Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 14, 2021

2019004430 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 14, 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.
14/213,332 03/14/2014 Allison Jane Rutherford 341335-US-NP 9350
144365 7590 04/14/2021
Schwegman Lundberg & Woessner, P.A.
P.O. Box 2938
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
HUYNH, CONG LAC T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2178
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ALLISON JANE RUTHERFORD, MARTA LUIS BURGUETE,
SAMUEL CHOW RADAKOVITZ,
AARON LAMAR WILSON, and UHL ALBERT
____________________

Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,3321
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, BETH Z. SHAW and
MATTHEW J. MCNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Non-Final Rejection
of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–22.2 We have jurisdiction 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 the real party in interest as Microsoft
Technology Licensing, LLC. Appeal Br. 2.

2 Claims 2 and 12 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is the display of one or more visual indicators to
assist users in identifying cells of a spreadsheet that are affected by an
operation. Spec. ¶ 5. In response to a request to perform an operation on data
on a cell, the spreadsheet application identifies the cells that are affected by
the requested operation. Spec. ¶ 41. Before performing the operation, the
spreadsheet application displays one or more visual indicators to emphasize
the affected cells. Spec. ¶ 43. After the operation is performed, the
spreadsheet application removes the first visual indicator and displays a
second visual indicator that brings attention to the affected cells. Spec. ¶ 59.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising computer-
implemented operations for:
displaying a spreadsheet comprising a table having a first
plurality of cells and a second plurality of cells unassociated
with the table;
receiving a request to perform an operation that, once
performed, will affect one or more cells of the spreadsheet;
prior to performing the operation, displaying a first visual
indicator to identify which cells of the spreadsheet will be
affected by the operation once it is performed, the first visual
indicator thereby delineating a scope of the operation to be
performed so that a user can ascertain whether the operation
will affect cells within the table, cells unassociated with the
table, or both; performing the operation; and
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

3
following performance of the operation, displaying a
second visual indicator to identify the cells of the spreadsheet
that have been affected by the operation, wherein the second
visual indicator changes the first visual indicator or is displayed
after the first visual indicator is removed.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Ho et al.
(“Ho”)
US 8,510,266 B1 Aug. 13, 2012
Google Filter your Data, Drive Help, 1–3,
https://support.google.com/drive/ans
wer/1229641?hl=en, last visited Feb.
2021
Feb. 14, 2014

Claims 1, 3–11, and 13–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Google and Ho. Non-Final Act. 2.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(filed Dec. 7, 2018, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed May
15, 2019, hereinafter “Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Mar. 22,
2019, hereinafter “Ans.”); and the Examiner’s Non-Final Office Action
(mailed December 29, 2017, hereinafter “Non-Final Act.”) for their
respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Google and Ho teach or suggest
displaying a first visual indicator to identify which cells of the spreadsheet
will be affected by an operation once it is performed?
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

4
2. Does the combination of Google and Ho teach or suggest
displaying a second visual indicator to identify the cells of the spreadsheet
that have been affected by the operation, wherein the second visual indicator
changes the first visual indicator or is displayed after the first visual
indicator is removed?

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “prior to performing the
action, displaying a first visual indicator to identify which cells of the
spreadsheet will be affected by the operation once it is performed,” and a
second visual indicator, “wherein the second visual indicator changes the
first visual indicator or is displayed after the first visual indicator is
removed.”
Independent claims 11 and 18 require the display of a visual indicator
to specify “one or more of the plurality of cells of the table affected” prior to
the performance of the action, and a second visual indicator identical to the
one recited in claim 1.
The Examiner finds that Ho teaches the claimed display of a first
visual indicator to identify which cells of a spreadsheet will be affected by a
(pending) operation. Non-Final Act. 3. The Examiner cites Ho’s “preview
mode” that “allows a user to see changes to data before the operation.” Id.;
Ho 7:48–8:3. Ho’s disclosure concerns a user wishing “to filter the data in
preview data set 600.” Ho 7:48–49.
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

5

Figure 7A of Ho illustrates a preview data set prior to a filtering
operation. Figure 7B of Ho illustrates the preview data set after filtering has
been performed.

We first observe that the term “preview data set” in Ho simply refers
to a spreadsheet mode in which a user “may view and edit the spreadsheet
data . . . without the changes being visible to other users.” Ho 5:55–58. The
user is to select “filter data option 791.” Ho 7:53. In the example discussed,
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

6
a user “wishes to remove from preview data set all users who have
accumulated less than fifty (50) points.” Ho 7:53–54. The user “may cause a
filter criteria window (not shown) to appear on display 270, and enter one or
more filter criteria.” Ho 7:56–58. The online spreadsheet would then “filter[]
preview data 600 in accordance with the filter criteria. In this example, the
rows pertaining to User 6 and User 7 are removed from preview data set 600
because User 6 and User 7 have each accumulated less than fifty points.” Ho
7:62–65.
We do not agree with the Examiner that Ho teaches visual indication
of the cells of a spreadsheet that will be affected by an operation not yet
performed. The Examiner correctly states that Ho Figure 7B illustrates for a
user “what has and has not been affected by the filtering action.” Ans. 8. We
disagree with the Examiner that this constitutes a visual indication of what is
to come, and we agree with Appellant that “the filter action as [sic] already
been applied at the point where the user can see what pieces of data are not
included in the table.” Reply Br. 11.
The Examiner finds that Google teaches a “second visual indicator to
identify cells of the spreadsheet that have been affected by the operation,
wherein the second visual indicator changes the first visual indicator or is
displayed after the first visual indicator is removed.” Non-Final Act. 3. The
Examiner specifically identifies Step 4 of Google “where the toolbar icon is
also changed to green.” Id.
We find that the Examiner erred in equating Google’s teaching with
the claim limitation. First, Google step 4 reads “[t]o help you see what cell
ranges have a filter applied, the column and row labels are colored green.”
Appeal Br. 21. Google contains no teaching of a visual indicator that was
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

7
“changed” or “removed” so that this “second” visual indicator would be
displayed, as the claim requires. Second, notwithstanding the Examiner’s
finding that Google teaches a visual indicator delineating a scope of an
operation to be performed, we agree with Appellant that Google does not
teach any such first visual indicator of cells that will be affected by an
operation, displayed before that operation occurs. Reply Br. 12.
We find that the combination of Ho and Google fails to teach all the
elements of the invention recited in independent claims 1, 11, and 18. Each
of the dependent claims under appeal incorporates the limitations of one of
those independent claims. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3–11, and 13–22.

CONCLUSION
1. The combination of Ho and Google does not teach or suggest
displaying a first visual indicator to identify which cells of the spreadsheet
will be affected by an operation once it is performed.
2. The combination of Ho and Google does not teach or suggest
displaying a second visual indicator to identify the cells of the spreadsheet
that have been affected by the operation, wherein the second visual indicator
changes the first visual indicator or is displayed after the first visual
indicator is removed.
Appeal 2019-004430
Application 14/213,332

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–11, 13–
22
103(a) Ho, Google 1, 3–11, 13–
22

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3-11, and 13-22 is
reversed.

REVERSED