Ex Parte Chavoustie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2013

10960131 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2013)

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.
10/960,131 10/07/2004 Michael D. Chavoustie RSW920040159US1 5632
75949 7590 07/26/2013
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy
36 South State Street
Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, MAIKHANH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. CHAVOUSTIE, ANDREW M. EBERBACH,
TREVOR L. MONTGOMERY, and JOSHUA M. WOODS
_____________

Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, HUNG H. BUI, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW,
Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Non-
Final Rejection of claims 14, 15, 47 through 70 and 91 through 94.
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a system to provide a visual indication of
the relationship between cells in a spreadsheet using graphical linking
elements between cells. See pages 1-2 and Figures 4 through 9 of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 14 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
14. A computer program product for visually indicating
relationships among cells in a spreadsheet, comprising:
a computer readable storage medium having computer
readable program code embodied therein, the computer
readable program code comprising:
computer readable program code configured to, when
executed, independently display and hide each of a first
graphical linking element extending between cells in a first
branch of a dependency tree of a root cell and a second
graphical linking element extending between cells in a second
branch of the dependency tree of the root cell.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 15, 47 through 70 and 91
through 94 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of Aureglia (U.S. Patent 7,546,523
B2, Jun. 9, 2009). Answer 4-5.1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
March 29, 2010 Appellants’ Brief dated January 6, 2010.
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

3

The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 15, 47 through 70 and 91
through 94 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of Aureglia (U.S. Patent 7,467,350
B2, Dec. 16, 2008). Answer 5.
The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 15, 47 through 70 and 91
through 94 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of Aureglia (U.S. Patent 7,275,207
B2, Sep. 25, 2007). Answer 5-6.
The Examiner has rejected claims 14, 15, 47 through 70, and 91
through 94 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Michelman (U.S.
5,255,356, Oct. 19, 1993). Answer 6-16.

ISSUES

Nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections
Appellants argue on pages 9 through 16 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejections based upon nonstatutory obvious-type double
patenting rejections are in error. These arguments present us with the issues:
a) did the Examiner err by failing to present evidence to support the
rejections?
b) did the Examiner err by finding the claims of the other patents
make obvious the limitation of a graphical linking element
extending between cells in branches of a dependency tree of a root
cell as recited in independent clam 14 ?

Anticipation rejection
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

4

Appellants argue on pages 16 through 20 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s anticipation of rejection of independent claims 14 and 15 and
their respective dependent claims 50, 51, 53 through 56, 58, 62, 63, 65
through 68, and 70 is in error. These arguments present us with the issues:
c) did the Examiner err by finding that Michelman teaches
independently displaying and hiding each of a first graphical
linking elements extending between cells in a first branch of a
dependency tree of a root cell and a second graphical linking
element extending between cells in a second branch as recited in
representative claim 14?

With respect to dependent claim 47 through 49 and 59 through 61,
Appellants’ arguments on pages 20 and 21 of the Appeal Brief present us
with the issue:
d) did the Examiner err by finding that Michelman teaches displaying
the first graphical linking element while hiding the second graphical
linking element as recited in representative claim 47?

With respect to claims 52 and 64, Appellants’ argument on page 22 of
the Appeal Brief present us with the issue:
e) did the Examiner err by finding that Michelman teaches displaying
a level indicia on a branch cell as recited in claim 52 and 64?

With respect to claims 57 and 69, Appellants’ argument on pages 22
and 23 of the Appeal Brief present us with the issue:
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

5

f) did the Examiner err by finding that Michelman teaches providing a
visual indication of changed cells as recited in claims 57 and 69?

With respect to claims 91 through 94, Appellants’ argument on pages
23 and 24 of the Appeal Brief present us with the issue:
g) did the Examiner err by finding that Michelman teaches the
graphical linking element comprises a graphical line extending
between a pair of cells in a branch as recited in claims 91 through
94?

ANALYSIS
Nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejections
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred by failing to present
evidence to support the rejections, and erred by finding the claims of the
other patents make obvious the limitation of a graphical linking element
extending between cells in branches of a dependency tree of a root cell as
recited in independent clam 14. The Examiner has provided a
comprehensive response, including an analysis comparing the limitations of
the prior art and Appellants’ claim 14. Answer 16 through 25. We concur
with the Examiner’s conclusion; Appellants have not presented arguments
specifically directed to this analysis by the Examiner. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejections under nonstatutory obviousness-type
double patenting.
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

6

Anticipation rejection
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 14, 15, 47
through 49 and 59 through 61 (issues c and d); however, we agree with the
Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 52, 57,
64, 69 and 91 through 94 (issues e, f, and g).

With respect to issues c) and d), we have reviewed the Examiner’s
response to Appellants’ arguments on pages 25 through 27 of the Answer.
Specifically, the Examiner has found that the cells of a group of contiguous
cells are a graphical linking element which is selectively hidden or shown.
Answer 25-26. We concur with the Examiner’s findings and analysis.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14, 15, 47
through 51, 53 through 56, 58 through 63, 65 through 68 and 70
With respect to issue e), each of claims 52 and 64 recites a limitation
directed to displaying a level indicia on a branch cell. The Examiner
responds to Appellants’ arguments, finding that Michelman teaches
analyzing a spreadsheet to discover hierarchical organizations. Answer 27.
While this finding is supported by the disclosure of Michelman, the
Examiner has not identified how this finding teaches the display of level
indicia as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of claims 52 and 64.
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

7

With respect to issue f), claims 57 and 69 each recite a limitation
directed to providing a visual indication of changed cells. The Examiner
responds to Appellants’ arguments on page 28 of the Answer, citing
passages of Michelman which discuss how the cell hierarchy is determined.
However, the Examiner has not identified how these teachings anticipate the
visual indication of changed cells as claimed. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 57 and 69.
With respect to issue g), claims 91 through 94 each recite a limitation
directed to the graphical linking element comprising a graphical path line
extending between a pair of cells. The Examiner responds to Appellants’
arguments by finding that Michelman teaches that a group consists of a
parent row and children rows and that a group is determined by a relative
indentation of data in the row. Answer 29. The Examiner has not identified
how this finding teaches the display of a graphical path line as claimed.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 91 through 94.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of claims 14, 15, 47 through
70 and 91 through 94 on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-ness
double patenting.
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 14, 15,
47 through 51, 53 through 56, 58 through 63, 65 through 68 and 70
We REVERSE the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 52, 57,
64, 69 and 91 through 94.
Appeal 2010-009749
Application 10/960,131

8

Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ke