Ex Parte Grigoriev

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 23, 2008

09699572 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 23, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte NIKOLAI GRIGORIEV
____________

Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572
Technology Center 2100
____________

Decided: April 23, 2008
____________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JAY P. LUCAS, and STEPHEN C.
SIU, Administrative Patent Judges.

SIU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572

2
A. INVENTION
The invention at issue involves rendering tabular data (Spec. 1). In
particular, cells of a table are parsed and stored in a grid. Formatting
commands are used to render the cells to a target media (id. 5).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, which further illustrates the invention, follows:
1. A set of executable instructions operable to generically render a
table for output processing, comprising the steps of:
receiving a table having a plurality of cells wherein each cell spans
one or more columns and one or more rows;
representing the table as a geometric grid wherein one or more
positions within the grid house one or more of the cells, and wherein each
cell is assigned a synchronization marker; and
providing a generic table represented by one or more formatting
commands operable to provide a rendering of the grid to one or more output
media, wherein a size of the generic table is configurable and when the grid
is rendered to the one or more output media by processing different ones of
the cells representing different aspects of a same version of the generic table
in an order defined by each cell’s synchronization marker, wherein a number
of cells which have a same synchronization marker are processed together as
an independent group, and wherein at least two different cells have the same
synchronization marker, and wherein the cells are processed in a sequential
order defined by their corresponding synchronization marker to render the
grid.

Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572

3
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 5,883,635 (“Rao”) and U.S. Patent No.
6,584,476 (“Chatterjee”).

II. ANALYSIS
A. EXAMINER'S REJECTION
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1,
8, and 15 and argues that “the proposed combination (of Rao and
Chattergee) lacks any teaching of ‘synchronization markers’ as defined by
Applicants’ independent claims” (emphasis added) (App. Br. 12) because
the “synchronization” of Chattergee “is associated with a record and is for
version control” and “is not associated with a ‘cell’ or a table that is being
rendered” (id.). Appellant also argues that “the synchronization fields in
Chatterjee are incapable of defining any processing order” and that “there is
no order defined at all across different synchronization fields because
processing is for a single field value” (id. 13).
The Examiner states that Chatterjee discloses “wherein each cell is
assigned a synchronization marker” that allows “a user to make changes to
the design and update the database with the changes. See column 2, lines
20-54” (Ans. 16). While the Examiner finds that Chatterjee discloses that a
user may “update the information” within a database, “with the updates not
being visible to other users while the information is being updated” (col. 2,
Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572

4
ll. 23-24), the Examiner has not demonstrated that Chattergee discloses
processing cells in a table with a same synchronization marker together as an
independent group, or that cells in the table are processed in a sequential
order defined by the corresponding synchronization marker to render a grid.
Nor has the Examiner provided a rationale as to how updating information
within a database (Chattergee) is equivalent or suggestive of assigning a
synchronization marker to cells in a table and processing the cells in an order
defined by the assigned synchronization markers.
The Examiner further states that
“if the synchronization values are the same, then any modifications
made to the record are associated with each record that is
synchronized which meets the limitation, ‘when the grid is rendered
to one or more output media each cell having a same
synchronization marker are processed together as an independent
group’. See column 21, lines 1-20” (id.).

Chattergee discloses different versions of a database (e.g., in a “parent state”
(unmodified) or in a “child state” (modified)), where each has a
corresponding “synchronization value” that “will be the same . . . (to) . . .
indicate that the two record versions are synchronized” (col. 21, ll. 4-10).
(Emphasis added.) The Examiner does not demonstrate a nexus between the
concept of synchronizing data in different versions of a database with
processing cells in a table to render a grid by processing cells representing
different aspects of a same version of the table in an order defined by each
cell’s synchronization marker as recited in claims 1, 8, and 25.
Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572

5
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 25, and of
claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, which depend therefrom.

B. BOARD'S REJECTION
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) (2007), we enter a new rejection against
claims 1-20. We reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101(a) as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, claims 1-20 recite “a
set of executable instructions” which constitutes descriptive material per se
not otherwise embodied or recorded on and functionally interrelated to a
computer-readable medium. In re Warmerdam, 33F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed.
Cir. 1994).
Also, a method may “qualify as a section 101 process . . . when the
process ‘either [1] was tied to a particular apparatus’ or [2] operated to
change materials to a ‘different state or thing.’” In re Comiskey, 499 F.3d
1365, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In the present case, claims 1-20 recite
processes that do not change or transform material to a different state. Nor
do claims 1-20 recite processes that are tied to a particular apparatus.
Therefore, we reject claims 1-20.

Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572

6
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides that, “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner …

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
37 C.F.R. § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record …

IV. ORDER
In summary, the rejection of claims 1-20 under § 103(a) is reversed.
A new rejection of claims 1-20 under § 101, however, is added.

Appeal 2008-0250
Application 09/699,572

7
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REVERSED
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

rwk

SCHWEGMAN, LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402