Ex Parte Caplan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 21, 2018

13013526 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/013,526 01/25/2011
27488 7590 09/25/2018
MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT)
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Josh Caplan
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.
14917.1666US01 8903
EXAMINER
TRAN,QUOCA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/25/2018 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):
USPT027 488@merchantgould.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSH CAPLAN and SERGEI GUNDOROV
Appeal2018-001389
Application 13/013,526
Technology Center 2100
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Rochelle (US 2007 /0233811 Al; Oct. 4, 2007) and Kulkarni
(US 2009/0113284 Al; Apr. 30, 2009). Non-Final Act. 3-16.
We reverse.
Appeal2018-001389
Application 13/013,526
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "[a] client application us[ing] a
network service to perform calculations involving non-local data." Spec.
,r 3. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed
limitation emphasized:
1. A method for performing calculations using a client application
and a network service, comprising:
accessing a client spreadsheet using a client application on a first
computing device, the client spreadsheet being associated with local data
that is stored locally to the client application and non-local data that is stored
non-locally to the client application, wherein the client application is
configured to perform hybrid calculations and comprises a hybrid manager
that integrates non-local results of calculations in the client spreadsheet that
are associated with the non-local data and are performed by a network
service and local results of calculations in the client spreadsheet that are
associated with local data and are performed by a local calculation engine;
determining when the client spreadsheet accesses the non-local data;
based upon determining that a calculation involves the non-local data,
sending a command to the network service requesting the calculation be
performed by the network service;
receiving from the network service results of the calculations
involving the non-local data performed by the network service; and
integrating the results received from the network service with the local
results; and presenting the integrated results using the client application.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal2018-001389
Application 13/013,526
ANALYSIS
Contentions
The Examiner finds Rochelle and Kulkarni teach all limitations of
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3-9; see also Ans. 19-25. In particular, the
Examiner finds Rochelle teaches the key disputed limitation. Non-Final
Act. 5 ( citing Rochelle ,r 41 ); see also Ans. 19-23.
Appellants, among other arguments, present the following principal
argument:
"Rochelle relates to a browser-based spreadsheet application, wherein
navigation and formatting are performed in a user's browser, while
calculations and spreadsheet updates are performed remotely." App. Br. 17.
Rochelle fails to teach or suggest the key disputed limitation. See
App. Br. 17.
Rochelle simply cannot teach "a hybrid manager that integrates
non-local results ... and local results." Instead, Rochelle teaches
a back-end component that performs "the more substantive
processing related to the spreadsheet application, such as the
calculation of functions required to update a spreadsheet."
(Rochelle, para. [0030], emphasis added.) Further, the local
spreadsheet application of Rochelle merely handles "requests
from a user of the client computing device relating to navigating
or formatting a spreadsheet document of the spreadsheet
application." (Rochelle, para. [0006], emphasis added.) Thus,
Rochelle cannot teach "local results of calculations ... performed
by a local calculation engine," much less "a hybrid manager that
integrates non-local results ... and local results."
App. Br. 18; see also Reply Br. 2-3 ("while Rochelle indicates that both the
client engine and server component may perform 'more or fewer functions,'
Rochelle does not teach that a function performed by the client engine or the
3
Appeal2018-001389
Application 13/013,526
server component (i.e., an 'evaluation of functions in a spreadsheet') may be
divided among the client engine and server component.").
Our Review
Rochelle discloses
client engine 3 16 may handle most or all of the functionality
associated with responding to user actions relating to navigating
and/ or formatting the spreadsheet interface without needing to
contact spreadsheet server component 125. Other functions of
the spreadsheet application, such as the evaluation of functions
in a spreadsheet, may be handled by logic in back-end
component 3 2 7.
Rochelle ,r 41.
This disclosure of Rochelle does not teach "local results of
calculations in the client spreadsheet that are associated with local data and
are performed by a local calculation engine," as recited in the key disputed
limitation, because Rochelle's back-end component 327 handles evaluation
of functions in the spreadsheet. Rochelle ,r 41.
Further, responding to user actions relating to navigating and/or
formatting the spreadsheet interface, which is handled by Rochelle's client
engine 316, does not constitute "calculations in the client spreadsheet," as
recited in the key disputed limitation. Such a broad reading of "calculations
in the client spreadsheet" is overly broad and unreasonable in light of
Appellants' Specification. See Spec. ,r 16 ("The operations performed by
calculation engine may be mathematical, such as summation, division,
multiplication, calculations on extensible values, etc., or may include other
functions or features, such as interacting with a data store, such as data store
27.").
4
Appeal2018-001389
Application 13/013,526
Rochelle further discloses
One of ordinary skill in the art will recognize that in
alternate implementations, the division of functions executed at
client engine 316 and back-end component 327 may be modified
such that client engine 316 handles more or fewer functions and
similarly, back-end component 327 may also handle more or
fewer functions.
Rochelle ,r 42.
To the extent Rochelle describes client engine 316 handling more
functions, this still does not describe the key disputed limitation. We find
that this disclosure in Rochelle describes that instead of Rochelle's back-end
component 327 handling evaluation of functions in the spreadsheet, the
function may instead be performed at Rochelle's client engine 316. Reading
the disclosures of Rochelle to go so far as to suggest distributing the
handling of evaluation of functions in the spreadsheet among Rochelle's
client engine 316 and Rochelle's back-end component 327 goes too far, and
goes beyond the actual teachings of Rochelle at paragraphs 41--42.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-9, which depend
from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of
independent claims 10 and 17, which each recite the key disputed limitation.
We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 11-16 and 18-
20, which depend from claims 10 and 17, respectively.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5