Ex Parte Serra et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 22, 2010

10697688 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 22, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte BILL SERRA, SALIL PRADHAN, and ANTONI DRUDIS
____________

Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

2
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection
of claims 1-3, 5-21, and 23-34. Claims 4 and 22 have been canceled. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The invention at issue on appeal relates to a method and apparatus for
determining locations in a spreadsheet for placing sensor data (Spec. 1).

The Illustrative Claim
Claim 1, an illustrative claim, reads as follows:
1. A method implemented by a computerized system
comprising:
receiving data from a data source;
determining a geographical location of the data source;
determining a location in an electronic spreadsheet for placing
at least a portion of the data, wherein the determined
spreadsheet location is based on the determined geographical
location of the data source;
inserting the data portion in the electronic spreadsheet at the
determined spreadsheet location; and
Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

3
displaying the electronic spreadsheet to a user, wherein the
electronic spreadsheet indicates the geographical location of the
data source from a display of the data portion inserted at the
determined location.

The References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence:
Orr US 5,808,916 Sep. 15, 1998
Hsiung US 2003/0144746 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
(filed Mar. 9, 2001)

The Rejection
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1-3, 5-21, and 23-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Orr in view of Hsiung.

II. ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Orr and
Hsiung teaches or fairly suggests “determining a location in an electronic
spreadsheet for placing at least a portion of the data, wherein the determined
spreadsheet location is based on the determined geographical
location of the data source”, as recited in independent claim 1?
Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

4
III. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Obviousness
“Obviousness is a question of law based on underlying findings of
fact.” In re Kubin, 561 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The underlying
factual inquiries are: (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue, (3) the level of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art, and (4) secondary considerations of
nonobviousness. KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007)
(citation omitted).

IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following findings of fact (FFs) are supported by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Hsiung
1. Hsiung discloses a system for monitoring and controlling an
industrial process by comparing the process parameters against a
predetermined training set of parameters (Abstract).
2. Hsiung also discloses the set of predetermined training
parameters/data are imported into the spreadsheet:
Model Builders may also select the source of the training
data. Training data can come from a real-time data
server, a historical data server, or from a Microsoft Excel
spreadsheet. Model Builders may specify the location of
Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

5
the training data for each sensor or model that is used as
input to the model. If training data is being imported
from an Excel spreadsheet, data fields from the
spreadsheet may be mapped to the appropriate sensor. A
function may be provided which enables the Model
Builder to associate a sensor with a column of data in the
spreadsheet.
([0365]) (Emphasis added).

V. ANALYSIS
The Appellants have the opportunity on appeal to the Board of Patent
Appeals and Interferences (BPAI) to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
position. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 985-86 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing In re
Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The Examiner sets forth a detailed explanation of a reasoned
conclusion of unpatentability in the Examiner’s Answer. Therefore, we look
to the Appellants’ Brief to show error in the proffered reasoned conclusion.
Id.
The Common Feature in Claims
Independent claim 1, recites, inter alia, “determining a location in an
electronic spreadsheet for placing at least a portion of the data, wherein the
determined spreadsheet location is based on the determined geographical
location of the data source”. Independent claims 9, 17, 25, and 30, with
different words, contain these similar limitations.
Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

6
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections
With respect to independent claim 1, the Appellants contend that the
Examiner admits Orr fails to teach or suggests the disputed feature (Reply 2).
According to the Appellants, Hsiung also fails to disclose the disputed the
feature because “Hsiung discloses sending data from the spreadsheet to a
model, rather than determining a location for storing data in the
spreadsheet.” (Reply Br. 3). In addition, “there is no showing of
determining a location in an electronic spreadsheet for placing at least a
portion of the data based on the determined geographical location of the data
source as claimed.” (App. Br. 12).
We agree with the Appellants’ contentions. We find the Examiner
admits that Orr does not disclose the disputed limitations (Ans. 4). We
further find that Hsiung discloses comparing imported training data fields in
the spreadsheet with the process parameters to determine the output in the
industrial process control (FF 1). We also find the paragraphs of the Hsiung
reference relied upon by the Examiner only discuss that the training data that
may be imported to the spreadsheet is mapped to the appropriated sensors
rather than using the position of sensor to determine the input sensing data
position of the spreadsheet (FF 2). Even if we consider that some training
data may be imported from sensors to databases as asserted by the Examiner
(Ans. 35), we do not find and the Examiner does not indicate where Hsiung
mentions determining location of the spreadsheet for placing input data, let
alone, wherein the location is based on geographical location of the data
Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

7
source as required by the claim language. We, therefore, find the Examiner’s
position is untenable.
Because we agree with at least one of the Appellants’ contentions, we
find that the Examiner has not made a requisite showing of obviousness as
required to teach or fairly suggest the invention as recited in claim 1 by the
combination of Orr and Hsiung. The rejection of the dependent claims 2-3
and 5-8 contains the same deficiency. The Appellants, thus, have
demonstrated error in the Examiner’s reasoned conclusion of obviousness of
the subject matter of claims 1-3 and 5-8.
The independent claims 9, 17, 25, and 30 contain the similar
limitations to those found in independent claim 1. The Appellants present
similar arguments as set forth with respect to independent claim 1 in
response to the rejections of independent claims 9, 17, 25, and 30 (App. Br.
8).
As we found above in our discussion with respect to independent
claim 1, we similarly find that the Appellants have demonstrated error in the
Examiner’s conclusion for obviousness of the subject matter of independent
claims 9, 17, 25, and 30. The rejection of dependent claims 10-16, 18-21,
23-24, 26-29, and 31-34 also contains the same deficiency. Hence, the
Appellants’ argument persuades us that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-3, 5-21, and 23-34.
We, therefore, cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 5-21, and
23-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2009-007601
Application 10/697,688

8
VI. CONCLUSION
We conclude that the Examiner has erred in finding that the
combination of Orr and Hsiung teaches or fairly suggests “determining a
location in an electronic spreadsheet for placing at least a portion of the data,
wherein the determined spreadsheet location is based on the determined
geographical location of the data source”, as recited in independent claim 1.

VII. ORDER
We reverse the obviousness rejections of claims 1-3, 5-21, and 23-34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

tkl

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
P. O. BOX 272400, 3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
PORT COLLINS, CO 80527-2400