Graepel, Thore et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 17, 2021

2019004914 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 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.
13/530,121 06/22/2012 Thore Graepel 336487-US-NP 2379
39254 7590 02/17/2021
Barta, Jones & Foley, P.C.
(Patent Group - Microsoft Corporation)
3308 Preston Road
#350-161
Plano, TX 75093
EXAMINER
MERCADO VARGAS, ARIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/17/2021 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):
docket@bjfip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
uspto@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte THORE GRAEPEL, FILIP RADLINSKI,
ANDREW DONALD GORDON, PUSHMEET KOHLI,
JOHN WINN, LUCAS BORDEAUX, and
YORAM BACHRACH
____________________

Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for presenting a
data grid. According to the Specification, end users who operate data grids
and manage data input strive for accuracy and quality of the grid data

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
2
content. Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification discloses predictive probability
distributions are used to suggest values to complete blank cells, highlight
cells having outlying values, identify errors, suggest corrections to potential
errors, identify similarities between cells, identify differences between cells,
cluster rows of the data grid, determine relations between columns of the
data grid, and other tasks. Id. ¶ 5.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative (disputed
limitations are italicized and paragraphing, labeling, and indenting added).
1. A method comprising:
presenting, using a processor, a data grid at a graphical
user interface, the data grid comprising cells arranged in rows
and columns, at least some of the cells containing data values;
determining, by applying a predictive probability
distribution, that a data value contained in at least one cell of
the data grid is an outlier with respect to the predictive
probability distribution;
using the predictive probability distribution, providing a
suggested data value for the outlier data value, the suggested
data value being
[(a)] a suggested data value for correcting the outlier
data value in the at least one cell which is likely to be an
error, or
[(b)] a suggested data value for a cell in the data grid
which contains no data value; and
presenting, at the graphical user interface, the suggested
data value having an associated numerical probability value
indicative of a correctness of the suggested data value,
wherein the associated numerical probability value
indicates a likelihood that the suggested data value correctly
corresponds to
(i) a data value that should be in the at least one cell
instead of the data value in the cell or
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
3
(ii) a data value missing from the cell that contains no
data value,
the associated numerical probability automatically
determined based in part on the applied predictive probability
distribution, and
the associated numerical probability value being a
percentage value indicating the likelihood that the suggested
data value is a correct value that should have been the data
value in the at least one cell.
Claim App. A-1. Independent claims 15 and 17 are directed to a method and
apparatus, respectively, and include similar limitations. Id. at A-3–A-5.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Ferguson US 2003/0149603 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Rice2
OfficeTalk: Conditional
Formatting: Adding Customized
Color Scales to Excel 2007
2007
REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
Claim(s) 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–20 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness
1–20 103(a) Ferguson, Rice
ANALYSIS
Indefiniteness Rejection
The Examiner finds claims 1–20 are indefinite because the claims
contain conditional or optional elements that make it unclear what is

2 Citations herein are to the reference copy placed in the record on Dec. 23,
2014.
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
4
required by the claim. Claim 1 is representative of the issues involved with
this rejection. Referring to claim 1, the Examiner finds the portions labeled
(a) and (b) mean “only either (a) or (b) . . . are required to meet the claim.”
Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds the data values labeled (i) and (ii) are
mutually exclusive alternatives, thus, when one is met, the other need not be
met. Id. The Examiner finds the paragraph labeled (ii) unclear as to whether
“the associated numerical probability automatically determined . . .” refers
specifically to the data value labeled (ii) since it is in the same paragraph as
(ii). Id. at 6. The Examiner determines the remaining claims have similar
deficiencies and points out the use of “or” or “when the at least one cell
contains a data value” in claims 2, 4, 7, 8, and 10. Id. at 3–5.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “the claims do not
include either/or limitations that result in a failure to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention, particularly
with respect to the limitation relating to the ‘associated numerical
probability.’” Appeal Br. 11. Appellant notes that the claims were amended
to remove the word “either.” Id. at 12. Appellant further asserts “none of the
claim limitations are optional.” Id. at 11. Regarding the limitations related to
the “associated numerical probability,” Appellant contends the limitations
“apply to both cells that have outlier data and to cells that have no data
value.” Id. at 12. Appellant further contends that the recited “associated
numerical probability” is not optional because it is “recited with respect to
both of the alleged options.” Id. at 13.
In response, the Examiner determines that because the suggested data
value corresponds to either one of two criteria, the claims present alternative
options. Ans. 5. The Examiner also characterizes Appellant’s position as a
bald allegation that the limitations related to the associated numerical
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
5
probably apply to both cells that have outlier data and to cells that have not
data value. Id. According to the Examiner, it is not clear if the portion of the
claim directed to the associated numerical probability modifies only the
nearest preceding subject, i.e. “a data value missing from the cell that
contains no data value,” or both of the preceding subjects as Appellant
contends. Id. at 6.
We agree with Appellant the recited “associated numerical
probability” and “suggested data value” each have antecedent basis in claim
1 and necessarily refer back to the limitation including the corresponding
recitation of “a.” Reply Br. 3–4. We also agree with Appellant that the claim
indicates the “suggested data value” has “an associated numerical
probability value” which is “a percentage value” that indicates the likelihood
that the suggested data value is a correct value regardless of whether the
suggested data value is for an outlier or a cell containing no data value. Id.
The portions of the claim that the Examiner identifies as (a) and (b) parallel
the portions of the claim preceded by (i) and (ii). We highlight that parallel
construction above with the use of paragraphing in the quoted claim. These
parallel constructs define the suggested data value for a cell in a data grid
that also has presented at the graphical user interface a numerical probability
value. The use of commas in the claim sets off further aspects of the claimed
“associated numerical probability value.” Thus, we do not agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 is unclear about whether the recited “associated
numerical probability” applies to the subject of both (i) and (ii) recited in the
claim.
Independent claims 15 and 17 follow similar “(i)” and “(ii)”
construction including a comma followed by subsequent phrases concerning
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
6
the recited “associated numerical probability value.” Appeal Br. A-3–A-5
(Claims Appendix).
For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–20 as
indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 2.
Obviousness Rejection
Claim 1 is representative of the dispositive issues in this Appeal.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds Ferguson discloses data analysis and
identification of outlier data in spreadsheet data, including a graphic user
interface (GUI) for an operator to visually inspect the data for bad data
points, i.e., outliers, and that Rice also teaches methods for analyzing and
identifying outlier data, including specifying a number, percent, percentile,
or formula provide clear information to users of where individual cells fall in
relation to other cell values. Non-Final Act. 7–10. The Examiner determines
it would have been obvious to combine the teachings of Ferguson and Rice
because Ferguson calls for identification of outliers and Rice provides a
distinct method for doing so. Id. at 10.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Ferguson and Rice discloses the claimed method because the combination
does not disclose all limitations in the claim. Specifically, Appellant argues
the combination discloses systems allowing for color coding of a deviation
of value from a user defined range, which is not the same as a numerical
probability value that is a percentage value indicating the likelihood the
suggested data value is a correct value. Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant directs
us to Appellant’s Figure 7 as an illustration that the associated numerical
probability is a feature of the invention, including the percentage value
shown in cells 708 and 710. Id. at 16–17. Appellant acknowledges that Rice
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
7
discloses a percentage value can be used, but asserts that the color in Rice is
representative of a percentage range and Rice does not teach “an associated
numerical probability value indicative of the correctness of the suggested
data value is provided.” Id. at 19. Appellant argues “Rice does not disclose,
nor suggests [sic] in combination with Ferguson, any type of a probability
confidence level being displayed.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments persuade us of reversible error for the reasons
provided in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief. We add the following for
emphasis.
Claim 1 recites “presenting, at the graphical user interface, the
suggested data value having an associated numerical probability value . . .
the associated numerical probability value being a percentage value.” The
Examiner finds that “[t]he claim says nothing of ‘providing’ the ‘associated
numerical probability value.’” Ans. 14. We disagree with the Examiner’s
claim interpretation because it omits the portion of the claim that
affirmatively recites “the suggested data value having an associated
numerical probability value.” Based on that fundamental difference in claim
construction, claim 1, as well as independent claims 15 and 17, require the
recited “percentage value” to be presented in a graphical user interface. See
Reply Br. 6 (“The associated numerical probability value is a percentage
value that is presented at the graphical user interface.”). Thus, Appellant’s
argument that Rice does not disclose presenting a percentage value in the
graphical user interface sufficiently distinguishes claim 1 over the cited prior
art combination.
Based on the cited record in this Appeal, the preponderance of the
evidence supports Appellant’s position that the combination of Ferguson and
Rice fails to teach or suggest an associated numerical probability value as a
Appeal 2019-004914
Application 13/530,121
8
percentage value that is presented at the graphical user interface as required
by each of the independent claims. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION
The Examiner reversibly erred in rejecting claims 1–20.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we REVERSE the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–20.
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 112 ¶ 2 Indefiniteness 1–20
1–20 103(a) Ferguson, Rice 1–20
Overall
Outcome 1–20

REVERSED