359371 A1 Dec. 4, 2014 June 3, 2013 Kaplan US 9,195,809 B1 Nov. 24, 2015 Aug. 14, 2014 Sabetta US 2016/0314302 A1 Oct. 27, 2016 Apr. 21, 2015 Schnellinger US 9,830, 203 B2 Nov. 28, 2017 June 11, 2014 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 4 The Examiner rejects: a. claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 114 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan and Schur (Final Act. 2-11); b. claims 5-7, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Arashin (id. at 11-15); c. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Schnellinger (id. at 15-16); d. claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Sabetta (id. at 16-18); e. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, Arashin, and Futoransky (id. at 18-20); f. claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Dalcher5, Schur, Arashin, and Futoransky (id. at 20-27); 4 The Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 2 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan and Schur. Ans. 3; see Final Act. 7-8, 10. 5 As noted above, claim 1 recites, “launching a subject application in the environment.” Appeal Br. 7, 45 (Claims App.) (emphasis added); but see 2nd Adv. Act. 1 (denying entry of the Amendment After Final Action after the filing of the Appeal Brief); cf. 1st Adv. Act. 1 (mailed prior to filing of Appeal Brief, but not addressing entry of amendment). In rejecting claim 17, the Examiner relies on Dalcher to teach or suggest this limitation (Final Act. 23), but the Examiner does not rely on Dalcher in rejecting claim 1 (id. at 3) and asserts this limitation is not present in claim 1 (id. at 31; but see Amendment After Final Action 2 (filed December 6, 2019)). When prosecution resumes, the Examiner and Appellant should determine precisely the language of claim 1 and address this possible inconsistency in the application of Dalcher’s teachings to claim 1 and the possible lack of antecedent basis for “the environment” in claim 1. Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 5 g. claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Dalcher (id. at 27-29); and h. claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, Dalcher, and Muth (id. at 29-30). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Appellant and the Examiner focus their contentions and findings, respectively, on claims 1, 10, and 17, so we do as well. See Appeal Br. 8-9; Ans. 3-6. Because we determine that reversal of the rejection of independent claim 1, as well as the rejections of independent claims 10 and 17, is dispositive, except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss the merits of the rejections of claims 3-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-24 further herein. We address the rejections below. ANALYSIS 1. Non-Obviousness of Claim 1 Over Kaplan and Schur As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan and Schur. Final Act. 3-7. In particular, the Examiner finds that Kaplan teaches or suggests a majority of the limitations recited in claim 1. Id. at 3-5 (citing Kaplan, 3:40-45, 6:6-8, 8:55-58, 11:40-12:54, 18:12-19, Fig. 4); but see supra note 5. The Examiner finds, however, that “[although] Kaplan teaches generating one or more examination challenges for the UI element as recited above, Kaplan does not teach[] identifying a context indicator associated with the UI element, [or generating one or more examination challenges for the UI element] based on the context indicator.” Final Act. 5. Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 6 Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Schur teaches or suggests these missing limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 5-6 (citing Schur ¶¶ 4, 5, 9, 13, 16, 35, 41, 61). In particular, Schur discloses: In some examples, the modeling system 102 includes one or more event listeners 116 to register to actor and model events. These events can include, e.g., an event when an actor clicks on an element, an event when an actor navigates to a URL, and an event when an edge or state is added to the model. Event listeners can be used to implement test oracles searching for certain keywords in text such as “error” or checking if certain user interface elements are visible such as an error pop-up, e.g., after an actor clicked an element and then performed some actions, e.g., taking a screenshot and logging the event. Event listeners can also be used to generate and insert input data for input forms. Schur ¶ 35 (emphasis added); see id. ¶ 61 (“Text can also be used for state distinction[s], and the kind of text that can be used can be restricted to certain keywords, e.g., text that includes ‘status’.” (emphasis added)). Thus, the Examiner finds: Schur teaches generating new test script by determining if a new state comprises at least one interactive element in the user interface (UI) that read on the instant limitation “generating one or more examination challenges for the UI element based on the context indicator”, again, a state is the context indicator, the test script is examination challenges for the UI element. Ans. 10 (italics omitted, underlining added); see id. at 9 (“Schur teaches identifying a state (text [may] be used for state distinction) associated with a UI event that is interpreted as identifying a context indicator associated with the UI element, here a state read on a context indicator, a UI event or a UI view read on a UI element.” (italics omitted, underlining added). Moreover, the Examiner finds a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Kaplan and Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 7 Schur to achieve the methods of claim 1. Final Act. 6-7. In particular, the Examiner finds: The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to provide methods, systems, and computer-readable storage media determining a behavior model of a computing system under test, actions include executing using a user interface of a computing [system under test (SUT)], an initial test script on the SUT (Schur, Abstract). Id. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Schur’s keywords, such as “error” and “status,” do not teach or suggest the “context indicator,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 20-21. For the reasons given below, we agree with Appellant. “Both anticipation under § 102 and obviousness under § 103 are two- step inquiries. The first step in both analyses is a proper construction of the claims . . .. The second step in the analyses requires a comparison of the properly construed claim to the prior art.” Medichem, S.A. v. Rolabo, S.L., 353 F.3d 928, 933 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (internal citations omitted); see In re Geerdes, 491 F.2d 1260, 1262 (CCPA 1974) (“Before considering the rejections . . ., we must first [determine the scope of] the claims . . ..”). During examination of a patent application, the Office applies to the verbiage of the proposed claims the broadest reasonable meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the applicant’s specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) Claim 1 recites, “identifying a context indicator associated with the UI element.” Appeal Br. 45 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). The Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 8 Specification discloses several examples of a “context indicator.” See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 7, 39, 40, 43. In particular, the Specification discloses: For example, the processors may determine a nature or type of the UI element. Various examples of UI elements are provided above. The processors identify the context indicator based on various information from the subject application. For example, the processors may identify descriptive information presented on a page in connection with a UI element. The descriptive information may describe the purpose of the UI element and/or provide instructions to the user regarding how to user the UI element. Additionally or alternatively, the processors may identify the context indicator based on a data structure within the XML structure that designates the type of information to be entered in the UI element. For example, the UI element may be assigned an ASCII data structure, a data structure associated with U.S. currency, text only, graphics, audio and the like. Id. ¶ 39 (emphases added). Further, the Specification discloses: Additionally or alternatively, the context indicator may be identified based on information in the XML structure of the subject application that is not directly related to the current UI element. For example, the processors may analyze context related information for all or multiple UI elements and other portions of the UI resource in order to identify a context indicator for the current UI element. Id. ¶ 40 (emphasis added). The Specification then provides specific examples of “content indicators” involving navigational elements, such as scroll icons and buttons, and application types, such a monetary applications and email. Id. ¶ 43. In addition, the Specification discloses, the UI resource represents a view, and the identifying the context indicator comprises identifying descriptive information presented on the view in connection with the UI element. The descriptive information comprises one or more of i) describing a Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 9 purpose of the UI element or ii) providing instructions regarding how to use the UI element. Spec. ¶ 7; see id. ¶ 39 (quoted above). This particular embodiment is recited in dependent claims 2 and 12, which the Examiner finds distinguishable over the applied references. Thus, the “context indicator” recited in claims 1 and 10 encompasses, but must be broader than, this embodiment recited in dependent claims 2 and 12. See Pfizer, Inc. v. Ranbaxy Labs., Ltd., 457 F.3d 1284, 1291-92 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding a dependent claim in a patent invalid for failure to “‘specify a further limitation of the subject matter’ of the [independent] claim to which [the dependent claim] refers”). Based on the ordinary language of claim 1 and the enlightenment afforded by the written description contained in the Specification, as well as differentiation from the allowable dependent claims, we agree with Appellant that the “context indicator” means at least “the nature or type of the UI element,” where “nature or type” encompasses the purpose and use of the UI element. Appeal Br. 21 (“Appellant has clearly and consistently defined the term ‘context indicator’ as an indicator of the nature or type of the UI element.”). Appellant asserts, the Office Action cites identifying candidate functional events by extracting a document object model for each of a plurality of different views and identifying interactive HTML elements as candidate functional events, using event listeners to implement test oracles for searching for keywords in text such as “error”, and using text restricted to a certain keyword such as “status.” Appeal Br. 21; see Final Act. 5 (citing Schur ¶¶ 35 (referring to “error”), 61 (referring to “status”)); 1st Adv. Act. 2 (“note here, Schur teaches the keyword such as ‘error'’ or ‘status’ is a context indicator associate[d] with the UI element such as error pop-up, or distinct event that read on the subject Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 10 matter a context indicator associated with the UI element/action/event in the user interface” (emphasis added)). Thus, in view of Appellant’s interpretation of “context indicator,” Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to show that Schur’s keywords in text, such as “error” and “status,” teach or suggest “the nature or type of the UI element.” See id. at 20-21. In view of our interpretation of the term “context indicator,” we also agree with Appellant that the Examiner fails to show that Schur teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim 1. Because these deficiencies in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 are dispositive, we do not reach Appellant’s other challenges to the rejection of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 19-20, 21-23. Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, and we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. 2. The Remaining Claims As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejections of independent claims 10 and 17 for substantially the same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 26-30, 34-41; see Final Act. 10, 20-26 (rejecting claims 10 and 17). Consequently, we also are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 10 and 17 for substantially the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 17. Each of claims 3-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-24 depends directly or indirectly from independent claim 1, 10, or 17. Appeal Br. 45-49 (Claims App.); see supra note 4 (discussing claims 2 and 12). Because we are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as to the obviousness rejections of claims 10 and 17, we also Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 11 are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejections of claims 3-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-24. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejections of claims 3-9, 11, 13-16, and 18-24. DECISION 1. The Examiner errs in rejecting: a. claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan and Schur; b. claims 5-7, 15, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Arashin; c. claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Schnellinger; d. claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Sabetta; e. claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, Arashin, and Futoransky; f. claims 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Dalcher, Schur, Arashin, and Futoransky; g. claims 21 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, and Dalcher; and h. claims 22 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kaplan, Schur, Dalcher, and Muth. 2. Thus, on this record, claims 1-24 are not unpatentable. See supra note 4. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-11, and 13-24. Appeal 2020-006792 Application 15/813,254 12 In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 103 Kaplan, Schur 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11 5-7, 15, 16 103 Kaplan, Schur, Arashin 5-7, 15, 16 9 103 Kaplan, Schur, Schnellinger 9 13 103 Kaplan, Schur, Sabetta 13 14 103 Kaplan, Schur, Arashin, Futoransky 14 17-20 103 Kaplan, Dalcher, Schur, Arashin, Futoransky 17-20 21, 23 103 Kaplan, Schur, Dalcher 21, 23 22, 24 103 Kaplan, Schur, Dalcher, Muth 22, 24 Overall Outcome 1, 3-11, 13-24 REVERSED