Ex parte Nielsen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 26, 2001

08941186 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 26, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for publication and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JAKOB NIELSEN
__________
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before KRASS, BARRETT, and BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRASS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-18, all of the pending claims.
The invention is directed to sorting tables downloaded from the world wide web. In particular,
a graphical user interface comprises a sort routine for rearranging table data based on one or more
hidden sort keys.
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
2
Representative independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A computer, comprising:
a. a processor, and
b. a graphical user interface, running on said processor, said graphical user interface comprising
a sort routine for rearranging table data based on one or more hidden sort keys.
The examiner relies on the following references:
MacGregor et al. (MacGregor) 5,396,621 Mar. 7, 1995
Stodghill et al. (Stodghill) 5,710,901 Jan. 20, 1998
(filed Dec. 29, 1995)
Minakuchi et al. (Minakuchi) 5,745,891 Apr. 28, 1998
(filed Sep. 27, 1996)
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103. As evidence of obviousness, the examiner
offers MacGregor and Stodghill with regard to claims 1-3, 9, 10 and 12-18, adding Minakuchi with
regard to claims 4-8 and 11.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of appellant and the
examiner.
OPINION
At the outset, we note appellant’s indication, at page 8 of the brief, of certain informalities in the
claims, and we leave to the good auspices of the examiner and appellant any necessary amendments to
cause claim 11 to depend from claim 10, rather than from claim 8.
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
3
With regard to claims 1-3, 9, 10 and 12-18, it is the examiner’s position that MacGregor
shows a processor [column 5, lines 23-54] and a graphical user interface [Figures 3 and 6(b)]. The
examiner indicates that while MacGregor provides a sort function for rearranging spreadsheet
data based on one or more sort keys, wherein the sort key indicates what data is to be stored,
MacGregor does not teach a sort routine for rearranging table data based on one or more “hidden” sort
keys. Thus, the examiner turns to Stodghill for a system that may be programmed
to operate a computer spreadsheet program having fields for entering data, wherein each field is
associated with a data object data attribute (“doda”), the “doda” being hidden from the user and
containing information and algorithms to identify the data format corresponding to the field to which it is
linked [Stodghill-column 2, lines 45-65; column 3, lines 25-32].
It is the examiner’s position that since artisans would have known that a sort routine includes a
comparison of data in different fields, would have recognized that a comparison is made based on some
criteria and that the outcome of the comparison determines what action is to be taken and would have
recognized that a doda object could be programmed with a validation algorithm by a developer and
that the developer could substitute a comparison algorithm with a sorting algorithm, it would have been
obvious to incorporate the apparatus of Stodghill into the apparatus of MacGregor since it would
provide a developer with the flexibility in designing functions for users.
Appellant argues that while MacGregor discloses a system for sorting cells in a spreadsheet
based on values in either a selected row or a selected column of the spreadsheet, the rows and columns
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
4
are visible and the row or column selected is the sort key. Therefore, argues appellant, MacGregor
does not teach sorting cells in a spreadsheet based on one or more hidden
sort keys. Appellant also argues that Stodghill is directed to data entry by a user into a database and
does disclose the use of a hidden object, a data object data attribute (doda), associated with a widget (
a widget being a subset of the display area into which data to be stored may be entered via the
keyboard) but that a hidden sort key, as claimed, is not disclosed by the combination of references.
Stodghill does disclose a hidden object. Column 3, lines 65-67, indicates that both “the doda
object 16 and the data object 22 are hidden from the user, who sees only the widget data on his CRT
display 10". However, unlike appellant’s hidden object, Stodghill’s hidden object appears to be used
only for data entry and retrieval functions of formatting and validation of entered data. The instant
invention is directed to hidden keys which are “sort” keys used in sorting table data.
Claim 1 calls for “a sort routine for rearranging table data based on one or more hidden sort
keys.” Claim 10 requires “selectively sorting said table data based on said hidden sort key.” Claim 12
merely calls for a method of authoring table data comprising the step of “associating a sort key with cell
data so that the sort key is not displayed.” Claim 14 is similar to claim 10 in reciting “selectively sorting
said table information based on said hidden sort key.” Claim 15 recites, “...to sort said table
information based on a hidden sort key.” Claim 16 brings in a network and a server wherein the server
stores table information and “at least some cells of said table information include a hidden sort key.”
Claims 17 and 18 are “computer program product” claims with claim 17 calling for “selectively sorting
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
5
table data based on a hidden sort key” and claim 18 calling for computer controlling information
“associating a sort key with cell data of a table so that the sort key is not displayed.”
We agree with appellant that MacGregor discloses a system for sorting cells in a spreadsheet
based on values in a selected row or column and that the row or column selected is the sort key.
MacGregor is silent as to any “hidden” sort keys. Stodghill is not directed to sorting at all but, rather, to
data entry by a user into a database. A hidden object, a data object data attribute (doda), associated
with a widget, is employed by Stodghill to control the format of a data object displayed in the widget.
The doda object is also used to validate the entry of data via a validation program. Thus, appellant is
correct in asserting that the hidden object in Stodghill appears to be used for formatting and validation
purposes, but not for “sorting.”
Stodghill does suggest, at column 3, lines 38-47, that different doda objects will include
different member functions (a member function is an algorithm) and that the “particular member
functions used by each doda object are not limited and may be selected or programmed by the
developer.” However, since Stodghill always appears to mention a member function, or algorithm, in
connection with formatting or validation, there would appear to be no suggestion to the artisan to
extend the hidden object to a sorting function. While MacGregor is directed to a sorting function, we
find no suggestion in either reference, or the combination, for expanding Stodghill’s teaching of a hidden
object to the sorting function of MacGregor.
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
6
In his response to appellant’s argument, at page 5 of the answer, the examiner explains that
when the term “key” is used in a database management context it
constitutes an attribute that is used to enable the retrieval and/or
update of information as well as a sort for the purpose of establishing
the order of their associated fields. Accordingly, while Stodghill’s
explicitly teaches [sic] of a “key” being provided as a hidden attribute
for the storage and retrieval functions of formatting and validation, it also
suggests sorting for the purpose of establishing the order of their
associated fields since it is one of the functions that is generally associated
with the term in a database management environment and Stodghill’s
uses [sic] the term in such a context.
The examiner may very well be correct in his assessment as to a key constituting an attribute
used to enable retrieval and/or update of information as well as a sort. The problem is that the
examiner has offered no evidence of this allegation. While the instant claims are broad, e.g., claim 12
requires nothing more than “associating a sort key with cell data so that the sort key is not displayed”,
having nothing before us that would suggest the use of a hidden object for sorting purposes, we could
only sustain the outstanding rejections by resorting to speculation. That is, we would need to speculate
that Stodghill’s disclosure of the algorithms used by the doda (“are not limited and may be selected or
programmed by the developer”) would have suggested a sorting algorithm to an artisan. Such
speculation could only be born of hindsight gleaned from appellant’s disclosure.
Minakuchi, cited by the examiner merely for sorting of data by clicking on a header, does not
provide for the deficiencies of MacGregor and Stodghill.
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
7
Accordingly, the examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
)
) APPEALS AND
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
)
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
EAK/kis
Appeal No. 2000-0357
Application 08/941,186
8
MCDERMOTT, WILL & EMERY
600 13TH STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-3096