Ex parte Ammirato et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 25, 2002

08597794 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 25, 2002)

1–
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and is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 19
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte JOSEPH AMMIRATO and GAVIN PEACOCK
________________
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1-34, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to creating multiple scenarios
in an electronic spreadsheet. More specifically, the
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
2–
invention requires the electronic spreadsheet system to
automatically track different versions or scenarios, as
specified by a user, and to automatically identify not only
the cells directly changed by the user but also any changing
dependent cells which have changed as a result of cell formula
dependencies. After automatically identifying these changes
to the user’s spreadsheet, the system can highlight these
changes or automatically generate a report summarizing the
changes for one or more scenarios.
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as
follows:
1. In an electronic spreadsheet system for modeling
user-specified information in a data model comprising a
plurality of information cells, a method for automatically
tracking different versions of the data model and reporting
differences between versions to a user, the method comprising:
(a) specifying a base set of information cells for the
system to track changes;
(b) creating a new version of the data model by modifying
at least one information cell from the specified base set;
© automatically determining by the system cells of the
data model which have changed by comparing cells in the new
version against corresponding ones in the base set; and
(d) reporting said cells of the data model which have
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
3–
changed by creating a report, said system determining and
listing in the report for each cell which has changed in step
(b):
(i) values for said each cell before and after the
cell was changed, and
(ii) values for any other cells storing spreadsheet
formulas which express new values as a result of said each
cell changing.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Ammirato et al. (Ammirato) 5,303,146 Apr. 12, 1994
(filed Mar. 11, 1993)
Greif et al. (Greif) 5,371,675 Dec. 06, 1994
(filed Jun. 3, 1992)
Bittel, “Encyclopedia of Professional Management”, McGraw-Hill
Inc., 1978; pp. 373-374.
Borland, “Quattro Pro Version 4.0 User’s Guide”, 1992, pp.
573-577.
Claims 1-34 stand rejected under obviousness-type double
patenting over claim 1 of Ammirato in view of old practices of
management shown by Bittel.
Claims 1-34 stand further rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over Greif in view of Bittel and Borland.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
4–
OPINION
We turn, first to the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection of claims 1-34 and we note that while appellants
have presented no arguments regarding the merits of this
rejection, appellants have filed a terminal disclaimer (Paper
No. 13-October 28, 1998).
We have no input from the examiner as to the
acceptability of this terminal disclaimer. In fact, the
examiner has repeated the rejection in the answer with
apparent disregard for, or ignorance of, the filing of this
terminal disclaimer.
Accordingly, we remand this application back to the
examiner for a finding of whether the terminal disclaimer
overcomes the rejection of claims 1-34 based on obviousness-
type double patenting.
Claims 1-34 stand also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
unpatentable over the combination of Greif, Bittel and
Borland.
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-34 under
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
5–
35 U.S.C. 103 as the examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness.
The examiner contends that Greif discloses, in the
abstract, “base information, new version and change
determination” [answer-page 3] but does not show reporting
changed inputs and outputs. The examiner relies on Bittel for
showing reporting changes “in an analogous art” [answer-page
4] for the “purpose of reporting efficiency.” The examiner
relies on Borland for the dependency limitation, pointing to
the auditing feature of Borland.
We disagree with the combination. We do not find Bittel
to be “analogous art” since the instant invention is directed
to an electronic spreadsheet, whereas Bittel is not even in
the electronic arts, nor does it pertain to any problem sought
to be solved by appellants, describing, instead, a management
information and control technique for indicating whether a
condition or operation is within prescribed standards. We
find no reason for the skilled artisan to look to anything
within the disclosure of Bittel as a way of improving upon
anything disclosed by Greif.
Moreover, the instant claimed invention is concerned with
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
6–
identifying changes between different versions of user-named
blocks of cells and we find nothing within the teachings of
any of the three applied references remotely suggesting
identifying changes between different versions of such cells.
Nor do we find the “automatic” nature of the claimed invention
suggested by any of the applied references. The instant
claims require “automatically determining by the system
cells...which have been changed...” The examiner’s response
is to merely allege that automation of a manual process is
“inherently obvious” [answer-page 5]. However, the instant
claims do not merely require simply that a process heretofore
applied manually be applied automatically. The claims in
question require a specific tracking of different versions of
a data model “automatically” and that it is “automatically”
determined “by the system” that cells of the data model have
changed. If this is obvious over the applied references, the
examiner must set forth a coherent rationale in more detail
than that it is “inherently obvious” to do so.
We have not sustained the rejection of claims 1-34 under
35 U.S.C. 103 and we have remanded the case back to the
examiner for a determination as to whether the terminal
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
7–
disclaimer filed overcomes the rejection of claims 1-34 under
obviousness-type double patenting.
This application by virtue of its “special” status
requires an immediate action. See MPEP § 708.01(d) (7 ed.,th
February 2000). It is important that the Board be informed
promptly of
any action affecting the appeal in this case.
REVERSED and REMANDED
Appeal No. 1999-2076
Application No. 08/597,794
8–
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
)
LEE E. BARRETT ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EK/RWK
DAVID LEASON
DARBY & DARBY P.C.
805 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10022