Ex Parte Rapp

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

13350710 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/350,710 01/13/2012
73576 7590
APPLE INC - Fletcher
c/o Fletcher Yoder, PC
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269-2289
08/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Peter William Rapp
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.
P4850USC1/ APPL:0416-l 2561
EXAMINER
TRAN,QUOCA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER WILLIAM RAPP
Appeal2015-000968
Application 13/350,710
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-20, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies Apple, Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000968
Application 13/350,710
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to preventing the selection of a host
cell in a spreadsheet application when entering a formula into the host cell,
thereby avoiding a circular reference error. Spec. i-fi-12, 18.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A method comprising:
receiving an indication of an attempted user
gesture on an electronic device for inserting into a
formula being entered into a host cell of a
spreadsheet presented on a display of the electronic
device a reference to the host cell of the spreadsheet,
wherein the spreadsheet comprises a plurality of
cells; and
disallowing the attempted user gesture for
inserting the reference to the host cell of the
spreadsheet to prevent a circular reference from
being inserted into the formula being entered into
the host cell of the spreadsheet, wherein disallowing
the attempted user gesture comprises [L 1]
precluding a selection of the host cell of the
spreadsheet.
The Rejections
Claims 1-20 stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1-30 of Rapp (US 8, 161,373 B2; iss. Apr. 17, 2012).
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kotler
(US 2009/0083615 Al; Mar. 26, 2009) and Robin Abraham, Inferring
Templates from Spreadsheet, ICSE '06, p. 182-191, © 2006 ACM.
2
Appeal2015-000968
Application 13/350,710
ANALYSIS
Obviousness Over Kotler and Abraham
Based on Appellant's arguments, we decide the appeal on the basis of
representative claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
The Examiner relies on Abraham as teaching or suggesting limitation
L 1. Final Act. 6. Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs because
Abraham "makes positively no disclosure that its asserted host cell-at any
given point in time-is precluded from being selected as claimed." App. Br.
10; Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellant. We have reviewed the portions of Abraham
cited by the Examiner. We do not find therein adequate teaching or
suggestion of limitation L 1. As Appellant correctly states, "Abraham
merely creates an alternative spreadsheet to facilitate the updating of
formulas, but nevertheless the user is still allowed to select the host cell at
any time the user chooses." App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 3.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 14, nor dependent claims 2---6, 8-
13, and 15-20. See App. Br. 12.
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 stand rejected for nonstatutory obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1-30 of Rapp. Final Act. 2--4. Appellant fails to
address this provisional rejection. Arguments not made are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)(2012).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's provisional nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 1-20.
3
Appeal2015-000968
Application 13/350,710
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-20 for
obviousness over Kotler and Abraham.
We summarily affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-20
for nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4