Ex Parte SchlerethDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201613214279 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/214,279 08/22/2011 126540 7590 08/01/2016 Edward Sternberger Manelli Selter PLLC 10560 Main Street, Suite PH6 Fairfax, VA 22030 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thomas Schlereth 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 31-389 1029 EXAMINER MILLS, FRANK D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 08/01/2016 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 THOMAS SCHLERETH Appeal2014--006287 1 Application 13/214,279 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 13-16, and 18-27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellant identify the real party in interest as Can Do GmbH. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-006287 Application 13/214,279 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claim 1, reproduced below with a key disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. Method for modifying the content of one or a plurality of cells of a spread sheet or a report which is associated with a spread sheet having a number of cells which are displayed in rows and columns, comprising: assigning several control fields to a single row or a single column of the spread sheet, wherein each of the control fields allows a user to subsequently execute a number of different commands each time when one of the control fields is manipulated by the user, and wherein a first type of the control fields serves to change the data category of the associated cells, and a second type of the control fields serves to change the data format of the associated cells or to execute a number of different mathematical functions in relation to the associated cells; detecting, if one of the control fields is manipulated in a predetermined manner by a user in order to modify the content of a plurality of cells of the associated row or column; when such a user request has been recognized, retrieving and processing a predetermined entry from a storage medium, depending on the type of the control field, wherein the storage medium includes a number of different entries, which are processed consecutively each time the user request is repeated; and modifying the content of a plurality of cells accordingly. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Wiest et al. Slavens Hammoud US 2006/0195424 Al Aug. 31, 2006 US 2008/0276161 Al Nov. 6, 2008 US 2013/0007577 Al Jan. 3, 2013 2 Appeal2014-006287 Application 13/214,279 REJECTIONS Claim 27 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.2 Claims 1-8, 10, 13, 14, and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slavens. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slavens in view of Wiest. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Slavens in view of Hammoud. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Slavens teaches "a second type of the control fields [that] serves to ... execute a number of different mathematical functions in relation to the associated cells," as recited in claim 1. Advisory Act. 2. 3 Specifically, the Examiner finds Slavens teaches that a "data object can rotate based on a user changed value, e.g., exceeding a sales quota value," which results in applying a different commission percentage to values in the rotating cell objects. Ans. 17. Thus, the Examiner finds Slavens teaches the disputed "assigning" limitation emphasized above, and based on these findings, concludes independent claim 1 is obvious in view of Slavens' teachings. Advisory Act. 2; see Ans. 16-17. 2 The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection of claim 27 was withdrawn. Ans. 14--15. 3 The Examiner entered an Amendment under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.116 filed on October 30, 2013 and indicated that the amended claim language was met by a subset of the portions of Slavens cited in the Final Action. Advisory Act. 1-2 (citing Slavens i-fi-120-23, 30, 38, Figs. 6 and 7); compare id., with Final Act. 4--7. 3 Appeal2014-006287 Application 13/214,279 Appellant argues that "Slavens merely discloses an automatic amendment of [a] data value of a cell as a result of a conditional event" and fails to teach that "[ e Jach of the control fields allows a user to subsequently execute a number of different commands each time when the control field is manipulated." App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted). That is, Appellant argues Slavens fails to suggest the claimed "second type of the control field[ s] [that] serves to ... execute a number of different mathematical functions in relation to the associated cells," as recited in claim 1. See id. at 5-6. We are persuaded by Appellant's argument for the following reasons. Only in the Advisory Action does the Examiner address the amended limitation of claim 1 reciting "a number of different mathematical functions." Advisory Act. 2. Although the Examiner reproduces the above- noted, amended claim limitation in the Advisory Action, the Examiner does not articulate how the cited portions of Slavens (a subset of the portions of Slavens cited in the Final Action) meet the amended claim language. See id. In the Answer, the Examiner finds Slavens teaches that a "type of control executes a mathematicalfunction in relation to the associated cells" and also, that "Slavens discloses that the rotation can cause execution of different mathematical functions." Ans. 17 (emphasis added). In the cited portion of paragraph 30, Slavens teaches "if a salesman exceeds a quota significantly in one cell, a different commission percentage may automatically rotate in to another cell, to properly calculate and represent a company's compensation policy." Thus, Slavens teaches a single mathematical function. The record does not indicate the Examiner finds that one or more additional, different mathematical functions would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in light of the cited 4 Appeal2014-006287 Application 13/214,279 teachings of Slavens. See Ans. 16-18; see Slavens if 30. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Slavens teaches or suggests that "a second type of the control fields serves to ... execute a number of different mathematical functions in relation to the associated cells," as recited in claim 1. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Slavens teaches or suggests the disputed limitation recited in independent claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 21 and 27. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 13, 14, and 21-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Slavens. Claims 15, 16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over various combinations of Slavens, Wiest, and Hammoud. Given that these claims depend from claim 1 and because the Examiner has not identified any teachings in Wiest and/ or Hammoud that would cure the deficiency of Slavens, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 15, 16, and 18-20. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-8, 10, 13-16, and 18- 2 7 is reversed. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation