Ex Parte Sauermann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2017

14076603 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2017)

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.
14291-123-999 5247
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
14/076,603 11/11/2013
140285 7590
Jones Day For SAP
250 Vesey Street
New York, NY 10281-1047
Volker Sauermann
02/23/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VOLKER SAUERMANN
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
25—53. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
The invention relates to displaying data in a table where a scroll-bar is
associated with an individual cell of the table (see Spec. 16, 27, 28; Fig.
lb). Claim 25, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
25. A computer system for controlling a display of data,
comprising:
a hardware computer processor configured to display a
graphical user interface display that includes:
a table; and
a control device, the control device being displayed if and
only if a particular one of a plurality of displayed cells of the
table, the control device selectively associated with only the
particular cell, contains data, display settings of the data
requiring for a display of the data a display-area larger than a
display-area allotted to the particular cell;
wherein:
the control device is at least one of a scroll-bar and a
toggle-button-set;
the data includes a text string;
the control device is manipulable for controlling
navigation of the data directly responsive to the manipulation of
the control device; and
the navigation control includes shifting a position of the
text string so that a display position of at least a portion of the
text string is shifted from a first displayed position of the
particular cell to a second displayed position of the particular
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
cell.
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Oono
Cohn
Cline et al.
US 4,831,556
US 5,712,995
US 5,771,032
May 16, 1989
Jan. 27, 1998
June 23, 1998
2
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
Onda et al.
Loring et al.
Wagner et al.
Stead
Chaudhri et al.
US 5,860,067 Jan. 12, 1999
US 6,020,887 Feb. 1,2000
US 6,590,595 B1 July 8, 2003
US 6,690,401 B1 Feb. 10, 2004
US 2009/0055768 Al Feb. 26, 2009
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 25—27, 31—33, and 51—53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cohn and Loring.
Claims 28, 29, and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cohn, Loring, Wagner, and Chaudhri.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cohn, Loring, and Wagner.
Claims 34—37, 43, and 46-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cline and Oono.
Claims 38, 39, and 44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cline, Oono, Loring, and Cohn.
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cline, Oono, and Onda.
Claim 41 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cline, Oono, Wagner, and Chaudhri.
Claim 42 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cline, Oono, and Wagner.
Claim 45 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cline, Oono, and Stead.
3
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
ANALYSIS
Claims 25—27, 30, and 51—53
Appellant contends the combination of Cohn and Loring does not
suggest a scroll or toggle control “selectively associated with only the
particular cell” of a table, as recited in claim 25 (App. Br. 2—6). Appellant
also contends the Cohn and Loring combination fails to suggest displaying
the scroll or toggle control only if the cell “contains data, display settings of
the data requiring for a display of the data a display-area larger than a
display-area allotted to the particular cell,” as also recited in claim 1 (App.
Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument.
Cohn discloses a user interface that “permits the creation,
management and manipulation of panes, whole partitions, segment partitions
and cross partitions unrestricted by and without requiring any fixed pane
layout or symmetry” (Cohn, col. 10,11. 56—60). The window that contains
Cohn’s panes is referred to as a “tiler,” where “[a] tiler of the present
invention can contain any number of panes and partitions, and there is no
fixed maximum number of panes and partitions. As a result, the present
invention could be used for a spreadsheet with each pane corresponding to a
spreadsheet cell.” (Cohn, col. 35,11. 31—36). We thus agree with the
Examiner that Cohn’s tiler meets the claim 25 limitation of a “table,” and
Cohn’s panes meet the limitation of “a plurality of displayed cells of the
table” (Ans. 3).
Loring discloses a display screen with two windows 22, each
containing a work object 24 (Loring, col. 3,1. 66—col. 4,1. 7; Fig. 1).
The work objects 24 contained in each of the windows are
dimensioned such that the total apparent size of each work
object exceeds the area which is visible to the user within the
windows 22 as currently sized. As a result, scroll bars 28 and
4
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
30 are provided to permit a user to alter the viewpoint of the
window to observe a different portion of the work object 24.
(Loring, col. 4,11. 7—13). We thus agree with the Examiner that Loring
teaches providing a scroll bar where displayed data requires a display area
larger than the display area allotted to the data, as recited in claim 25 (Ans.
3). We further agree with the Examiner that Loring suggests “the scroll
and/or toggle control device is displayed only if the particular cell with
which the control device is associated requires it for complete display of its
data,” as also recited in claim 25 (Ans. 13) (emphasis added). That is, in
light of Loring’s teaching that unnecessary scroll bars waste screen area
(Loring, col. 2,11. 23—28), Loring would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art to only display Loring’s scroll bars 28 and 30 if there were a
portion of the work object 24 outside the view of the window containing the
work object.
Accordingly, we find the combination of Cohn and Loring teaches
providing a scroll bar for a pane in Cohn’s tiler if, and only if, the data in the
pane requires a larger display area than the pane provides. This meets the
claim 25 limitations of
a control device, the control device being displayed if and only
if a particular one of a plurality of displayed cells of the table,
the control device selectively associated with only the particular
cell, contains data, display settings of the data requiring for a
display of the data a display-area larger than a display-area
allotted to the particular cell.
We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
25, and claims 26, 27, 30, and 51—53 not specifically argued separately.
5
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
Claims 28, 29, and 50
The Examiner finds the combination of Cohn, Loring, Wagner, and
Chaudhri discloses
the toggle-button-set is displayed only upon satisfaction of a
first condition that a width of the display-area is not more than
double the particular cell’s width, and the scroll-bar is
displayed only upon satisfaction of a second condition, in
which . . . the width of the display-area is more than double the
particular cell’s width,
as recited in claim 28. Specifically, the Examiner finds Chaudhri teaches
a first condition that a width of a content display-area is a
critical size factor or percentage of a particular window’s width
(e.g., a window may be reasonably analogized as a cell); a
second condition, in which . . . the particular cell is smaller than
where the first condition is satisfied
(Final Act. 10). Appellant contends Chaudhri does not teach the claim 28
features for which it is relied upon (App. Br. 9—10). We agree with
Appellant.
Chaudhri teaches switching from a first mode of display for a GUI
component to a second mode of display for the GUI component, depending
on whether a user’s resizing of the component exceeds a predetermined
critical size (Chaudhri, | 56). For example, a selection list 1401 switches
from a normal mode—where a scrollable list is displayed—to a mini
mode—where a single item is displayed with a button that, when pressed,
displays the full list (Chaudhri, |50; Fig. 14). In Chaudhri, however, the
switch from one type of GUI component, i.e., normal mode, to another type,
i.e., mini mode, depends on the size of the GUI component itself (see
Chaudhri, | 56), in contrast to claim 28, where the switch from a scroll
control to a toggle-button-set depends not on the size of the control, but on
the size of a cell being controlled. Moreover, the Examiner has not shown
6
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
the prior art combination teaches the specifically claimed conditions for
switching between controls, i.e., whether the display area required for data in
a cell is equal to or less than twice the cell width or more than twice the cell
width, as required by claim 28.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 28, claim 29 which recites commensurate
limitations, and claim 50 which depends from claim 29.
Claims 31—33
The Examiner finds the combination of Cohn and Loring discloses all
the limitations of claim 31, including that Loring teaches displaying,
“responsive to selection of a particular one of the cells of the table, a control
device selectively associated with only the particular cell” (Final Act. 5—7).
Appellant contends the combination does not suggest displaying a control
device “responsive to selection of a particular one of the cells of the table”
(App. Br. 8). Specifically, Appellant argues “Loring discusses a scroll bar
that is perpetually displayed, and only the window associations of the scroll
bar change in response to selections of the different windows” (id.). We
agree with Appellant.
Loring discloses an embodiment where a single set of master vertical
and horizontal scroll bars can be used to scroll the data in either of two
different windows 22, depending on which window has the operating system
focus (Loring, col. 4,11. 45—56; col. 5,11. 59—65; Fig. 2a). However, the
Examiner has not shown either of the master scroll bars are displayed
responsive to the selection of one of Loring’s windows. Rather, we find that
although Loring teaches selecting a window, i.e. a “cell,” with which a scroll
bar is associated (see Loring, col. 5,11. 59—65), the scroll bar is displayed
7
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
prior to selecting the window, and is thus not displayed in response to such
selection.
In response to Appellant’s argument, the Examiner finds “Loring
teaches (col. 10,1. 7—12) that any single scroll bars or a display screen may
be hidden and rendered invisibly” (Ans. 26). Indeed, Loring discloses “APIs
can be used to hide or render invisible the scroll bars of windows which
have them” (Loring, col. 10,11. 11—12). However, Loring’s disclosure of
hiding of scroll bars relates to windows displayed within Loring’s screen
that uses the master scroll bars, and does not relate to the master scroll bars
themselves. That is, for windows that would normally contain their own
scroll bars, Loring provides for the hiding of those scroll bars so as not to
provide unnecessary scroll bars in addition to the master scroll bars (see
Loring, col. 10,11. 1—10). Thus, Loring does not disclose hiding the master
scroll bars and then un-hiding them responsive to selection of a window.
Accordingly, we find the Examiner has not shown Loring teaches displaying
a control device “responsive to selection of a particular one of the cells of
the table,” as recited in claim 31.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting independent claim 31, and dependent claims 32—33 for
similar reasons.
Claims 34—49
The Examiner finds the combination of Cline and Oono discloses all
the limitations of claim 34, including that Oono teaches “the processor is
configured to remove the scroll control and re-display the scroll control
responsive to a vertical scrolling of the tabular formatted data” (Pinal Act.
15—16). Appellant contends “[njeither Cline nor Oono provides any
8
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
suggestion whatsoever of a system configuration whereby a scroll control is
removed and re-displayed as tabular data is scrolled” (App. Br. 11). We
agree with Appellant.
Oono teaches an interface comprised of a window display region 41
with vertical and horizontal scroll controls (see Oono, Fig. 3). The window
display region 41 corresponds to a window 61 that can be moved or resized
to shift the area or change the size of the area of a window movable region
62 viewed in the window 61 (see Oono, col. 1,11. 40-45; col. 2,1. 50-col. 3,
1. 47; Fig. 3). “As window 61 moves, a scrolling process for rearranging (or
re-displaying) horizontal scroll indicia 44 and vertical scroll indicia 46 is
now carried out” (Oono, col. 5,11. 39-41). However, the Examiner has not
shown Oono teaches removing and then redisplaying an entire scroll control
in response to vertical scrolling of data, as recited in claim 34. Rather, Oono
discloses changing the scroll indicia of a scroll control in accordance with
user scrolling to indicate the location of the window 61 within the window
movable region 62 (Oono, col. 5,1. 44—col. 6,1. 2). In other words, the
position and/or appearance of the scroll indicia of Oono’s scroll control
change as a user scrolls, but the scroll control itself is not removed and then
redisplayed.
We are, therefore, constrained by the record to find the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 34, and claims 35—49 which depend from claim 34.1
1 Upon any further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider whether
claim 34 is a means plus function claim under § 112(f), and if so, whether it
is a single means claim which should be rejected under § 112(a), or is
indefinite under § 112(b). Specifically, claim 34 recites “A computer system
comprising: a hardware computer processor configured to . . . .” When a
claim term lacks the word “means,” the presumption against applying
§ 112(f), can be overcome if “the claim term fails to ‘recite sufficiently
definite structure’ or else recites ‘function without reciting sufficient
9
Appeal 2016-006179
Application 14/076,603
CONCLUSIONS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims
25—27, 30, and 51—53, but did err in rejecting claims 28, 29, and 31—50.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25—27, 30,
and 51—53 is affirmed, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28, 29, and
31—50 is reversed.
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
structure for performing that function.’” Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC,
792 F.3d 1339, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether “a hardware computer processor,” as recited in claim 34,
lacks sufficiently definite structure and should thus be deemed a “means”
under § 112(f). If considered a “means,” we direct the Examiner to In re
Hyatt, which held a claim reciting a single means fails to satisfy the
§ 112(a), requirement that the disclosure be commensurate in scope with the
claim because a single means claim “covers every conceivable means for
achieving the stated result, while the specification discloses at most only
those means known to the inventor.” 218 F.2d 712, 714 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Further, the Examiner should consider whether Appellant’s Specification
describes a specific algorithm for performing the claimed functions of the
“hardware computer processor,” which is required to satisfy the definiteness
requirement of § 112(b), in a means plus function claim where the
corresponding structure in the Specification is a computer or
microprocessor. See Aristocrat Techs, v. Int’l Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328,
1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
10