Ex Parte Hoyer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201713693517 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/693,517 12/04/2012 Timo Hoyer 0046-053001/2012P00393US 2838 56056 7590 12/18/2017 BRAKE HUGHES BELLERMANN LLP C/O CPA Global 900 Second Avenue South Suite 600 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 EXAMINER CHUNG, ANDREW ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2017 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): uspto@brakehughes.com docketing@brakehughes.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TIMO HOYER and SASCHA HANS GRUB Appeal 2017-006458 Application 13/693,517 Technology Center 2100 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2017-006458 Application 13/693,517 Introduction Appellants describe the invention as relating “to information objects and display of data, and in particular, to an electronic worksheet with reference-specific data display.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is representative: 1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs, the one or more programs comprising instructions, which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to: display an electronic worksheet that includes an object display area to display one or more objects and an object storage clip for attaching one or more objects in an object stack; first, display a report in the object display area, the report including data related-to a first information object; next, attach a first reference object to the object storage clip, the first reference object including a first reference parameter; and then, modify the displayed report to include only data related to the first information object that is specific to the first reference parameter of the first reference object attached to the object storage clip. App. Br. 17 (Claims App’x). Rejections Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 13—15, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White et al. (US 2014/0059496 Al; Feb. 27, 2014) and LaFergola et al. (US 2010/0179844 Al; July 15, 2010). Final Act. 2-4. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over White, LaFergola, and Kokemohr (US 2013/0346898 Al; Dec. 26, 2013). Final Act. 5. 2 Appeal 2017-006458 Application 13/693,517 Claim 3 stands rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over White, LaFergola, and Takoaka et al. (US 2011/0022982 Al; Jan. 27, 2011). Final Act. 6—7. Claims 6—10, 16—20, 22 and 23 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over White, LaFergola, and Gohda et al. (US 2009/0288028 Al; Nov. 19, 2009). Final Act. 7-11. ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Figure 4 of White, reproduced here: FIG. 4 Figure 4 of White shows an electronic card and associated details “displayed in response to a tap gesture applied to [the] card.” Spec. 120. The Examiner first maps the “data sheet 82” that shows sales report information to the recited “report,” which claim 1 requires displaying in the 'Escfe: Approvals (Ktoiie Appifcsifor, far Approvals) ,............ .................................................. ^ : Sarah Jones : Sales Kep $41,000 : ?, Days Apn • Report IP :.£^P.RECi46fi5.40....................... : Cos! Center : DENV0980 : Time Card •.sjcuam...... : Work Week |Dec, 17-U? 7 j k?8l , -AS, : 4 3; miatikatJ ZZc.E'' ...........aB. Reject j ; Approvs } 3 Appeal 2017-006458 Application 13/693,517 “object display area.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner then maps the “offer card 60” that contains information for a sales representative to the recited “reference object,” which claim 1 requires attaching to an object storage clip. Id. Thus, the Examiner finds White teaches “first, display[ing] a report in the object display area” and “next, attaching] a first reference object to the object storage clip.” Id. (additionally citing White Tflf 75—76). Appellants argue the Examiner errs because claim 1 specifically requires an ordered sequence that is the opposite of the sequence in the disclosure of White mapped by the Examiner to the claimed requirements. App. Br. 13. We agree with Appellants. Because the data sheet 82 (mapped to the “report” in claim 1) is displayed in response to a tap gesture applied to the offer card 60 (mapped to the “reference object” in claim 1), White’s sequence of operations is opposite claim 1 ’s sequential requirement to “first, display a report” and “next, attach a first reference object.” See White 174. In response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner states “[a]s the combination is able to perform all these functions, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform these functions in different orders.” Ans. 4 (additionally stating “the ability for the functions to execute is independent of the order of execution”). This is unpersuasive. Certainly it is appropriate to “take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ” and “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, 421 (2007). Nevertheless, “rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated 4 Appeal 2017-006458 Application 13/693,517 reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006); accord KSR, 550 U.S. at 418 (quoting Kahn). An obviousness rejection must explain the reasoning by which those findings support the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the rejection fails to meet this required standard. The purpose of White’s example in Figure 4—to display report information for a sales representative after displaying that representative’s card—requires performing claim 1 ’s “first, display” and “next, attach” steps in the opposite order. The Examiner’s articulated rationale—that it simply would have been possible and therefore obvious to perform those steps in the opposite order—is conclusory and insufficient. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1. For the same reason we likewise do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 21, which include commensurate limitations and stand rejected on the same ground. Because there are no findings or reasons articulated in the rejections of dependent claims 2—10, 12—20, and 22 to cure the deficiency discussed above, we also do not sustain their rejections. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1—23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation