Ex Parte Stannard et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12231147 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 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.
12/231,147 08/28/2008 Paul Stannard SMDR1210 2782
38000 7590 06/01/2016
Terrance A. Meador
4422 Del Mar Avenue
San Diego, CA 92107
EXAMINER
ZALALEE, SULTANA MARCIA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2614
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 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 PAUL STANNARD, STEVEN NILES,
and JOSHUA PLATT
____________

Appeal 2014-005690
Application 12/231,147
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1–20. See App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2014-005690
Application 12/231,147

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosure relates to “displaying a numeric chart having at
least one object with a dimension representing a variable and positioning a
cursor in the object” where “[i]n response to receiving a command to change
the value of the variable, the displayed value and the dimension are changed
to correspond to the changed value.” Abstract. Claims 1, 3, and 12 are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative (with emphases
added):
1. A computer-executed method for editing a numeric chart,
comprising:
displaying a numeric chart having at least one object with
a dimension representing a variable;
representing the object with a point record containing a
value associated with the variable;
positioning a cursor in the object;
in response to positioning the cursor in the object,
displaying the value of the variable at least partially within the
object;
receiving a command to change the value;
updating the value in the point record in response to the
command; and,
in response to the update of the value in the point record,
changing the displayed value to the changed value and changing
the dimension to correspond to the changed value.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hernandez (US 4,674,043; June 16, 1987), Davis (US
2008/0028340 A1; Jan. 31, 2008), Stokes (US 2008/0086701 A1; Apr. 10,
2008), and Robertson (US 7,737,979 B2; June 15, 2010). Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2014-005690
Application 12/231,147

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments1 that the Examiner has
erred. We adopt the conclusions and findings of fact made by the Examiner
in the Final Office Action and Examiner’s Answer as our own, and we
highlight the following points for emphasis.
Appellants do not separately argue claims 1–20. See App. Br. 4. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the
cited references fail to teach or suggest the claimed “point record”
limitation, and that “Hernandez does not describe any record structures used
for representing objects in numeric charts.” App. Br. 4.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of error. The Examiner
finds Hernandez teaches a chart “sub_object” (Final Act. 6, citing
Hernandez 3:65–4:20), and such an object “inherently requires defining a
data structure representing the object.” Final Act 6; see also Hernandez Fig.
1. We agree, because Hernandez discloses “[a] chart is composed of draw
graph objects such as lines, bars, circles, text, and the like required to present
the data in a graph form.” Hernandez 2:30–32. The Examiner also correctly
finds that Davis teaches “functionality to generate and manipulate an entire
chart object to represent an array or table of data providing as a single
object.” Final Act. 7 (citing Davis ¶¶ 237, 266).
The Examiner concludes that, using Davis, “a person of ordinary skill
in the art would readily . . . define individual chart object[s] using a similar

1 Separately, we note Appellants’ Briefs appear to be printed with a pattern
of missing portions of the text fonts. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.52(a)(1)(iv) and 37
C.F.R. § 1.52(a)(1)(v).
Appeal 2014-005690
Application 12/231,147

4
class definition [as in Davis], instead of using vectors or array types” (Ans.
4), as in Hernandez, because the combination would use “the known
advantages of object orientated programing” such as “abstraction,
modularity, [and] reusability” (Ans. 4–5). We find the Examiner’s
explanation to constitute articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings
sufficient to justify the legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir 2006). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner
that the combination of Hernandez and Davis teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations. See Final Act. 6–8.
Appellants further argue that “Hernandez and Davis are mutually
incompatible” and “each teaches away from the other” (App. Br. 7), because
“Hernandez explicitly seeks to edit individual chart components” and
operates at the “cell” level, which is “precisely the kind of low level
interactive/dynamic manipulation that Davis disparages as being slow and
costly” (App. Br. 6, referring to Hernandez 1:54–66; Davis ¶¶ 13, 90).
We do not find this argument persuasive. A reference does not teach
away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention
but does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage” investigation into
the invention claimed. In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Although Davis teaches embodiments that improve efficiency of
calculations using, for example, automation (see Davis ¶ 24), we are not
persuaded that Davis discourages investigation into implementations that
allow for cell editing as taught in Hernandez. See Final Act. 4. Thus, we do
not find that Davis and Hernandez teach away from the Examiner’s
combination.
Appeal 2014-005690
Application 12/231,147

5
Appellants present new additional arguments in the Reply Brief,
regarding the Examiner’s inherency finding. See Reply Br. 1–2. Appellants,
however, had the opportunity to raise the arguments in the Appeal Brief in
response to the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action (see Final
Act. 2, 6). Thus, the new arguments by Appellants are deemed waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Optivus Tech., Inc. v. Ion Beam Appl’ns
S.A., 469 F.3d 978, 989 (Fed. Cir 2006) (“[A]n issue not raised by an
appellant in its opening brief . . . is waived.”) (internal citations and
quotation marks omitted).
Accordingly, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred with regard to
the rejection of claims 1–20.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.
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