Ex Parte Schlereth

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

13214279 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

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