Ex Parte Holland et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2013

10762879 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JOSEPH H. HOLLAND and MARK W. BYRD
____________________

Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method of enabling
access to data structure by designating e-mail addresses of users with
sections of a data structure and enabling access to those sections to users
having the designated e-mail addresses. Abstract.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method of enabling access to a data structure having a
plurality of sections, said method comprising the steps of:
associating addresses of users with respective sections of
the data structure on a common spreadsheet wherein each of the
respective sections is comprised of a plurality of independently
accessible storage areas;
granting access rights for each of the users to access the
sections corresponding to the associated addresses of the
respective users[;]
displaying the sections each of the users has access to as
a respective common layer of the common spreadsheet[;]
preventing any of said users from having access to any of
said sections which have not been associated with the address
of said any of said users, wherein the sections of the data
structure exist and include data prior to said access rights being
granted, and wherein any of said sections to which any of the
Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879

3
users has been prevented access are not displayed in each of the
users’ respective common layer; and
wherein one of said sections of one of said users is
permitted to partially overlap another of said sections of another
of said users without completely overlapping said another of
said sections[;]
enabling each of the users to access the storage areas in
the respective sections of the data structure associated with each
users’ respective address, after said access rights are granted.

References
Cseri
Obhan
Guttman
US 5,623,591
US 5,875,302
US 6,988,241 B1
Apr. 22, 1997
Feb. 23, 1999
Jan. 17, 2006
Ryan US 2002/0010743 A1 Jan. 24, 2002

Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 12, 14-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Ryan and Cseri. Ans. 3.
Claims 8, 10, 11, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Ryan, Cseri, and Guttman. Ans. 10.
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ryan, Cseri, and Obhan. Ans. 15.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Ryan and Cseri does not teach or
suggest “displaying the sections each of the users has access to as a
respective common layer of the common spreadsheet,” “wherein any of said
sections to which any of the users has been prevented access are not
displayed in each of the users’ respective common layer,” and “wherein one
of said sections of one of said users is permitted to partially overlap another
Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879

4
of said sections of another of said users without completely overlapping said
another of said sections,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 12, 18, and 19. App. Br. 4-8. Appellants
present various arguments related to advantages and synergies disclosed by
their Specification and assert these are embodied in certain limitations of
their claims. App. Br. 5-6.
Appellants’ arguments against Ryan’s teachings are based on the fact
that Ryan discloses assigning access to spreadsheets on a per layer basis,
whereas Appellants allege their invention provides access “on a column
and/or row basis” or finer levels. App. Br. 4-6, 7-8. Appellants argue the
“single layer of a single spreadsheet” in Cseri does not meet Appellants’
recited “displaying the sections each of the users has access to as a
respective common layer of the common spreadsheet.” App. Br. 6-7.
Appellants assert a reference teaching this limitation must show “multiple
users, each with their own respective layer of the spreadsheet.” Id.
The Examiner finds the combination of Ryan and Cseri teaches every
limitation of independent claim 1. Ans. 3-4, 16-18. The Examiner finds
Ryan teaches the limitation related to partially overlapping access to
sections. Ans. 17. The Examiner further clarifies the finding by pointing to
Figure 4 of Ryan, which shows user3 and user4 having access to one
worksheet (worksheet 25c) in common, user3 and user5 (and not user4)
having access to worksheet 25b in common. Ans. 17 (citing Ryan Fig. 4).
With respect to the limitation of “displaying the sections each of the users
has access to as a respective common layer of the common spreadsheet,”
The Examiner finds Figure 1 of Ryan and Figure 2A of Cseri both show
common spreadsheet workbooks, each with multiple worksheets. Ans. 17.
Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879

5
Regarding the limitation of “wherein any of said sections to which any of the
users has been prevented access are not displayed in each of the users’
respective common layer,” the Examiner finds Ryan teaches hiding and
locking worksheets from users who do not have access to those worksheets.
Ans. 18 (citing Ryan ¶¶ [0107]-[0108]). Finally, the Examiner finds Ryan
and Cseri both deal with protecting data in spreadsheets and are thus
analogous art.
To the extent Appellants’ arguments regarding advantages and
synergies disclosed in their Specification are not embodied in the language
of the claims (given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with
Appellants’ Specification), we decline to read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. We initially note that Appellants have not
defined, or even used, the terms “common spreadsheet” or “common layer”
in their Specification. Therefore, we construe these terms using the broadest
reasonable interpretation of their plain and ordinary meaning. We construe
“common” to mean “belonging to or shared by two or more people.” Collins
English Dictionary (2000) (retrieved from
http://www.credoreference.com/entry/hcengdict/common) (last accessed
August 17, 2013). Therefore, we construe a “common spreadsheet” to mean
a shared spreadsheet and “common layer” to mean a shared layer.
Given these constructions, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that
the combination of Cseri and Ryan teaches or suggests “displaying the
sections each of the users has access to as a respective common layer of the
common spreadsheet.” As can be seen in the cited portions of the references,
Cseri displays an active worksheet “A,” which is a layer of the spreadsheet
“NOTEBK1.WB1.” See Cseri Fig. 2A. Similarly, Ryan shows an active
Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879

6
worksheet “Pacific,” which is a layer of the spreadsheet “Sales forecast
tracker.xls.” See Ryan Fig. 1. Each of these spreadsheets and worksheets
may be viewed by more than one user and are thus common to those users.
If the users do not have access to those layers or spreadsheets, those layers
or spreadsheets are not displayed. Ans. 4 (citing Ryan ¶¶ [0106]-[0107] (“If
the selected worksheet is not included in the worksheet names stored in the
first entry of the recipient table…, the worksheet is then hidden and locked
via a password”).
Appellants’ argument that the combination of Ryan and Cseri does not
teach “wherein one of said sections of one of said users is permitted to
partially overlap another of said sections of another of said users without
completely overlapping said another of said sections” is also not persuasive.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Figure 4 of Ryan meets the
recited “wherein one of said sections of one of said users is permitted to
partially overlap another of said sections of another of said users without
completely overlapping said another of said sections.” Ans. 17. As explained
by the Examiner, Ryan teaches a process for providing multiple users access
to various worksheets within a spreadsheet, where users may have access to
some of the same sections (worksheets), but not necessarily all of the same
sections. Ryan Fig. 4, ¶¶ [0092]-[0094].
Regarding the argued limitation of “wherein any of said sections to
which any of the users has been prevented access are not displayed in each
of the users' respective common layer,” the Examiner has pointed to a
process of locking and hiding worksheets (sections) of a spreadsheet from a
user who does not have access to those particular worksheets. Ans. 18.
Appellants’ arguments regarding this limitation appear more relevant to the
Appeal 2011-004661
Application 10/762,879

7
overlapping access limitation. Appellants have not apprised us of error in the
Examiner’s finding. Thus, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
Independent claims 12, 18, and 19 were argued on the same basis as
independent claim 1, and we therefore sustain the rejection of claims 12, 18,
and 19 for the same reasons as discussed above. Appellants’ only argument
with respect to the dependent claims is that they were allowable for the same
reasons as independent claim 1. Therefore, we also group them with their
respective parent claims and sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-11
and 13-17 for the same reasons as discussed above. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-19 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj