Ex Parte Massand

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 16, 2019

12350144 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/350,144 01/07/2009 Deepak Mas sand
22852 7590 05/20/2019
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
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.
11227. 0007-00000 6346
EXAMINER
BROOKS, DAVID T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2019 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEEP AK MAS SAND
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/3 50, 144
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-7, 9-11, and 13-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
An oral hearing was scheduled for May 16, 2019, but was waived by
Appellant. We decide the appeal on the Briefs.
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a system and method for comparing digital
data in spreadsheets or database tables. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of comparing files, the
method comprising:
receiving, by a processor, information identifying a first
file and a second file;
comparing a value of a first cell of the first file with a
value of a second cell of the second file, wherein the second
cell corresponds with the first cell;
comparing a first formula of the first cell with a second
formula of the second cell, wherein the value of the first cell is
determined according to the first formula;
identifying all textual differences between the first
formula of the first cell and the second formula of the second
cell;
generating, by the processor, a comparison file including
one or more cells that
1 Appellant indicated that Litera Technologies, LLC was the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
display redline differences between the value of the first
cell and the value of the second cell, and
display, in redline, all textual differences between the
first formula of the first cell and the second formula of the
second cell;
generating, by the processor, information to display
the first formula of the first cell,
the second formula of the second cell, and
the comparison file including the redline
differences between the first formula and the second
formula; and
generating, by the processor, a user interface that enables
line-item management of the redline differences included in the
comparison file, the user interface including a list of the redline
differences.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Massand
Gelman et al.
Nguyen et al.
Davis
Peled et al.
US 2004/0085354 Al
US 2008/0178117 Al
US 2008/0222508 Al
US 7,650,355 Bl
US 8,315,997 Bl
3
May 6, 2004
July 24, 2008
Sept. 11, 2008
Jan. 19,2010
Nov. 20, 2012
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 13-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peled in view of Nguyen and in further
view of Gelman.
Claims 3- 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peled in view of Nguyen and Gelman, as applied to
claim 1 above and further in view of Massand.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Peled in view of Nguyen and Gelman as applied to
claim 1 above and further in view of Davis.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 13, and 14, Appellant argues
that the Nguyen reference does not identify or display any differences
between cell values or formulas. Instead, the Nguyen reference merely
provides highlighted cells to signify that a difference exists, with a "legend"
providing a generalized reason for the highlighting and the Nguyen
reference does not mention or refer to cell formulas. (App. Br. 14; Reply
Br. 3).
The Examiner relies upon the Peled reference for teaching and
suggesting comparing spreadsheet files with data values and formulas in the
cells. (Final Act. 11-12). We agree with the Examiner that the Peled
reference clearly teaches and suggests comparing data values and formulas
in the cells in the spreadsheet.
4
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
Additionally, the Examiner relies upon the Nguyen reference for
comparing formulas, identifying differences, and displaying differences in
response to a compare function. (Final Act. 12-15). The Examiner relies
upon paragraphs 23, 24, 26, and 32-34 and Figure 7 of the Nguyen reference
in the Response to Arguments section of the Examiner's Answer. (Ans. 3-
4). The Examiner maintains:
Nguyen also explicitly describes identifying differences
between formulas for instance as shown in Fig. 7, wherein
boxes 708 and 710 explicitly describe comparing spreadsheets
and "view differences" between the spreadsheets. The callout
box from 710 explicitly states that "apart from comparing the
data in corresponding cells/row/column the spreadsheet
manager can also compare: (a) the spreadsheet formulas
embedded in some cells."
(Ans. 3).
We agree with the Examiner that the Nguyen reference teaches
comparing values and formulas in the cells and then highlighting those cells.
We further find that although the Nguyen reference does not clearly teach or
suggest any specific display of the formulas, the Nguyen reference teaches
and suggests displaying differences. Additionally, although the specific
interface screen shots shown in figures 8A through 8D do not show formulas
in the display and merely show data values, we find that it would have been
readily apparent to those skilled in the art that if the results of the
comparison were to be useful then they would have to display those results
in the interface with some highlighting or other indications as taught and
suggested by the Gelman reference with the strikethrough. (See generally
Final Act. 16-22).
5
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
As a result, we find Appellant's general argument that the Nguyen
reference does not display the formulas and only highlights the cells to be
unpersuasive. (App. Br. 14). Appellant further contends that:
The Examiner, for example, does not contend that Gelman
discloses displaying both differences between cell values and
between cell formulas. See Office Action at 16-22. Nor does
the Examiner contend that Nguyen discloses displaying both
differences between cell values and between cell formulas. See
id. at 13-14. Instead, the Examiner simply cites the cell-
highlighting feature of Nguyen, which is not applicable to cell
formulas. Id.; Nguyen at Figs. 8A-8D.
(App. Br. 15). Appellant provides a general conclusion that the cell
highlighting is not applicable to cell formulas, but provides no supporting
rationale why it would not have been applicable to cell formulas.
Additionally, Appellant asserts that the Examiner "does not contend that any
particular combination of references suggests displaying both differences
between cell values and between cell formulas. Instead, the Examiner
analyzes each "display" element in isolation, and thus fails to consider the
claimed invention 'as a whole' as required under§ 103." (App. Br. 15).
We disagree with Appellant's argument and find that the argument
discounts the Examiner's discussion of the Peled and Nguyen references
with regards to each comparing both the data and formulas of the cells and
viewing the differences-which clearly suggests that a difference in the
comparison of the formulas would have been within the express disclosure,
or at a minimum suggestive, because it would have been a display of the
results of a comparison expressly taught, but not expressly shown in the
limited screen shots. (Ans. 2--4).
6
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
Further, Appellant contends that, "Nguyen does not identify or display
any differences between cell values or formulas. Instead, Nguyen merely
provides highlighted cells to signify that a difference exists, with a 'legend'
providing a generalized reason for the highlighting." (App. Br. 14). We
disagree with Appellant and find that the use of highlighting is a way to
signify a difference exists. Additionally, the Gelman reference further
supports that highlighting is one of the alternative manners to indicate a
difference. (See Gelman ,r,r 133, 152, and 161).
Appellant contends that Appellant's Specification
specifically disparages the use of conventional highlighting to
display changes made to a document, which is the type of
display utilized in Nguyen. Specification at ,r [0022]. A person
of ordinary skill would therefore have understood that the types
of displays that "provide only a highlighted cell" (as in Nguyen)
and "do not capture changes made at the formula or stored
procedure levels" do not disclose or suggest Appellant's claims.
Id.
Accordingly, the Examiner's proposed combination of
references fails to disclose or suggest at least the elements of
"identifying ... differences" and "displaying ... differences"
between cell formulas.
(App. Br. 14). We disagree with the Appellant and find that Appellant's
reliance upon a general statement in the Specification regarding
"conventional systems" does not specifically address the teachings and
suggestions as applied by the Examiner in the prior art rejection based upon
obviousness. Even under Appellant's description of a conventional system
(i.e., one that merely compares cell values in spreadsheets), Nguyen
describes an unconventional system wherein values and formulas are
7
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
compared across multiple spreadsheets. Compare Nguyen ,r 23, with Spec.
i122.
We further note that although the Specification indicates using a
"change management engine" to investigate and compare cell value data, the
language of independent claim 1 merely recites "by a processor" performing
the various recited steps of "comparing," "identifying," and "generating."
Therefore, Appellant's general argument does not show error in the
proffered combination as set forth by the Examiner in the grounds of the
rejection.
Appellant contends that:
Nguyen does not disclose any display of constituent objects
from a decomposed spreadsheet. Rather, the comparison
display is a composed ( or recomposed) spreadsheet. See, e.g.,
Nguyen at Fig. 8C, ,r [0033] ("FIGS. 8C and 8D show a screen
shot of what the user sees"). As shown in Figure 8C, the
display does not identify or display differences in cell formulas.
Instead, the modified cells are merely highlighted to indicate
that an unspecified modification was made. Id. at ,r,r [0032]-
[0034].
(Reply Br. 3).
Appellant's argument does not apprise us of Examiner error. As an
initial matter, although the figures set forth in Nguyen do not illustrate every
aspect of a comparison result, we find one of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize viewing the results of a comparison would be desirable. More
particularly, the Examiner relies on Gelman for such a teaching. We note
that the Examiner has relied upon the Gelman reference to specifically teach
the well-known aspects of using redline and strikethrough to display the
8
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
results of comparisons, and the Examiner provides a detailed discussion
thereof. (Final Act. 16-22; Ans. 4--5).
Moreover, in combination with the Gelman reference, which is
directed to a Microsoft WORD document using strikethrough, in
combination with the Nguyen reference with respect to Microsoft EXCEL
spreadsheet objects, we find that one skilled in the art would have been
motivated to provide the strikethrough functionality to both the results and
formula comparisons that were performed. (Final Act. 17; Gelman ,r,r 157-
158, and 161 (indicates the use of adjacent windows may be used and a wide
range of equivalents for indicating changes including highlighting,
underlining, italicization, etc. ( Gelman ,r 161) ).
Appellant contends that the claims recite generating a comparison file
that displays both "differences between the value of the first cell and the
value of the second cell" and "differences between the first formula of the
first cell and the second formula of the second cell." (App. Br. 15; Reply
Br. 6). Appellant contends that the Examiner does not rely on any particular
combination of references to suggest displaying both differences. (App. Br.
15). Appellant further contends that the Office Action fails to properly
consider the claim subject matter as a whole. (App. Br. 15-19; Reply Br. 7).
Appellant contends that the Office Action fails to establish any motivation to
combine the Peled and Gelman references. (App. Br. 18-20; Reply Br. 11 ).
Appellant further contends that the Office Action fails to establish any
reasonable expectation of success. (App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 13).
We disagree with Appellant and find the Examiner has provided a
statement of motivation for the combination and set forth "articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
9
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval inKSRint'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007)). (See
Final Act. 21-22). Although we agree with Appellant that there are some
differences in the scale of the systems between the Peled and Gelman
references and the software applications to which they are applied, we note
the language of independent claim 1 merely recites " files" and is directed to
a generic "computer-implemented method of comparing files" in the
preamble. Therefore, we do not find Appellant's general argument to the
differences solely between the Peled and Gelman references to be
persuasive. Moreover, we find Appellant's arguments do not address the
Nguyen reference, which is clearly within the spectrum of the claimed
spreadsheet type of data with comparison of both cell data and formula data
therein.
Additionally, we find the Examiner uses the Nguyen reference to
bridge the variation in technologies between the Gelman and Peled
references. Therefore, Appellant's general arguments to the Gelman and
Peled references does not show error in the Examiner's factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1 and
independent claims 13 and 14 and dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 15-20
not separately argued.
Claims 3-5 and 11
Appellant relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to
representative independent claim 1 for these claims. Because we found no
error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness with respect to
10
Appeal2017-010708
Application 12/350, 144
representative independent claim 1, we similarly find no error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of claims 3-5 and 11.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative independent
claim 1 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and claims 2-7,
9-11, and 13-20, not separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-7, 9-11, and 13-20 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv) (2016).
AFFIRMED
11