Ex Parte Procops et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 30, 2019

13653995 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/653,995 10/17/2012
94176 7590 02/01/2019
Fish & Richardson PC (AB INITIO SOFTWARE)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Roy Leonard Procops
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
07470-0361001 2886
EXAMINER
MIAN, MUHAMMAD U
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2163
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2019 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):
patdoctc@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROY LEONARD PROCOPS and JOEL GOULD
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-27. Oral arguments were heard on
January 9, 2019. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in
due course. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ). We reverse.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' invention generally "relates to specifying and applying
rules to data," and, more specifically, to a user interface grid that identifies
validation rules to be applied to particular fields in each element of a data
set. Spec. 1, 8. Embodiments of Appellants' invention may include input
elements in at least some of the grid cells, which allow a user to select the
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
rule-field pairings. Spec. 1-2, 8-9. The input element may optionally allow
input of parameters that may be used to configure the validation rule.
Spec. 8-10. Embodiments may include indicators that provide feedback
regarding results from applying the validation rule to the corresponding field
for an element or elements of a data set. Spec. 2, 10-11. Claims 1, 17-19,
and 23 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A computing system for specifying one or more
validation rules for validating data included in one or more fields
of each element of a plurality of elements of a dataset, the
computing system including:
a user interface module configured to render a plurality of
cells arranged in a two-dimensional grid having a first axis and a
second axis, the two-dimensional grid including
one or more subsets of the cells extending in a
direction along the first axis of the two-dimensional grid,
each subset of the one or more subsets associated with a
respective field of an element of the plurality of elements
of the dataset, and
multiple subsets of the cells extending in a direction
along the second axis of the two-dimensional grid, each of
one or more of the multiple subsets including a plurality
of cells associated with a same validation rule; and
a processing module, including at least one processor,
configured to apply validation rules to at least one element of the
dataset based on user input received from at least some of the
cells;
wherein at least some cells, associated with a field and a
validation rule, each include
an input element for receiving input determining
whether or not the associated validation rule is applied to
the associated field, and
an indicator for indicating feedback associated with
a validation result based on applying the associated
validation rule to data included in the associated field of
the element.
2
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
REJECTIONS
Claims 1---6, 8, 9, 11-13, and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as obvious in view of Lott (US 2005/0060317 Al; Mar. 17, 2005) and
Rothermel (US 6,948,154 B 1; Sept. 20, 2005). Final Act. 10-28.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Lott, Rothermel, and Harkins (Susan Harkins, Use Excel 's conditional
formatting to find errors, (Feb. 16, 2008), www.techrepublic.com/blog/m
icrosoft-office/use-excels-conditional-formatting-to-find-errors/). Final
Act. 28-29.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Lott, Rothermel, and Naimat (US 2005/0060313 Al; Mar. 17, 2005). Final
Act. 29-31.
Claims 14 and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Lott, Rothermel, and Abdalla (US 2001/0007959 Al; July 12,
2001 ). Final Act. 31-32, 34--3 8.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Lott, Rothermel, and Cesare (US 2005/0262121 Al; Nov. 24, 2005). Final
Act. 32-34.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Lott, Rothermel, Abdalla, and Kung (US 2013/0166515 Al; June
27, 2013). Final Act. 38-39.
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Lott, Rothermel, Abdalla, and Marquardt (US 8,516,008 Bl; Aug. 20, 2013).
Final Act. 39--40.
3
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Lott, Rothermel, Abdalla, Marquardt, and Godfredsen (US 2003/0163441
Al; Aug. 28, 2003). Final Act. 40-41.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue, among other things, Lott does not teach or suggest
including feedback in the grid and modifying Lott with Rothermel' s
teachings would not lead to placing the recited indicator in a cell in Lott's
grid. Appeal Br. 20-22; see also id. at 16 ("Appellant's grid, as expressed in
Claim 1, has a number of unique functional features, such [as] ... rendering
results of application of the rules to fields in records."), 19-20 ( arguing
Rothermel simply teaches indicators for testing values in spreadsheet cells
and, combined with Lott, does not teach providing feedback regarding
application of validation rules in Lott's grid, which is where the application
of validation rules to fields is defined). Specifically, Appellants argue Lott
separates rule creation from the production environment and there is nothing
in Lott's grid that would suggest, or even allow for, providing feedback
regarding the validation results in Lott's grid, which is used only for creating
rules, even in light of Rothermel's teachings. Appeal Br. 20-22.
Appellants emphasize that Lott's grid is not used when applying the
validation rules and has no description regarding providing feedback of the
results in Lott's grid, which is described only with respect to rule creation.
Appeal Br. 21-22. Appellants further argue Rothermel teaches providing
feedback about validation of a cell value in that cell, but does not describe
providing feedback in a cell in which the relationship between validation
rules and field values are defined. Appeal Br. 19-20. Thus, Appellants
argue the Examiner's proposed modification of Lott to provide feedback in
4
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
its grid is not supported by any functionality disclosed in either Lott or
Rothermel ( or their combination) and has no rational underpinning other
than the use of Appellants' claims as a guide-i.e., improper hindsight.
Appeal Br. 21-22. Moreover, Appellants argue the Examiner has not
explained how the proposed modification would be implemented using
Lott's grid to render feedback results because Lott does not contemplate
such feedback because Lott discloses using its grid only for rule creation.
Appeal Br. 22.
The Examiner finds Lott teaches or suggests the majority of the
limitations recited in independent claim 1, including a two-dimensional (2D)
grid whose cells have "an input element for receiving input determining
whether or not the associated validation rule is applied to the associated
field." Final Act. 10-12. The Examiner acknowledges that Lott fails to
"explicitly disclose an indicator for indicating feedback associated with a
validation result based on applying the associated validation rule to data
included in the associated field of the element," but finds Rothermel teaches
the recited indicator. Final Act. 12. The Examiner relies on Rothermel only
for teaching "an indicator for indicating feedback associated with a
validation result based on applying the associated validation rule to data
included in the associated field of the element."
The Examiner concludes:
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention to have modified Lott to include the
teachings of Rothermel because it would allow the system of Lott
to provide feedback about validation results in a compact form
that does not require additional screen space, aiding the rules
engineer in creating appropriate validation rules.
5
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
Final Act. 13; see Final Act. 12-13. The Examiner explains that there
are two separate motivations for combining Lott and Rothermel.
Ans. 9-11. Specifically, the Examiner states "visually representing
feedback in a way that does not significantly decrease the number of
cells that can be displayed, is a clear advantage and beneficial result
taken directly from the teachings of the prior art" and "feedback about
validation results aids in creating validation rules, is reasoned from
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art."
Ans. 10.
Aspects of Appellants' arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claims. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 17 (arguing "Lott's Boolean
Condition Grid does not configure a module," whereas the claim merely
recites "a processing module ... configured to apply validation rules").
Other aspects of Appellants' arguments attack the references individually,
whereas the Examiner's rejection, however, is based on a combination of
Lott and Rothermel. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 22 ( arguing neither Lott nor
Rothermel includes both the recited grid and the recited indicator).
Nevertheless, taken together, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
proposed combination does not render obvious the subject matter recited.
Specifically, the Examiner has not explained how the proposed
combination results in a single grid having validation rules along one axis
and fields along another axis, such that at least some of the cells in the grid
include both "an input element for receiving input determining whether" to
apply a validation rule to a particular field and "an indicator" that provides
feedback from applying the validation rule to the particular field. Although
we agree with the Examiner that Lott teaches a grid having cells that include
6
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
an input element used to identify which validation rules apply to which
particular fields and Appellants do not contest the Examiner's findings
regarding Rothermel, the Examiner has not shown how the combination of
Lott and Rothermel teaches or suggests such a grid that would include
feedback regarding application of those validation rules to the respective
fields.
As Appellants argue, Lott's Boolean Condition Grid, at most, teaches
a portion of a rule editor graphical user interface (GUI) that allows a user to
enter a "P" or an "R" ( or, implicitly, leave the cell blank) in each cell grid to
indicate whether a particular value-field pair is prohibited or required ( or,
implicitly, no validation of the field-value pair is performed), respectively.
Lott ,r,r 24, 57 ("The grid is a compact way of specifying Boolean conditions
for a specific combination of fields and values."). Appellants are correct
that the Examiner identifies no disclosure in Lott that teaches or suggests
providing feedback in the rule editor GUI. Instead, the Examiner finds it
would have been obvious to modify Lott with Rothermel's teaching of an
indicator to provide valuation result feedback in a compact form without
requiring additional screen space and to aid a user in creating validation
rules. Final Act. 12-13.
As discussed above, however, Lott's grid is part of a rules editor GUI
that is merely used to enter information regarding validation rules and does
not include either the data to which the validation rules are applied or
feedback regarding results from applying the validation rules. The
Examiner's rationales for modifying Lott to achieve the claimed invention
lack rational underpinnings because the Examiner has not explained how the
proposed combination would result in a system as recited in claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-003956
Application 13/653,995
Specifically, the Examiner's proposed rationales do not support combining
Rothermel's and Lott's teachings in a way that would teach or suggest a grid
having both Lott's input elements and Rothermel's indicator. At most, such
a combination would result in a system that applies validation rules created
using Lott's GUI to a spreadsheet of data and providing an indicator in that
spreadsheet of data.
For the above reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 and independent claims 17-19, which recite
commensurate limitations. For the same reasons, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2---6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, and 20-22, which
depend from and incorporate the limitations of the independent claims from
which they ultimately depend. The Examiner does not find any teachings
from Harkins, N aimat, Abdalla, Cesare, Kung, Marquardt, and Godfredsen
cure the deficiencies identified above. Thus, for the same reasons, we also
are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 23, which
recites commensurate limitations to independent claim 1 as well as
dependent claims 7, 10, 14, 15, 24--27, which depend from and incorporate
the limitations of the independent claims from which they ultimately depend.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
8