Ex Parte Rice

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2013

11372973 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOSEPH H. RICE
____________

Appeal 2011-001091
Application 11/372,973
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 11, 21, and 29-51. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
An embodiment of the invention is illustrated by Figure 3, reproduced
below. Spec., ¶ 9.
Appeal 2011-001091
Application 11/372,973

2

Appellant’s Figure 3 illustrates an embodiment of the invention.
The invention performs conflict resolution for data being concurrently
accessed by two users. Spec., ¶¶ 2-3. Before either user saves the data (e.g.,
saves one of the grids 202, 306 of the processing stations 104, 110), the
invention performs a conflict test for conflicting values (e.g., values “dog”
and “cat” of record 2, field 2, of grids 202, 306) and highlights the values for
user resolution. Spec., ¶¶ 24-25; Fig. 3.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative:
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;
Appeal 2011-001091
Application 11/372,973

3
displaying a first grid including the first database record,
the first field of the first database record, the second field of the
first database record, the second database record, and the first
field of the second database record;
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 grid, the first field of the first database
record and the second database record to the first modification
value;
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; and
storing the first modification value in the first field of the
first database record and the second database record after
highlighting the first field.
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Johnston US 7,058,663 B2 June 6, 2008
(filed Mar. 13, 2001)

Appeal 2011-001091
Application 11/372,973

4
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 11, 21, and 29-51 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Johnston. Ans., pp. 4-8.1

ANALYSIS
The issues before us center on the first and second grids set forth in
the independent claims. See infra. The Examiner finds that the claimed
grids read on Johnston’s forms. Ans., p. 4. In doing so, the Examiner finds
that the claimed grids are not recited as having rows and columns and, even
assuming that this was the case, it would have been obvious to implement
Johnston’s forms with rows and columns. Ans., p. 8.
Appellant responds with two arguments. First, Appellant contends
that a skilled artisan would view the claimed grids as having rows and
columns because the Specification discloses a grid 202 having rows 204 and
columns 206 (Reply Br., p. 5) and because a general dictionary “defines a
grid as a framework of crisscrossed or parallel bars” (id. at p. 6). Second,
Appellant contends that implementing Johnston’s forms as grids of rows and
columns would require “drastic and violent changes to Johnston’s system”
that “violate the fundamental nature of Johnston.” Id. at p. 8. Appellant’s
arguments are not persuasive for the reasons below.
Turning to the first issue of whether the claimed grids have rows and
columns, neither the Specification’s use nor common usage of “grid”
requires such an inclusion of rows and columns. In fact, the Specification
contrarily states: “In one or more embodiments of the invention, grid 202

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed March 29, 2010
(“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed June 24, 2010 (“Ans.”), and Reply
Brief filed August 20, 2010.
Appeal 2011-001091
Application 11/372,973

5
includes records displayed as rows 204 and fields within those records
displayed as columns 206.” Spec., ¶ 24. Conversely, if “one or more
embodiments” of the grid 202 include rows and columns, then some
embodiments do not include rows and columns. And in any event, even
assuming that all embodiments of the grid 202 included rows and columns,
the grid 202 is merely exemplary. Spec., ¶ 11.
The ordinary usage of “grid” also does not require an inclusion of
rows and columns. Appellant’s own argument reflects as much by stating
that a general dictionary “defines a grid as a framework of crisscrossed or
parallel bars; a grating or mesh.” Reply Br., p. 6. This definition
encompasses non-rectangular grids; that is, without rows and columns. See
e.g., U.S. Patent No. 6,503,204, issued on January 7, 2003 to Sumanaweera
et al. (“Two-dimensional ultrasonic transducer array having transducer
elements in a non-rectangular or hexagonal grid for medical diagnostic
ultrasonic imaging and ultrasound imaging system using same”), col. 2, ll.
25-29; col. 3, ll. 42-48.
The second issue – whether implementing Johnston’s forms as grids
of rows and columns would have been obvious – is moot in view of the
above claim construction. Nonetheless, we note there is no apparent reason
why Johnston’s teachings would require non-obvious changes to implement
the forms with rows and columns, as contended by Appellant. To the
contrary, Johnston’s forms are broadly defined as a “collection of data
elements/data points” (Johnston, col. 5, l. 59) and data forms of rows and
columns were commonplace, e.g., spreadsheets. The Specification reflects
as much by stating in the discussion of the invention’s background that:
Appeal 2011-001091
Application 11/372,973

6
“Records used in workflow processes are stored in many forms. For
example, records may be stored in spreadsheets . . . .” Spec., ¶ 2.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not established a reversible
error. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 11, 21,
and 29-51 over Johnston.

ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,
11, 21, and 29-51 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

peb