Ex Parte Eakins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2018

13283757 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/283,757 10/28/2011 Christopher Eakins
141697 7590 04/10/2018
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. (Microsoft)
P.O. BOX 828
BLOOMFIELD HILLS, MI 48303
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.
333421.01 8693
EXAMINER
OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2018 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):
troymailroom@hdp.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTPHER EAKINS
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER and
DAVID J. CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection
of claims 1-12 and 14--35. Appellant cancelled claim 13. App. Br. 25.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis,
formatting, and bracketed material added):
1. A system, comprising:
a computer comprising:
[A.] a mapping manager component configured to
automatically perform a correlation between
[i.] a user spreadsheet schema that
describes organization of data, the
user spreadsheet schema associated
with a user computing environment,
and
[ii.] a data service schema associated with
an external computing environment,
the correlation being initiated automatically
without user activation,
wherein the mapping manager component is
further configured to perform the correlation
by analyzing user data and external data to
determine how the data service schema
maps to the user spreadsheet schema; and
[B.] a revision component configured to copy data
between the external computing environment and
the user computing environment.
2
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11, 19, 20, 30, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jamshidi
et al. (US 6,631,497 Bl; iss. Oct. 7, 2003), Kardon et al. (EP 0351234 A2;
pub. Jan. 17, 1990), and Sikka et al. (US 2009/0172553 Al; pub. July 2,
2009). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 14, 16-18, and 31under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Serra et al.
(US 2005/0097447 Al; iss. May 5, 2005), Kardon, and Sikka. 2
The Examiner rejected claims 21-23 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Serra and Kardon. 3
The Examiner rejected claims 24--26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Jamshidi and
Kardon. 4
1 Appellant argues claims 1 and 19 separately. Our decisions as to claim 1
and 19 are determinative as to the rejection of claims 2-11, 20, 30, and 32.
Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims 2-11, 20, 30, and
32 further herein.
2 Our decisions as to claim 12 is determinative as to the rejection of claims
14, 16-18, and 31. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss
claims 14, 16-18, and 31 further herein.
3 Our decisions as to claim 21 is determinative as to the rejection of claims
22, 23, and 35. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims
22, 23, and 35 further herein.
4 Our decisions as to claim 24 is determinative as to the rejection of claims
25, 26, 28, and 29. Except for our ultimate decision, we do not discuss
claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 further herein.
3
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
The Examiner rejected claim 15, 27, 33, and 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kardon in various combinations with
other references. 5
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 12, 19, 21, and 24 as being
obvious?
ANALYSIS 6
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
As to claim 1, the Examiner finds
Kardon M.S. (EP 0351234 A2) in an analogous art discloses,
wherein the mapping manager component is further configured
to per/ orm the correlation by analyzing user data and external
data to determine how the data service schema maps to the user
spreadsheet schema (col. 4 lines 63 - 65 and col. 5 lines 1 - 5
... ).
Final Act. 8 (Examiner emphasis omitted; Panel emphasis added). 7
5 Appellant argues claims 15, 27, 33, and 34 by reference to their
dependency on their parent claims. Our decisions as to those parent claims
are determinative as to the rejections of these claims. Except for our
ultimate decision, we do not discuss claims 15, 27, 33, and 34 further herein.
6 The contentions discussed herein are determinative as to the rejections on
appeal. Therefore, Appellant's other contentions are not particularly
discussed herein.
7 The Examiner presents a similar finding for claim 19 at pages 15-16 of the
Final Action. Appellant presents separately the same argument for claims 1
and 19, and we reach the same result for each argument. Except for our
ultimate decision, we do not discuss claim 19 further therein.
4
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
As to claim 12, the Examiner finds
Serra et al (US 20050097447 Al) discloses, ... automatically
mapping the identified schemas to data associated with the
lookup information types supported by the external data service
by analyzing the identified schemas and the data associated
with the lookup information types supported by the external
data service to determine how the data associated with the
lookup information types supported by the external data service
map to identified schemas (para. [0023] ... ).
Final Act. 19-20 (Examiner emphasis omitted; Panel emphasis added). 8
As to claim 24, the Examiner finds
Jamshidi et al discloses, using a processing unit,
automatically determining how classified attributes of an
external data set map to the user classified attributes of the user
data set (col. 3 lines 18 - 20 ... lines 30 - 33 ... ).
Final Act. 28 (Examiner emphasis omitted; Panel emphasis added).
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
It is respectfully submitted that [as to] the portions of
Kardon relied upon in the Final Office Action [to] disclose the
use of a symbolic entry table 15 that provides a mapping between
a symbolic name and a spreadsheet cell - it does not generate the
symbolic entry table 15. . .. Kardon, individually and/or in
combination with Jamshidi and/or Sikka, do[es] not teach,
suggest or make obvious a mapping manager component
configured to perform the correlation by analyzing user data and
external data to determine how the data service schema maps to
the user spreadsheet schema, as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 12-13 (Appellant emphasis omitted; Panel emphasis added).
8 The Examiner presents a similar finding for claim 21 at page 25 of the
Final Action. Appellant presents separately the same argument for claims
12 and 21, and we reach the same result for each argument. Except for our
ultimate decision, we do not discuss claim 21 further therein.
5
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Serra discloses the use of location information for data
sources to determine location of cells in a spreadsheet for placing
the data sources. (See, Serra, paragraph [0023]). Serra does not
disclose analyzing a schema and data to determine how the data
maps to the schema.
As discussed above, Kardon and Sikka, individually
and/or in combination, do not cure the deficiencies of Serra.
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that Serra, individually
and/or in combination with Kardon and/or Sikka, does not teach,
suggest or make obvious analyzing the identified schemas and
the data associated with the lookup information types supported
by the external data service to determine how the data associated
with the lookup information types supported by the external
data service map to identified schemas, as recited in claim 12.
App. Br. 16-17 (emphases added).
Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
Jamshidi specifically discloses binding spreadsheet cell -
data source binding based on user input. Claim 24 specifically
recites "automatically determining how classified attributes of an
external data set map to the user classified attributes of the user
data set." It is respectfully submit that Jamshidi, individually
and/or in combination with Kardon, does not teach, suggest or
make obvious automatically determining how classified
attributes of an external data set map to the user classified
attributes of the user data set, as recited in claim 24.
App. Br. 20 (emphases added).
In the Answer (Ans. 3-7), the Examiner cites five times to the same
portion of Kardon ("see col. 2 lines 23 - 43 and col. 5 lines 1 - 23"), and as
to the particular claimed invention, repeatedly concludes Kardon discloses
6
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
the claimed invention because Kardon discloses analysis to map first data
(e.g., message) to second data (e.g., spreadsheet cell).
We disagree. We conclude that "determining how" to map from a
first data to a second data is not the same as already having the mapping
from the first data to the second data. Our review of Jamshidi, Kardon,
Sikka, Serra, and Ghannam, does not find a teaching of the required
"determining how" the first data maps to the second data.
Rather, as argued by Appellant, we conclude that,
Kardon, individually and/or in combination with Jamshidi and/or
Sikka, do[es] not teach, suggest or make obvious a mapping
manager component configured to perform the correlation by
analyzing user data and external data to determine how the data
service schema maps to the user spreadsheet schema, as recited
in claim 1.
App. Br. 12-13. Likewise, we conclude the references do not teach, suggest
or make obvious the inventions recited by claims 12 and 24.
As to Appellant's above contentions, we agree. We conclude,
consistent with Appellant's argument, there is insufficient articulated
reasoning to support the Examiner's final conclusion that claims 1, 12, or 24
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant's invention.
CONCLUSIONS
( 1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-12 and 14--35 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) On this record, these claims have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
7
Appeal2017-000572
Application 13/283,757
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-12 and 14--35 are reversed.
REVERSED
8