Ex Parte Sauermann

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

10850663 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

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.
10/850,663 05/21/2004 Volker Sauermann 11884/413201 9041
23838 7590 04/30/2013
KENYON & KENYON LLP
1500 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 700
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
NUNEZ, JORDANY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2171
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VOLKER SAUERMANN
____________

Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JENNIFER S. BISK, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-30. The real party in interest is SAP Aktiengesellschaft of
Walldorf, Germany. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part and enter new grounds of rejection.
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Gasperina U.S. 5,491,781 Feb. 13, 1996
Cohn U.S. 5,712,995 Jan. 27, 1998
Johnson U.S. 5,721,847 Feb. 24, 1998
Stead U.S. 6,690,401 B1 Feb. 10, 2004

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1-18, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27, and 301 were finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stead and Johnson.
Claims 19 and 21 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Stead.
Claims 23 and 24 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Johnson.
Claim 28 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stead, Johnson, and Cohn.
Claim 29 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stead, Johnson, and Gasperina.2

1 We note that the Examiner’s heading for this rejection in the Examiner’s
Answer fails to mention claims 26, 27, and 30, but the text of the rejection
addresses claims 26, 27, and 30. See Ans. 5, 11-12. Accordingly, we treat
this as a harmless typographical error.
2 We note that the Examiner’s heading for this rejection states that claim 28
is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Stead, Johnson,
and Gasperina, but the quoted text is from claim 29 and the rejection
addresses the limitations of claim 29. See Ans. 13. Accordingly, we treat
this as a harmless typographical error.
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

3
The Invention
Appellant discloses, referring to Appellant’s Figure 1b below, a table
displayed in a graphical user interface having multiple columns and rows.
Spec. 6:4-22. The table in Figure 1b below provides a general horizontal
table-data control 105 for scrolling between the entire table and a scroll-bar
100a assigned to an individual column for scrolling within that particular
column.
Appellant’s Figure 1b is reproduced below:

Figure 1b depicts a scroll-bar 100a for an individual column.

Claim 1 is illustrative with certain limitations emphasized:
1. A computer system for controlling a display of data,
comprising:
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

4
a computer monitor configured to display:
a table arranged to show a structural relationship of data,
the table including a plurality of displayed columns and at least
one row that intersect; and
a column-data control selectively associated with, and
configured to control navigation of, only data that is within a
particular one of the plurality of columns, and not configured to
control navigation of data of any other of the plurality of
columns.

DISCUSSION
A. The Rejection of Claims 1-5, 7, 25-27, and 30 as Obvious over Stead
and Johnson
The Examiner determined that Stead discloses all elements of claim 1,
except that Stead fails to specifically show a column-data control not
configured to control navigation of any other of the plurality of columns.
Ans. 6.3 The Examiner cited Johnson as teaching this feature in concluding
that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 6. Appellant disagrees and
argues that both Stead and Johnson fail to teach a column-data control
selectively associated with, and configured to control navigation of, only
data within a particular one of the plurality of columns, and not configured
to control navigation of data of any other of the plurality of columns. App.
Br. 12-13. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. The spreadsheet in Johnson’s Figure 3A
below, shows a list box 160 including a scrollbar on the right side.
Johnson’s Figure 3A is reproduced below:

3 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (App. Br.), filed Dec. 22,
2009, and Reply Brief (Reply. Br.), filed May, 24, 2010, and the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.), mailed Mar. 23, 2010,.
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

5

Johnson’s Figure 3A depicts list box 160 having a scrollbar
on the right side.

Appellant argues that the scroll bar in Figure 3A of Johnson, shown above,
is not associated with and does not control the navigation of data within, any
column of the illustrated table, but is instead only associated with data of a
list box which is overlaid on top of table. App. Br. 13. Contrary to the
Appellant’s assertions, the Examiner finds that Johnson teaches a scroll bar
of list box 160 that causes modification to, or navigation of data within, a
cell of the table. Ans. 22. Johnson discloses that the entry chosen from list
box 160 would appear in the corresponding spreadsheet cell of Figure 3A.
See Johnson, col. 8, ll. 36-39. Thus, manipulation of the scroll bar in
Johnson’s list box 160 controls navigation of the data in the respective
spreadsheet cell and not in other cells. See Id.
In addition to the scroll bar for list box 160, the Examiner cites to
Johnson’s teachings regarding a slider 166 positioned between the ends of a
scroll bar 164. Ans. 22 (citing Johnson, col. 10, ll. 1-8). Johnson teaches
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

6
that moving the slider 166 to the right increases the value displayed in a
corresponding cell of the spreadsheet. Johnson, col. 10, ll. 1-8. Based on
these teachings, the Examiner concludes that Johnson discloses a column-
data control not configured to control navigation of data in any other of the
plurality of columns. Ans. 6. We are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings.
For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 as
obvious over Stead and Johnson, and of dependent claims 5, 7, 25-27, and
30, not separately argued.

B. The Rejection of Claim 6 as Obvious over Stead and Johnson
Appellant’s dependent claim 6 requires that either the horizontal
toggle-button-set or the horizontal scroll-bar is displayed, dependent upon
the width of the data in a particular column. See Claim 6. The Examiner
finds that although Stead and Johnson fail to show specifically that “the first
condition being the width of the first area is not more than double the
particular column’s width and the second condition being the width of the
first area is more than double the particular column’s width,” it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to assign these conditions.
Ans. 7.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s finding is the opposite of the
claim 6 requirements, because, according to the features of claim 6, “a small
column would not include the toggle-button-set and would include the
scroll-bar, and a large column would not include the scroll bar and would
include the toggle-button-set.” App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). Appellant’s
argument, however, is not commensurate with the scope of claim 6, because
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

7
claim 6 does not provide recitations regarding a “small column” or a “large
column.” Furthermore, the Examiner finds that, in view of the teachings in
the cited prior art of both a toggle-button-set and a scroll-bar, it would have
been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to have
configured the first condition and the second condition based on the width of
the first area for display. Ans. 7. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s findings and sustain the obviousness rejection of
claim 6.

C. The Rejection of Claim 8 as Obvious over Stead and Johnson
Appellant argues that the rejection of dependent claim 8 is improper
because the Examiner relies upon an instance according to the Stead
reference in which a table includes just one cell as disclosing the features of
claim 8. App. Br. 15. Appellant argues that this instance in Stead is
irrelevant because claim 8 requires a column to include first and second
cells. Id. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner finds that Stead
discloses that the cells may be resized and that multiple cells may be
displayed. Ans. 8. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s findings and sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 8.

D. The Rejection of Claims 9-15, 17, 18, 20, and 22 as Obvious over
Stead and Johnson
Although Appellant nominally argues claims 9-15, 17, 18, 20, and 22
separately (App. Br. 15-17), Appellant nonetheless relies on arguments
similar to those for claim 1 which we find unpersuasive for the reasons
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

8
indicated previously. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9-15, 17, 18, 20, and 22.

E. The Rejection of Claim 16 as Obvious over Stead and Johnson
Although Appellant nominally argues claim 16 separately (App. Br.
17), Appellant nonetheless relies on arguments similar to those for claim 8
which we find unpersuasive for the reasons indicated previously. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.

F. The Rejection of Claims 23 and 24 as Anticipated by Johnson
The Examiner determined that Johnson discloses all elements of
claims 23 and 24, including a “scroll-bar being selectively associated with
only one of a plurality of displayed cells of a table and that, when activated,
causes a corresponding shift of displayable data of the associated cell.” Ans.
4. Appellant concedes that Johnson discloses “a table of data including cells
formed by the intersection of columns A-G and rows 1-14,” and that
Johnson’s Figure 3A, provided above, illustrates a list box 160 including
items selectable for modifying data of a cell. App. Br. 9. Appellant argues,
however, that, “while the selection of an item in list box 160 may cause
insertion of data into a cell of the displayed table, nowhere does the Johnson
reference state that selection of an item in the list box 160 causes a shift of
any data already in the cell.” App. Br. 10. Appellant’s argument is contrary
to the express disclosure in Johnson. Johnson states that, “[s]ince line 3
corresponds to the third entry within the list box, spreadsheet cell Bl within
FIG. 3A includes a numeral 3,” but when line 2 is in “the list box, the
number 2 would appear in spreadsheet cell B1.” Johnson, col. 8, ll. 33-38.
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

9
Thus, we do not find error in the Examiner’s conclusion that selection of an
item in list box 160 causes a shift of data in the cell. Ans. 19.
Appellant further argues that while selection of the item in list box
160 may cause insertion of data into a cell, nowhere does the Johnson
reference state that the item of list box 160, which is selected, changes in
response to scrolling list box 160. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds,
however, that activation of the scroll-bar enables the selection of an item in
list box 160 that causes a shift of data in the cell. Ans. 19. In addition to list
box 160, the Examiner cites to Johnson’s disclosure of slider 166 positioned
between the ends of a scroll bar 164, and Johnson discloses that moving
slider 166 to the right increases the value displayed in a corresponding cell
of the spreadsheet. Ans. 19 (citing Johnson, col. 10, ll. 1-8). The Examiner
relies upon this disclosure as a further example of moving a scroll-bar
causing a shift of displayable data of the associated cell. Ans. 20. We are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings and sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 23 and 24.

G. The Rejection of Claim 28 as Obvious over Stead, Johnson, and Cohn
Appellant argues that claim 28 is allowable because it is dependent
from claim 1 and that the addition of Cohn does not correct the deficiencies
of the combination of Stead and Johnson relied upon to reject claim 1. App.
Br. 18. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 28
for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 28.

Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

10
H. The Rejection of Claim 29 as Obvious over Stead, Johnson, and
Gasperina
Appellant argues that claim 29 is allowable because it is dependent
from claim 1 and the addition of Gasperina does not correct the deficiencies
of the combination of Stead and Johnson relied upon to reject claim 1. App.
Br. 18. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 29
for the reasons discussed above for claim 1. We, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 29.

I. The Rejection of Claim 19 as Anticipated by Stead
The Examiner determined that Stead discloses all elements of claim
19, including a table and a control device selectively associated with a
particular cell. Ans. 3. Specifically, the Examiner finds that “by virtue of
teaching spreadsheet documents, HTML documents, and word processing
documents, [Stead] inherently teaches that a user interface may provide
nonoverlapped tiled windows for independent manipulation of said windows
(e.g., as described in Cohn US 5712995, abstract).” Ans. 14 (emphasis
added). Furthermore, the Examiner finds that “it would be reasonable to
interpret completely separate windows as cells of a table.” Ans. 17 (citing
Cohn as an example).
We note that Stead does not disclose tiling windows for independent
manipulation, nor does Stead provide any disclosure regarding “tiling” or
“tiled” windows. In fact, the portions of the Stead cited by the Examiner for
this disclosure (Stead, col. 6, ll. 39-45) do not mention tiling and simply
state that server 660 in Stead can be coupled to a storage device that stores
documents that may include “spreadsheet documents, HTML (Hypertext
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

11
Markup Language) documents, etc.” Stead, col. 6, ll. 42-44. We agree with
the Appellant that the Examiner erred in mapping this claim to an inherent
“table” in Stead and reliance upon the additional reference of Cohn.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 19.

J. The Rejection of Claim 21 as Anticipated by Stead
Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 21 is improper for similar
reasons as those set forth for claim 19, as claim 21 requires a tabular format
including at least one row and plurality of displayed columns. See Claim 21;
Reply Br. 7. Once again, the Examiner finds that this tabular format is
taught by Stead because it would be reasonable to interpret completely
separate windows as cells of table. Ans. 18. For the same reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 19, we are persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 21. Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claim 21.

NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter the following new grounds of
rejection.

Obviousness Rejection of claims 19 and 21
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Stead and Johnson. As discussed above, the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claims 19 and 21 were deficient because the Examiner
incorrectly mapped the table or tabular format of rows and columns required
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

12
by the respective claims to an inherent teaching in Stead of non-overlapped
tiled windows representing the cells of a table. Ans. 14, 17.
With respect to claims 19 and 21, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions based on the teachings of Stead for all elements,
and we adopt them as our own, except for the Examiner’s findings with
respect to the “table” element. Ans. 3-4. More particularly, we find that
Stead fails to specifically disclose a “table” having “a plurality of displayed
cells,” (as required by claim 19) or “a tabular format including at least one
row and plurality of displayed columns,” (as required by claim 21). We find
that Johnson teaches these features lacking in Stead. Specifically, Johnson
teaches a table with a plurality of displayed cells in multiple rows and
columns and illustrates an example table in Johnson’s Figure 3A, shown
above. See Johnson, col. 8, ll. 33-43. Additionally, Appellant even
concedes that Johnson discloses “a table of data including cells formed by
the intersection of columns A-G and rows 1-14.” App. Br. 9.
It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the
invention to use the table taught in Johnson in the windows shown in Stead.
Such a modification is tantamount to “the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions” -- an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417(2007).

DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-18, 20, 22, and 25-30 under § 103(a) are
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 23 and 24 under§ 102(b) is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 19 and 21 under§ 102(e) is REVERSED.
Appeal 2010-009412
Application 10/850,663

13
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) for claims 19 and 21. This regulation states that “[a] new ground
of rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for
judicial review.” Furthermore, 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that
Appellant, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE
DECISION:
must exercise one of the following two options with
respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of
the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding
will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)

llw