Ex Parte Chan et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 30, 2011

09755863 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 30, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
09/755,863 01/05/2001 Marise Chan 60001.0005US01/154627.01 3683
27488 7590 12/01/2011
MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT)
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
VAUGHN, GREGORY J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2011 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARISE CHAN, TUAN HUYNH, JUSTIN M. MAGUIRE, III,
MARCELLA C.S. RADER and CHRISTOPHER C. YU

___________

Appeal 2009-012975
Application 09/755,863
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and ERIC B. CHEN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-012975
Application 09/755,863

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 2, 5-7, 21 and 22. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8-20 and 23 have been cancelled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a find and replace feature for a
spreadsheet program module, including formatting attributes of a cell.
(Spec. Abstract.)
Claim 2 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
2. A computer-implemented method for populating a
plurality of fields in a find dialog of a spreadsheet program module,
the method comprising the steps of:
choosing a plurality of formatting characteristics of a cell in the
spreadsheet;
editing the plurality of fields in the find dialog to correspond to
the plurality of formatting characteristics of the cell; and
wherein the step of choosing the plurality of formatting
characteristics of the cell in the spreadsheet is performed in response
to moving a cursor over the cell containing said plurality of formatting
characteristics and clicking a mouse button to select the cell, whereby
in response to selecting the cell the formatting characteristics of the
selected cell are determined and applied to the plurality of fields of
the find dialog.

Claims 2 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Underdahl (BRIAN UNDERDAHL, USING QUATTRO PRO 6 FOR
WINDOWS (Que Corporation 1994) and WordPerfect (NOVELL INC.,
WORDPERFECT V6.1 USER’S GUIDE (1994)).
Claims 5 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Underdahl, WordPerfect and Corel (COREL CORP.,
CORELDRAW USER’S MANUAL (1992)).
Appeal 2009-012975
Application 09/755,863

3
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Underdahl, WordPerfect, Corel and Microsoft Excel 2000
(Microsoft Corp., Microsoft Excel 2000 (1985-1999)).
ISSUE
Has the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Underdahl
and WordPerfect teaches or suggests “whereby in response to selecting the
cell the formatting characteristics of the selected cell are determined and
applied to the plurality of fields of the find dialog,” as recited in independent
claim 2?
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 2, we are persuaded by Appellants’
arguments (App. Br. 7-9
1
; see also Reply Br. 9-11) that the combination of
Underdahl and WordPerfect would not have rendered obvious independent
claim 2, including the disputed limitation “whereby in response to selecting
the cell the formatting characteristics of the selected cell are determined and
applied to the plurality of fields of the find dialog.”
The Examiner found that the combination of Underdahl and
WordPerfect would have rendered obvious independent claim 2. (Ans. 3-4,
4-5.) In particular, the Examiner found that the step of selecting the default
General format in the “Active Block Object Inspector” dialog box of
Underdahl corresponds to the disputed limitation “whereby in response to
selecting the cell the formatting characteristics of the selected cell are
determined and applied to the plurality of fields of the find dialog.”
(Ans. 5.) We do not agree.

1
We refer to the Appeal Brief filed on August 15, 2006.
Appeal 2009-012975
Application 09/755,863

4
Underdahl relates to formatting, analyzing and presenting data for a
spreadsheet. (Cover.) In the “Applying the Available Formats” section,
Underdahl explains that:
[t]o change the display format of a cell or block, first highlight the cell
or block. Then click the right mouse button inside the cell or block
. . . to open the Active Block Object Inspector dialog box. The
Numeric Format pane is selected by default. If no numeric format has
been assigned, the default General format is checked . . . .
(P. 193.)
In the context of entire section, Underdahl teaches that to change the
display format of the cell or block, the “Active Block Object Inspector”
dialog box must first be opened to control the formatting of the cell or block.
If a user has not selected a format, the default General format applies to the
selected cell or block. However, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the step of highlighting a cell or block causes
the existing format of the highlighted cell or block to be selected by the
“Active Block Object Inspector” dialog box and therefore, Underdahl does
not teach or suggest that the formatting characteristics of the selected cell are
determined and applied to the plurality of fields of the find dialog in
response to selecting the cell.
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Underdahl and WordPerfect would have rendered obvious independent
claim 2, including the limitation “whereby in response to selecting the cell
the formatting characteristics of the selected cell are determined and applied
to the plurality of fields of the find dialog.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 2
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appeal 2009-012975
Application 09/755,863

5
Independent claim 22 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 2. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 22 for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 2.
Corel was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features
of claims 5 and 21. (Ans. 4.) However, the Examiner’s application of Corel
does not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Underdahl and WordPerfect.
Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 21 for the same
reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 2.
Microsoft Excel 2000 was cited by the Examiner for teaching the
additional features of dependent claims 6 and 7. (Ans. 4.) However, the
Examiner’s application of Microsoft Excel 2000 does not cure the
above-noted deficiencies of Underdahl and WordPerfect. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7 for the same reasons discussed
with respect to independent claim 1.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has erred in finding that the combination of Underdahl
and WordPerfect teaches or suggests “whereby in response to selecting the
cell the formatting characteristics of the selected cell are determined and
applied to the plurality of fields of the find dialog,” as recited in independent
claim 2.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 5-7, 21 and 22 is reversed.

REVERSED

ke