Ex Parte Hoyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

13693517 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017)

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