Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020002638 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021)

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.
14/560,954 12/04/2014 Benjamin Wolfe Simon 25832.1871 (L1871) 7762
101198 7590 07/01/2021
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Google
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BENJAMIN WOLFE SIMON, AMOD KARVE,
JOSHUA ARI DANZIGER, and ZACHARY ERIK LLOYD

Appeal 2020-002638
Application 14/560,954
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–16, and 21–23.1 Claims 2, 3, 7–10, 12, 13,
and 17–20 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Google LLC as the real party in
interest. (Appeal Br. 4.)
Appeal 2020-002638
Application 14/560,954

2

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to editing
collaborative spreadsheets hosted on a server. (Abstr.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method for editing a collaborative
spreadsheet hosted on a server, comprising:
displaying, by a processor of a first user device, the
collaborative spreadsheet hosted on the server and based on a
first model stored on the first user device;
receiving, by the processor of the first user device, a first
input of the first user device to modify the collaborative
spreadsheet;
modifying, by the processor of the first user device, the
first model based on the first input to obtain a second model;
sending, by the processor to the server, the first input
comprising a source range, a destination range, and an
instruction to copy content from the source range to the
destination range;
receiving, by the processor and from the server, a second
input of a second user device to modify a portion of the
collaborative spreadsheet, wherein the second input comprises
an instruction to modify content of the collaborative
spreadsheet, wherein the content is to be modified in at least
one of the source range or the destination range;
subsequent to receiving from the server the second input
of the second user device to modify the portion of the
collaborative spreadsheet, determining, by the processor of the
first user device, whether the first input sent to the server by the
first user device has not been acknowledged by the server;
responsive to determining that the first input sent to the
server has not been acknowledged by the server,
transforming, by the processor of the first user
device, the first input based on the second input to obtain
Appeal 2020-002638
Application 14/560,954

3

a transformed first input based on a set of collaboration
rules that are common to the first user device and the
server,
modifying, by the processor of the first user
device, the second model based on the transformed first
input to obtain a third model, and
displaying, by the processor of the first user
device, the collaborative spreadsheet based on the third
model.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4–6, 11, 14–16, and 21–23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell et al. (US
2009/0112937 A1, pub. Apr. 30, 2009), Bauchot (US 2002/0049784 A1,
pub. Apr. 25, 2002), and Hunter et al. (US 9,747,582 B2, iss. Aug. 29,
2017). (Final Act. 2–8.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that independent claims 1, 11,
and 21 are unpatentable over the combination of Campbell, Bauchot, and
Hunter. (Appeal Br. 8–18.)
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 requires, in part, that a processor of a first user
device: (i) send to a server a first input to modify a collaborative

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the legal conclusions
and findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed Aug. 30,
2019 (“Appeal. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed Feb. 18, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the
Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 11, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer, mailed Dec. 17, 2019 (“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2020-002638
Application 14/560,954

4

spreadsheet; (ii) receive from the server, a second input of a second user
device to modify a portion of the collaborative spreadsheet; (iii) determine
whether the first input has not been acknowledged by the server; (iv) and if
not, transform the first input based on the second input to obtain a
transformed first input based on a set of collaboration rules. (Appeal
Br. 23.)3 For example, the first user may issue a command “Copy Cells
B1:B2 to C1:C2” — i.e., copy two cells from two adjacent rows in one
column to an adjacent column. (Spec. Fig. 3A.) At about the same time, a
second user may command, “Insert Row Below Row 1.” (Id.) If the server
processes the second command first, the method of claim 1 requires the first
device to transform the first command so as to take into account the effect of
the second command, which in this example would generate the revised
command, “Copy Cells B1:B3 to C1:C3.” (Id. at Fig. 3C.)
The Examiner finds that Campbell and Hunter teach these aspects of
the independent claims.4 (Final Act. 3–6; Ans. 4–7.) Campbell discloses a
spreadsheet collaboration technique among clients in which a revision
manger on a host server handles revision updates sent simultaneously or
“near simultaneously” from clients. (Campbell Abstr., Figs. 3–5, ¶¶ 24–26.)
If updates from different clients overlap, creating a potential conflict, the
revision manager, under some circumstances, reconciles the conflict by
transforming one of the updates and sending the revised update to the
clients. (Id.) Similarly, Hunter discloses a system for collaborative editing

3 Independent claims 11 and 21 have commensurate limitations. (Appeal Br.
24–27.)
4 The Examiner relies on Bauchot for other aspects of the claims. (Final
Act. 4.)
Appeal 2020-002638
Application 14/560,954

5

of shared content in which a content management system residing on a
server receives operations from clients to modify shared content (e.g.,
“insert, delete, cut, paste, formatting change, undo, redo”). (Hunter Abstr.,
Figs. 1, 2, 2:28–41, 8:18–45.) If operations are received from two clients
close together in time, the content management system determines a
transform operation for one operation to take into account the previously-
received operation, and sends the transformed operation as an update to the
later client. (Id. at Fig. 3, 2:28–41, 8:46–9:20, 10:4–15.)
Appellant argues that the revision manager of Campbell, which
resides at the host computer, performs many of the functions that the
independent claims require be performed by the processor of the first user
device. (Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 4.) In particular, argues Appellant,
the revision manager at the server, not any processor of a client device,
receives what would be the “second input of the second user device,”
“transform[s] . . . the first input based on the second input,” and “modif[ies] .
. . the second model [i.e. the spreadsheet] based on the transformed first
input.” (Id.) Nor is any processor of a user device “responsive to
determining that the first input sent to the server has not been acknowledged
by the server,” to perform the required functions of the claims. (Id.)
Likewise, Appellant distinguishes Hunter on essentially the same
basis — given that in Hunter, the content management system residing on a
server, not any processor of a client device, performs the required functions
of the claims, and there is no action by a client device that is “responsive to
determining that the first input sent to the server has not been acknowledged
by the server.” (Appeal Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 5, 7–10.)
Appeal 2020-002638
Application 14/560,954

6

We agree with Appellant. Both Campbell and Hunter rely on a
central server to perform functions that that the claims require be performed
by a processor of a client device. The Examiner does not point to anything
in the disclosures of those references, whether taken alone or in
combination, that would have taught or suggested the above-discussed
requirements of the independent claims. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 11, and 21, or of claims 4–6,
14–16, 22, and 23, which depend from those claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–6, 11,
14–16,
21–23
103 Campbell,
Bauchot,
Hunter
1, 4–6,
11, 14–
16, 21–23

REVERSED