Ex Parte Rice

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2016

11372973 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 2016)

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.
11/372,973 03/09/2006 Joseph H. Rice 37202/005001; 050359D 5952
57956 7590 12/19/2016
OSHA - LIANG L.L.P. (INTUIT)
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN STREET, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
EXAMINER
TILLERY, RASHAWN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2016 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@oshaliang.com
lord@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH H. RICE
Appeal 2015-002925
Application 11/372,973
Technology Center 2100
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the Final Rejection of claims 1, 11,21 and 29-
51 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 Appeal Brief 8. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We reverse.
Introduction
The invention is directed to a method for managing data. Specification
3.
1 Claims 1,11, 2land 29-51 stand or fall together with independent claim 1
representative. Appeal Brief 8.
Appeal 2015-002925
Application 11/372,973
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for managing data comprising:
identifying a first database record comprising a first field
and a second field, and a second database record comprising the
first field;displaying a first grid including a first column, a
second column, a first row having the first database record, and
a second row having the second database record, wherein the
first field of the first database record is displayed in a first cell
of the first grid, wherein the first field of the second database
record is displayed in a second cell of the first grid,wherein the
first cell and the second cell are located in the first column of
the first grid, and wherein the second field of the first database
record is located in the second column',displaying a second grid
including the first database record, the first field of the first
database record, the second field of the first database record, a
third database record,
and the second field of the third database record;
receiving, from a first user at a first location, a first
modification value for the first field while displaying the first
grid and the second grid;setting, in the first cell and the second
cell of the first grid, the first field of the first database record
and the first field of the second database record to the first
modification valuq~,highlighting, in response to receiving the
first modification value, the first field of the first database
record in the second grid, wherein the second grid is viewable
by a second user at a second location', andstoring the first
modification value in the first field of the first database record
and the second database record after highlighting the first field.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 11,21 and 29-51 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US Patent Number
2
Appeal 2015-002925
Application 11/372,973
7,058,663 B2; issued June 6, 2006) and Meacham (US Patent Application
Publication Number 2004/0187090 Al; published September 23, 2004).
Final Rejection 2—7.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 5, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed
January 20, 2015), the Answer (mailed November 20, 2014) and the Final
Rejection (mailed January 9, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs.
Appellant argues that Johnston teaches displaying a form with one or
more fields and also teaches that a user may populate the displayed field
with the forms. Appeal Brief 11 (citing Johnston column 5, lines 59—62).
However, Appellant contends that Johnston fails to teach that the same field
from two different database records are both displayed in a single grid as
required in claim 1. Appeal Brief 11. Appellant further argues that
“Johnston still fails to teach that the displayed field of the first database
record and the same displayed field of the second database record, both of
which are displayed in the same grid, are set to the modification value
received from the user while the grid is displayed.” Appeal Brief 11.
The Examiner finds that Johnston discloses a method for managing data by
employing the same form or different forms sharing common data elements.
Final Rejection 2 (citing Johnston, column 1, lines, 11—17 and 53—67;
column 5, lines 3—5 and lines 54—61). The Examiner also finds that
Johnston is deficient and fails to disclose displaying the data within a first
3
Appeal 2015-002925
Application 11/372,973
grid, a first row, and a second row employing three separate database
records as required in claim 1 and relies upon Meacham to address
Johnston’s noted deficiencies. Final Rejection 3^4. The Examiner finds
“Meacham discloses mapping the same XML tags of a plurality of
documents with table fields (see paragraphs [0024] and [0033])” and
determines that “[i]t would have been obvious to an artisan at the time of the
invention to include Meacham’s teachings in Johnston’s user interface in an
effort to maintain uniformity throughout the forms and save user time when
modifying or updating a plurality of documents.” Final Rejection 4.
Appellant argues the Examiner’s Johnston/Meacham combination
fails to disclose the claimed invention because:
The cited portions of Johnston relied upon by the Examiner teach
that the same field may be located on two different forms
displayed to two different users. When one user updates the field
on one of the forms, the corresponding field on the other form
(i.e., not the same form) is also updated. See Johnston at column
5, lines 44-53. . . .
The Examiner also contends that Meacham teaches mapping the
same XML tags of a plurality of documents with table fields. See
Action at page 4. Even assuming arguendo that the Examiner's
contentions are proper, Meacham does not cure what Johnston
lacks.
Appeal Brief 12.
The Examiner relies upon Meacham’s paragraphs 24 and 33 wherein
Meacham discloses “[associating XML tags with table fields simplifies
values for repeating groups of information” where “[a]n XML document
may include a list of multiple records having the same tag.” Final Rejection
4. Meacham’s disclosure does not address the Examiner’s noted Johnston
4
Appeal 2015-002925
Application 11/372,973
deficiency because Meacham does not disclose manipulating the data
wherein the data from multiple databases are displayed on the same grid.
While manipulating or managing data is well within the purview of one of
ordinary skill in the art, however, we are constrained by the record, and
neither Johnston nor Meacham teaches or suggests manipulating data in the
manner in that claim 1 requires. Therefore, we find Appellant’s arguments
persuasive and we do not agree with the Examiner’s findings for the reasons
stated above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 11,21 and 29—51
are reversed.
REVERSED2
2 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may want to consider whether the
claims on appeal are drawn to a patent-ineligible abstract idea, in view of the
Supreme Court’s decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS BankInt 7, 134
S.Ct. 2347 (2014), and in light of recently issued guidance from the Deputy
Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy on subject matter eligibility.
Specifically, the claims may be capable of being performed by humans with
paper and highlighters.
5