Ex Parte Farr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2013

10831034 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2013)

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.
10/831,034 04/23/2004 George N. Farr CA920030089US1 9202
46320 7590 03/28/2013
CAREY, RODRIGUEZ, GREENBERG & O''''KEEFE, LLP
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GEORGE N. FARR and DAVID KENNETH McKNIGHT
____________

Appeal 2010-008605
Application 10/831,034
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-008605
Application 10/831,034

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 17, 28, and 31-56, which are all the claims remaining
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 1. A method for entering data in a computer system, the method
comprising:
capturing the position of a cursor in a data entry field into which to
enter data;
determining the row and the column of the position of the cursor;
capturing the data entered by a user into the entry field;
retrieving and displaying possible completions based on the data
entered;
capturing the completion selected by the user;
determining the length of the selected completion; and
obtaining a range of the column into which the selected completion
will be entered.

Prior Art
Treibach-Heck US 7,080,325 B2 July 18, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 17, 28, and 31-56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Treibach-Heck.

Appeal 2010-008605
Application 10/831,034

3
ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 17, 28, 33-42, 45, 47-51, 54, and 56
Appellants contend that “capturing the data entered by a user into the
entry field” and “retrieving and displaying possible completions based on
the data entered” is not described by the prior art. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants’
contention is inconsistent with the prior art described in Figure 1 and
paragraphs 2-3 of Appellants’ Specification. For example, box 110 of prior
art Figure 1 shows data entered into an entry field, and box 112 shows
possible completions based on the data entered. Because Appellants’ admit
that the “capturing” and “retrieving and displaying” steps are prior art, we
are not persuaded that these steps distinguish claim 1 over the prior art.
Appellants contend that “determining the length of the selected
completion” and “obtaining a range of the column into which the selected
completion will be entered” are performed by the method of claim 1 after
“capturing the completion selected by the user.” According to Appellants,
Treibach-Heck performs the determining and obtaining steps prior to
capturing the completion. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2-3. In particular,
Appellants contend that determining that the width of a selected entry is too
large to fit in the displayed field as described by Treibach-Heck does not
require measuring the width to determine that the selected entry is too large.
App. Br. 14-15. Appellants also contend that referring to a maximum width
of a field as described by Treibach-Heck does not disclose “obtaining a
range of the column into which the selected completion will be entered.”
App. Br. 15-17.
Appellants have not provided a definition of “determining the length
of the selected completion” that excludes determining that the width of the
Appeal 2010-008605
Application 10/831,034

4
selected entry is too large to fit into the displayed field. Therefore, we
disagree with Appellants’ contention that determining that the width of the
selected entry is too large to fit in the displayed field is somehow different
than “determining the length of the selected completion.”
Appellants have not provided a definition of “obtaining a range of the
column into which the selected completion will be entered” that excludes
referring to a maximum width of a field. Therefore, we disagree with
Appellants’ contention that referring to a maximum width of a field is
somehow different than “obtaining a range of the column into which the
selected completion will be entered.”
Appellants contend that “determining the row and the column of the
position of the cursor” is not described by Treibach-Heck. App. Br. 17.
The Examiner finds that positioning a cursor in a field to select the field
describes “determining the row and the column of the position of the cursor”
within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellants respond that positioning
a cursor does not inherently describe determining the row and the column of
the position of the cursor. Reply Br. 4-5.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish “determining the row and the
column of the position of the cursor” from positioning a cursor in a field to
select the field.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 17, 28, 33-42, 45, 47-51, 54, and 56. We sustain the rejection of
claims 1, 17, 28, 33-42, 45, 47-51, 54, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

Appeal 2010-008605
Application 10/831,034

5
Section 102 rejection of claims 31, 46, and 52
Appellants contend that “replacing the data entered by a user into the
entry field with the selected completion” as recited in claim 31is not
disclosed in the prior art. App. Br. 18. The Examiner finds that entering a
user selection into a field of a form as described by Treibach-Heck discloses
“replacing the data entered by a user into the entry field with the selected
completion.” Ans. 16. We agree with the Examiner. Further, Appellants’
contention is inconsistent with Figure 1 and paragraphs 2-3 of Appellants’
Specification. For example, paragraph 3 states that when the user selects the
option labeled ABBAABB for completion of the data to be entered into the
field 110, the application program interface will enter ABBAABB into field
110. Because Appellants’ admit that the “replacing” step is prior art, we are
not persuaded that this step distinguishes claim 31 over the prior art.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 46 and 52. We sustain the rejection of claims 31, 46, and 52 under 35
U.S.C. § 102.

Section 102 rejection of claims 32, 43, 44, 53, and 55
Appellants contend that Treibach-Heck does not disclose “appending
spaces to the selected completion in a fixed-form programming language” as
recited in claim 55. In particular, Appellants contend that adding data to a
form does not describe “appending spaces.” App. Br . 18-20; Reply Br 5-8.
Support for “appending spaces” is found in paragraph 40 of Appellants’
Specification, which states that if the length of the completion value is less
than the length of X + n (the length of the column), then trailing blanks or
whitespaces are appended to fill column Y. The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2010-008605
Application 10/831,034

6
Treibach-Heck describes “appending spaces” in column 10, lines 30-62.
Ans. 6, 16-17.
We agree with the Examiner. When a data entry field is 29 characters
wide, and the selected entry is less than 29 characters, then blanks or
whitespaces trail the selected entry to fill the field. See Treibach-Heck, col.
10, ll. 49-50; Fig. 2B. For example, Figure 2B of Treibach-Heck discloses
data entry field 500 containing a completion value Beck, Rose followed by
trailing blanks or whitespaces “appended to fill” the field within the meaning
of claim 55.
We sustain the rejection of claim 55 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 32,
43, 44, and 53, which fall with claim 55.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 17, 28, and 31-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Treibach-Heck is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis