Ex Parte Reeves et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201611461087 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 11/461,087 07/31/2006 Andrew Reeves REDDI-013PUS 3101 22494 7590 01/04/2017 DALY, CROWLEY, MOFFORD & DITRKEE, LLP SUITE 301A 354A TURNPIKE STREET CANTON, MA 02021-2714 EXAMINER FABER, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2017 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): docketing@dc-m.com amk@dc-m.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW REEVES, JAMES CULVERWELL, and AARON WITTMAN Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 Technology Center 2100 Before: JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejections of claims 1, 7—11, and 17-44, which constitute all pending claims. Final Act. 1; App. Br. 2, 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 TECHNOLOGY The Specification addresses the storage and processing of spreadsheets. Spec. 11. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A system for monitoring and auditing data in one or more spreadsheets, each of the one or more spreadsheets comprising a plurality of cells, the system comprising: a file store within which files containing spreadsheet data can be stored; a database stored in a computer hardware memory module separately from the file store, wherein the database is a programmed database that supports computer application for performing specific actions on data stored within the database; database building means for loading the database with the content of the one or more spreadsheet files; and monitoring means, the monitoring means being operative to continuously detect changes in spreadsheet data within the file store, and to record the changes in the database, the changes including changes in formulae in cells of the database; the monitoring means including comparison means operative to repeatedly compare successive versions of a file in the file store by comparing each cell in a current version of the file with a corresponding cell in a previous version of the file and, if it is determined that the content of a cell has changed, creating a record of the change in said database, the record including data that classifies the change, such that the database contains a history of changes for recovering an earlier state of the spreadsheet starting with the file as it is in the file store. 2 Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 REFERENCES Bhansali Ammirato Burfoot Jones US 6,006,239 Dec. 21, 1999 US 6,438,565 B1 Aug. 20, 2002 US 2002/0188629 A1 Dec. 12, 2002 US 2004/0162833 A1 Aug. 19, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 7—9, 11, 17—19, 21—26 and 28-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bhansali, Burfoot, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, and Ammirato. Ans. 2. Claims 10, 20, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Bhansali, Burfoot, Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art, Ammirato, and Jones. Ans. 2. ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the cited prior art fails to teach or suggest (i) the monitoring and comparing means recited in independent claims 1 and 23 and (ii) the database recited in each independent claim. App. Br. 6—21. The Examiner and Appellants agree that the monitoring means and comparison means recited in independent claims 1 and 23 are means-plus- function limitations subject to 35 U.S.C. § 112 | 6. Final Act. 10; App. Br. 7. A means-plus-fimction limitation is construed to encompass the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification for performing the recited function and equivalents thereto. 35 U.S.C. § 112 | 6. The Monitoring and Comparison Means 3 Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 Examiner and Appellants, however, dispute the corresponding structure disclosed in the Specification for the monitoring and comparison means. The Examiner identifies a computer responsible for monitoring and recording activities performed by users upon the spreadsheets comprising software to perform the monitoring as the corresponding structure for the monitoring means. Ans. 5. The Examiner further identifies a monitoring server as the corresponding structure for the comparison means. Ans. 10. Appellants argue that the corresponding structure for the monitoring and comparison means includes more than these general purpose computers. App. 7—10; Reply Br. 2—6. We agree with Appellants. For a computer-implemented invention, the corresponding structure for a means plus function element must be more than a general purpose computer. Aristocrat Techs. Austl. PtyLtd. v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Ergo Licensing, LLC v. CareFusion 303, Inc., 673 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In particular, the corresponding structure must include an algorithm, which is a step-by-step procedure for accomplishing a given result.1 Ergo, 673 F.3d at 1364. Here, Appellants set forth steps performed by the disclosed monitoring means that constitute an algorithm. In particular, the disclosed monitoring means: (i) selects and accesses domains for monitoring files, (ii) monitors files in the accessed domains by scanning the targeted network environment for all files to be monitored, (iii) runs multiple scans, (iv) 1 A rare exception is if a general purpose computer can perform the recited function without any special programming (e.g., the function is merely “processing,” “receiving,” or “storing”). In re Katz Interactive Cell Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 n. 11 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The functions recited here do not trigger this exception. 4 Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 copies a changed file form its location, (v) converts the file into XML, and (vi) identifies changes on a cell-by-cell basis. App. Br. 7—8, citing Spec. Tflf 60, 61, 75, 79-90, and 100. This algorithm is part of the corresponding structure for the monitoring means. Appellants also set forth steps performed by the comparison means in the Specification that constitute an algorithm. In particular, the disclosed comparison means: (i) positions a pointer at the first cell structure in each of two XML files; (ii) checks the cell positions, values and formulas to identify differences between the XML files; (iii) repeats the process for each cell; and then (iv) produces a delta XML file categorizing differences between the compared XML files. App. Br. 11, citing Spec. 84—88. This algorithm is part of the corresponding structure for the comparison means. In the Answer, the Examiner indicated that the steps listed above are merely examples of what the monitoring server could do (Ans. 5) or are mere functionality for the disclosed comparison means. Ans. 10. We disagree. Although for many claim elements, the examples in the Specification are not limiting, a means-plus-fimction limitation is limited to its corresponding structure disclosed in examples (or other parts of the specification) and equivalents. 35 U.S.C. § 112 16. Similarly, although for a non-computer implemented invention, the steps listed above might be considered mere functionality, for a computer-implemented invention, they are part of the corresponding structure. The Examiner has not set forth any rationale why the cited prior art would render obvious claims 1 or 23 when these claims are construed to encompass the algorithms set forth above or their equivalents. Final Act. 11—16; Ans. 3—15. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 5 Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 rejections of claims 1 and 23 or their dependent claims 7—10, 24—28, 39, and 41. Recited Database Claim 1 recites “creating a record of the change in said database, the record including data that classifies the change, such that the database contains a history of changes for recovering an earlier state of the spreadsheet starting with the file as it is in the file store” and a database containing “a history of changes for recovering an earlier state of a spreadsheet with the file as it is in the file store.” The other independent claims (11, 23, 29, 35, and 37) recite corresponding limitations. Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest a database containing a history of changes for recovering an earlier state of spreadsheet starting with the file as it is in the file store. App. Br. 14—17. The Examiner finds that Bhansali teaches a database recording changes, and Ammirato teaches recording a history of changes for recovering an earlier state of a spreadsheet. Final Act. 11, 14—15; Ans. 21—22, citing Ammirato 3:10-24; 8:11-13, 9:10-20 and 30-43, 11:40-44; 12:11-18, 33-35 and38- 40, claim 26. The Examiner explains that Ammirato teaches having a user view a current version of a spreadsheet and select a previous version of a spreadsheet, and then Ammirato uses a delta file to change the cells on display that were changed between the versions. Ans. 22; Ammirato 3:10— 24; 8:11-13, 9:10-20 and 30-43, 11:40-44; 12:11-18 and 33^10, claim26. By making these changes, Ammirato displays the previous version. Id. Appellants argue that this process in Ammirato (in combination with Bhansali) does not teach or suggest the involved limitation because 6 Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 Ammirato does not apply its delta changes to the cells of the current version and work back to the previous version. App. Br. 14—17. We are not persuaded by that argument, however, because the disputed limitation does not require that the delta changes be applied to the current version to obtain an earlier version. The disputed limitation merely requires that the history of changes (e.g., the delta changes) be for recovering an earlier state of the spreadsheet starting with the file as it is in the file store. Here, the Examiner sets forth how the user starts with the spreadsheet in Ammirato and uses the delta file to obtain the earlier version of the changed cells from their cells in the base case. Ans. 20-22; Ammirato 3:10-24; 8:11—13, 9:10-20 and 30— 43, 11:40-44; 12:11—18 and 33—40, claim 26. And the disputed limitation does not preclude recovering an earlier version of the spreadsheet in this manner. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner regarding the disputed database limitations in the independent claims and adopt the Examiner’s findings and rationale regarding these limitations. Therefore, we sustain the rejections of all claims other than the claims that recite the monitoring and comparison means either directly or through dependency (i.e., we sustain the rejections of claims 11, 17—20, 22, 29-38, 40, and 42-44). 7 Appeal 2016-000371 Application 11/461,087 DECISION We reverse the rejections of claims 1, 7—10, 21, 23—28, 39, and 41. We affirm the rejections of claim 11, 17—20, 22, 29-38, 40, and 42- No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation