Ex Parte Aldred et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 11, 2003

08678781 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 11, 2003)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte BARRY K. ALDRED, HOWARD S. LAMBERT,
and HOWARD D. MICHELL
_____________
Appeal No. 2001-1070
Application No. 08/678,781
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON, and BARRETT, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims
1 through 16.
The disclosed invention relates to an electronic sheet that
is logically divided into a set of cells, and each cell contains
no more than a single character.
Appeal No. 2001-1070
Application No. 08/678,781
2
Claim 15 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
15. A computer workstation including:
means for storing and displaying an electronic
sheet, said electronic sheet being logically divided
into a set of cells, each said cell being able to
contain no more than a single character;
means to enable a user to select a portion of said
electronic sheet, said portion comprising at least one
said cell; and
means, responsive to a user input, for editing
said selected portion of said electronic sheet.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Torres 5,040,131 Aug. 13, 1991
Bates et al. (Bates) EP 0 550 374 A2 Jul. 7, 1993
(Published European Patent Application)
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Torres.
Claims 1 through 14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bates in view of Torres.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 10) and the
answer (paper number 11) for the respective positions of the
appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 2001-1070
Application No. 08/678,781
3
OPINION
At the outset, we note that “[a]ppellant accepts [sic,
appellants accept] the Examiner’s position that the combination
of Bates and Torres teaches or suggests all the features of claim
1 (or equivalent method claim 16), apart from the limitation of
‘each cell being able to contain a single logical character’”
(brief, page 3). Thus, the patentability of all of the claims on
appeal depends upon whether the examiner is correct that it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to include
‘no more than a single character’ in view of Torres’ disclosure
because in figures 1-6, he illustrates tables in which each cell
contains ‘no more than a single character’” (answer, page 3).
Torres discloses (Figures 1 through 6) an electronic sheet
that is logically divided into a set of cells. A single
character per cell is shown in the first five figures. After the
sum icon 24 (Figures 4 and 5) is dropped into the cell 26 (Figure
6), the cell 26 reflects the total of the numbers in column 22.
The sum (i.e., 15) in cell 26 is not “a single character.”
Notwithstanding this teaching in Torres, the examiner
concluded (answer, page 3) that “[i]t was well known at the time
of the invention to input data into an accounting ledger in which
Appeal No. 2001-1070
Application No. 08/678,781
4
each cell of the grid would contain only one character/numeral
. . . ” so that “the sums add up without error.”
Appellants argue (brief, pages 3 through 6) that the
examiner has not provided any evidence to support the assertion
concerning the ledger, that the examiner has not established any
error in the summation process described by Torres, and that any
modification to Torres’ teachings to limit each cell to only a
single character would alter the teachings and purpose of
Torres’s invention.
We agree with appellants’ arguments. In the absence of
evidence, we can not assess the propriety of the examiner’s
assertions. Even if it is true that ledger’s use only a single
character per cell, we must nevertheless agree with the
appellants that the movement of the “1,” for example, from the
cell 26 would indeed alter the teachings of Torres because “5 ”
is not the sum of all of the numbers in column 22 (Figure 6).
Any modification to Torres that limits each cell to a single
character would indeed lead to an error in the summation process.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
16 is reversed because the applied references neither teach nor
would have suggested each cell being able to contain “no more
than a single character.”
Appeal No. 2001-1070
Application No. 08/678,781
5
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
KWH:hh
Appeal No. 2001-1070
Application No. 08/678,781
6
E. H. DUFFIELD
IBM CORP. - INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
3039 CORNWALLIS RD.
P.O. BOX 12195 T81 062
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27709-2195