Samuel Radakovitz et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 2, 20212020002565 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 12/770,992 04/30/2010 Samuel Chow Radakovitz 329218-US-NP/170101-600 1752 145266 7590 09/02/2021 NovoTechIP International PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite #1025 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER FABER, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2177 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2021 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): akhlaghi@novotechip.com docketing@novotechip.com usdocket@microsoft.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte SAMUEL CHOW RADAKOVITZ and BRIAN SCOTT RUBLE Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN A. EVANS, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final decision to reject Claims 1–19 and 21. Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We AFFIRM IN PART.2 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4. 2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed February 12, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed July 3, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 12, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Specification filed April 12, 2011 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims relate to systems and methods for automatic formatting and charting of user-selected data. See Abstract. CLAIMS Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 1. A method for temporarily formatting and charting data, comprising: receiving a user selection of a portion of data from rows and columns of data that is currently displayed within a window of a productivity application on a display; in response to the user selection of the portion of data, automatically formatting and creating a chart without receiving a selection of a charting option, comprising: determining values within the selected data; automatically determining a single chart type based on the selected data; and automatically creating a chart of the single chart type; displaying the chart representing the values from the selected data in the window from which the portion of data is selected; receiving user interactions with the chart; and in response to determining that the user has completed interacting with the chart, removing the chart from the window. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 3 PRIOR ART Name3 Reference Date Kahn US 5,461,708 Oct. 24, 1995 Koren US 2002/0194095 A1 Dec. 19, 2002 MacGregor US 2008/0082908 A1 Apr. 3, 2008 Greg Harvey, “Microsoft Office Excel 2007 For Dummies,” (2007) (“Harvey”). Greg Harvey, “Hiding Graphic Objects in Excel 2007,” 2 pages (“Greg Harvey”). Josh Wilson, “Excel 2003: Charting, Learning Guide,” Tufts University ITS, (5/4/2006). Benjamin, “Change chart colors based on value?,” mrexcel.com forums (May 21, 2007). PCreview, “Sorting in an Excel Chart won't work properly” (“PCreview”). REJECTION4 AT ISSUE 1. Claims 1, 9, 17, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn, MacGregor, and Harvey.5 Final Act. 3–8. 2. Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn, MacGregor, 3 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named inventor/author only. 4 The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Final Act. 3. 5 The Examiner cites Greg Harvey as extrinsic evidence of the visual appearance of the Selection and Visibility pane. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 4 Harvey, and Koren.6 Final Act. 8–9. 3. Claims 4, 5, 13, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren, and Wilson. Final Act. 9–10. 4. Claims 7, 8, 15, and 16 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren, and Benjamin. Final Act. 10–11. 5. Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren, and PCreview. Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejection of Claims 1–19 and 21 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellant identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the pending claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in 6 The rejection recites “Korean.” We find this to be a harmless, typographic error. Final Act. 8. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 5 the Examiner’s Answer, to the extent consistent with our analysis below. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal and Reply Briefs. CLAIMS 1, 9, 17, AND 21: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KAHN, MACGREGOR, AND HARVEY. Appellant argues the combination of Kahn, MacGregor, and Harvey fails to render obvious independent Claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal Br. 23 (“Independent claims 9 and 17 recite elements similar to independent claim 1, except in storage medium and system form, and these claims have been rejected under the same basis as independent claim 1”). Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “in response to the user selection of the portion of data, automatically formatting and creating a chart without receiving a selection of a charting option.” Claim 1, Appeal Br. 41. Independent Claims 9 and 17 recite commensurate limitations. The Examiner finds Kahn teaches that a “chart is automatically created after the user selects data, selects a button and selects the desired location for placement of the to-be-created chart.” Final Act. 3 (citing Figs. 6A–B; col 12, ll. 25–40). The Examiner finds the chart is formatted based on an automatically selected chart type. Id. at 4. The Examiner finds the user “selects a button,” but does not present a finding as to what the “button” may relate. Final Act. 3. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 6 However, having presented findings showing Kahn teaches automatically selecting a chart type, as discussed above, the Examiner then finds Kahn substantially teaches the invention except Kahn fails to teach automatically formatting and creating a chart “in response to . . . the user selection of the portion of data” (i.e.,without receiving a selection of a charting option), as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds MacGregor teaches this limitation. Id. Appellant contends the Examiner misrepresents the claims and fails to address the introductory phrase “in response to the user selection of the portion of data.” Appeal Br. 10. This is incorrect. The Examiner finds that, although “Kahn fails to specifically disclose” this feature, MacGregor teaches this feature. Final Act. 4–5 (emphasis added). Appellant further contends Kahn requires the user to select the graph tool 223 charting option and to select a destination for the chart to actually trigger the display of a chart of the data. Id. at 10–11. Appellant argues Kahn teaches creating a chart is a manual, multi-step process performed by the user. Id. at 11 (citing Kahn, Fig. 2B; Fig. 6B; col. 12, ll. 30–39, 50–67). Appellant acknowledges MacGregor automatically generates a default chart based on a default value. Appeal Br. 12. Appellant then argues a default selection is: “in contrast to the technique recited in these claims of automatically determining a chart type based solely on the selected data.” Id. Appellant admits MacGregor discloses that a “data chart based on the data selection is automatically generated,” but argues the disclosure “is silent regarding the actual chart type that is used, and certainly lacks the express disclosure that a chart type is determined solely on the selected data.” Id. at 13. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 7 The Examiner finds: In response to applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of applicant’s invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., technique recited in the claims of the type of the chart being determined automatically based solely on the selected data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Ans. 6. The Examiner further finds: the language of the “automatically determining chart type based on the selected data” (in response to user selection of data), the language does not explicitly state that the chart type being determined IS SOLELY on the selected data. The claimed language states BASED ON the selected data. Therefore, the chart type determined is not limited on only using the selected data. Id. at 7. The Examiner finds the claims permit the selection of chart type to be “based on” many factors, at least one of which must be the selected data. Id. The Examiner finds the claims are silent on the meaning of “based on the selected data” and that it is unclear how “the selected data” is used to determine a claim chart. Id. Appellant responds: the Answer appears to rely on the assertion that the claim language fails to explain how exactly particular functions are performed. Applicant respectfully submits that a lack of “how” is no basis for sustaining a rejection under Section 103. See Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Glemalto M2M GmbH, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 34075, at *18 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (a claim that is directed to improving the functionality of part of an existing system does not necessarily need to recite how that tool is applied to the overall system). Further, any assertions of indefiniteness, are not properly part of a prima facie case under Section 103. Reply Br. 4–5. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 8 As Appellant admits, MacGregor automatically generates a default chart based on a default value (see Appeal Br. 12), but argues the disclosure “is silent regarding the actual chart type that is used, and certainly lacks the express disclosure that a chart type is determined solely on the selected data.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument is not commensurate in scope with the claims which do not recite a specific “chart type.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims”). In view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. CLAIMS 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, AND 18: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KAHN, MACGREGOR, HARVEY, AND KOREN. Appellant argues, inter alia, these claims are patentable in view of their dependence from independent Claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal Br. 24. As discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the independent claims. Dependent Claims 3, 10, and 18. Dependent Claims 3, 10, and 18 recite, inter alia, “displaying each separate chart using a common axis,” which the Examiner found is taught by Koren. Final Act. 8 (citing Koren, Fig. 45D; ¶¶ 189–192). Appellant contends Charts 45A–45F of Koren fail to disclose a common axis. Appeal Br. 25. We disagree with Appellant and find the various charts of Figure 45 share at least a common y-axis. We further note the charts of Figure 19 of Koren share a common x-axis. Dependent Claims 6 and 14. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 9 Dependent Claims 6 and 14 recite, inter alia, “determining labels for the charts by traversing the data until the labels are reached within the data from which the data is selected,” for which the Examiner finds is taught by Kahn. Final Act. 4 (citing Kahn, Fig. 6B). Appellant contends Kahn discloses “the legend labels are obtained from the cells surrounding the selected data, not from within the selected data.” Appeal Br. 25. We disagree with Appellant because our comparison of the cells containing numerical data and data labels in Appellant’s Figure 3 against Kahn’s Figure 6B fails to reveal a material distinction. Dependent Claim 11. Dependent Claim 11 recites, inter alia, “removing a display of unselected data in the window upon the temporary display of the chart,” for which the Examiner cites Kahn and Harvey. Final Act. 9 (citing Kahn, col. 10, ll. 26–34; Harvey, Figs. 10-1, 10-3). We agree with Appellant. The cited portions of both Kahn and Harvey show certain data are highlighted to for a chart, whereas the unselected data continue to be displayed. We, therefore decline to sustain the rejection of Claim 11. CLAIMS 4, 5, 13, AND 19: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KAHN, MACGREGOR, HARVEY, KOREN, AND WILSON. Appellant argues, inter alia, these claims are patentable in view of their dependence from independent Claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal Br. 26. As discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the independent claims. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 10 Dependent Claims 5 and 13. Dependent Claims 5 and 13 recite, inter alia, “comparing the value of the point that is navigated to each of the other displayed charts and providing an indication of a difference of the values between the charts,” for which the Examiner cites Wilson. Final Act. 10 (citing Wilson, 8). Appellant contends: “Wilson is completely silent regarding displaying more than one value, much less comparing the value of a point to each of other displayed charts and providing an indication of a difference of the values between the charts.” Appeal Br. 27. We agree with Appellant. Wilson discloses: Whenever you place your mouse over a chart element, Excel will temporarily display information about that element in a yellow box that hovers over your chart. Use this technique to discover the value of a data point, learn more about a data series, or to easily identify a chart element. Wilson, 8. We find no disclosure “providing an indication of a difference of the values between the charts,” as argued. We do not sustain the rejection of Claims 5 and 13. CLAIMS 7, 8, 15, AND 16: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KAHN, MACGREGOR, HARVEY, KOREN, AND BENJAMIN. Appellant argues, inter alia, these claims are patentable in view of their dependence from independent Claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal Br. 28. As discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the independent claims. Dependent Claims 7 and 15. Dependent Claims 7 and 15 recite, inter alia, “displaying a reference line across the charts and formatting values in relation to a value of the Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 11 reference line,” for which the Examiner cites Kahn. Final Act. 10 (citing Kahn, Fig. 6C) (“horizontal reference lines from vertical axis values”). Appellant contends: The Office Action cites to Benjamin at post #2, on pages 1-2, as allegedly disclosing this claim feature. The cited portion of Wilson is completely silent regarding displaying any reference line, much less formatting values in relation to a value of the reference line. Appeal Br. 29 (emphasis added). Because Appellant mischaracterizes the rejection, we are not persuaded of error. Dependent claims 8 and 16. Dependent claims 8 and 16 recite, inter alia, “selecting a point on one of the displayed charts displays information relating to a comparison of the reference line to a value of the selected point,” for which the Examiner cites the combination of Kahn and Benjamin. Final Act. 10. Appellant argues: “Benjamin is silent regarding a reference line; so Benjamin cannot possibly disclose any claim feature reciting a reference line.” “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.Cir.1986) (Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.). We are not persuaded of error. CLAIM 12: OBVIOUSNESS OVER KAHN, Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 12 MACGREGOR, HARVEY, KOREN, AND PCREVIEW. Appellant argues, inter alia, this claim is patentable in view of its dependence from independent Claims 1, 9, and 17. Appeal Br. 30. As discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the independent claims. Dependent claim 12 recites, inter alia, “sorting the displayed charts and updating the display in response to the sorting.” Appellant contends the Examiner finds PCreview discloses this feature, but fails to provide any specific citation, or analysis, therefore. Appeal Br. 31. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds: Pcreview discloses sorting the displayed charts and updating the display in response to the sorting. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention because this was a desired use of a spreadsheet as shown by the question. Final Act. 11. We find the Examiner fails to provide a specific citation to support the finding. Appeal 2020-002565 Application 12/770,992 13 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 9, 17, 21 103 Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey 1, 9, 17, 21 2, 3, 6, 10, 11, 14, 18 103 Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren 2, 3, 6, 10, 14, 18 11 4, 5, 13, 19 103 Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren, Wilson 4, 19 5, 13 7, 8, 15, 16 103 Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren, Benjamin 7, 8, 15, 16 12 103 Kahn, MacGregor, Harvey, Koren, PCreview 12 Overall Outcome 1–4, 6–10, 14–19, 21 5, 11–13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation