Larry Waldman et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 2, 2021

2020000101 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 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.
13/359,322 01/26/2012 Larry Waldman 334833.01 1040
69316 7590 04/02/2021
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
BURKE, TIONNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/02/2021 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):
chriochs@microsoft.com
jkarr@microsoft.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARRY WALDMAN, DAN BATTAGIN,
SHAHAR PRISH, and ERAN MEGIDDO
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JASON J. CHUNG, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claims 1–20 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant,
and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a).1 See Final Act.
1; Appeal Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “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. 1.
2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed Jan. 26, 2012; and
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed Apr. 23, 2019. We also refer to the
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relate
“to computer hardware and software, and in particular, to dynamically
controlling forms.” Spec. ¶ 1. Specifically, Appellant’s claims recite
computer readable storage devices, apparatuses, and methods for
“generating and deploying dynamic forms” (Spec. ¶ 17) by generating a base
form from a spreadsheet created by a spreadsheet application, and publishing
a user form. The user form is published to a location external to the
spreadsheet and the spreadsheet application (e.g., displayed on a user’s
display by a user’s email or web browsing applications), and the user form
includes user data entry components that are derived from components of the
generated base form. The method receives user input (i.e., information
entered by a user through the user form) in the spreadsheet application.
Responsive to the user input, the method identifies control information
(corresponding to the user input) with which to control the user form and
sends the control information to the user form to control subsequent user
input to the user form (e.g., provide selection information in the form of a
menu or enable selections via radio buttons, etc.). See Spec. ¶¶ 6–7, 17–20;
Abstract. Claim 1 (directed to a method), claim 8 (directed to an apparatus),
and claim 15 (directed to a computer readable storage device) are
independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for providing forms linked to content
targets within productivity applications, the method comprising:

Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed May 22, 2018; and
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed July 26, 2019.
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

3
generating from within a spreadsheet hosted by a
spreadsheet application, a base form comprising a plurality of
base data entry components;
publishing, to a location external to the spreadsheet and
external to the spreadsheet application, a user form comprising a
plurality of user data entry components derived from the plurality
of base data entry components of the base form; and
in the spreadsheet application:
receiving user input entered by a user through the
user form published to the location external to the spreadsheet
and external to the spreadsheet application;
in response to receiving the user input, identifying
control information with which to control the user form; and
communicating the control information to the user
form in response to the user input, to control the user form with
respect to subsequent user input.
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Malkin US 2004/0237030 A1 Nov. 25, 2004
Heiney et al.
(“Heiney”)
US 2012/0221933 A1 Aug. 30, 2012
(filed Feb. 25, 2011)
Kloiber et al.
(“Kloiber”)
US 2017/0300465 A1 Oct. 19, 20173

3 Kloiber (US 2017/0300465 A1), published Oct. 19, 2017, was filed on
June 30, 2017 (claiming benefit of US 12/870,497 (filed Aug. 27, 2010) and
US 11/552,862 (filed Oct. 25, 2006)).
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

4
REJECTIONS4
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, and 18–205 under
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heiney and Kloiber. See Final
Act. 2–6.
2. The Examiner rejects claims 2–4, 9–11, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heiney, Kloiber, and Malkin.
Final Act. 6–8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 15 together as a group
and does not separately argue dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, and 16–20. See
Appeal Br. 9. We select independent claim 1 as representative of
Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 1–20. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, and 18–20
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Heiney and Kloiber. See Final Act. 2–4; Ans. 3–5. Specifically, the
Examiner finds Heiney describes a spreadsheet, a base form, and publishing
a user form that comprises user data entry components derived from the base
form. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Heiney ¶¶ 24, 52, 53; Fig. 8). The
Examiner also finds that Heiney describes the spreadsheet receiving user

4 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112–29, 125
Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application
has an effective filing prior to the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013),
this decision refers to 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5 The Examiner omits claim 15 from the statement of rejection, but includes
a discussion of claim 15 in the rejection. See Final Act. 2, 5; Ans. 3. We
correct the statement of rejection for clarity.
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

5
input from the user form and, in response, identifying control information
for controlling the user form. See Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4 (citing Heiney
¶ 24). The Examiner further finds that Kloiber describes publishing a user
form to a location external to the spreadsheet application and spreadsheet
(base form), receiving user input from the published user form, and
communicating control information for controlling subsequent user input to
the user form in response to user input from the user form. See Final Act. 3–
4; Ans. 4–5 (citing Heiney ¶¶ 69, 201, 202).
Appellant contends Heiney and Kloiber do not teach certain disputed
features of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 5–9. Specifically, Appellant contends
that: “Heiney fails to teach, disclose or suggest at least ‘in response to
receiving the user input, identify control information with which to control
the user form’” (Appeal Br. 6); “Heiney in view of Kloiber fails to disclose,
teach, or suggest ‘publishing, to a location external to the spreadsheet and
external to the spreadsheet application, the user form comprising data entry
components,’ as recited by claim 1’” (Appeal Br. 7); and “Heiney in view of
Kloiber fails to teach, disclose or suggest at least ‘communicating the
control information to the user form in response to the user input, to control
the user form with respect to subsequent user input,’ as recited by claim 1”
(Appeal Br. 8).
We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–4) and
(2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3–
5) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and
conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following analysis
for emphasis.
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

6
Appellant’s claim 1 broadly recites a method for “control[ling] the
user form with respect to subsequent user input” by publishing a user form, a
spreadsheet application “receiving user input” from the user form,
“identifying control information with which to control the user form”
responsive to the user input, and “communicating the control information to
the user form” (Appeal Br. 11 (Claim App.) (claim 1)).
With respect to “identifying control information” (Appeal Br. 11
(Claim App.) (claim 1)), Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s rejection
“appears to use the ‘display and update module 208’ of Heiney as reading on
the claimed ‘control information’ of claim 1,” but “module 208 changes only
the underlying spreadsheet when a user enters information into a widget.”
Appeal Br. 6. We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of Heiney.
As pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 3–4), Heine
(see ¶ 24) displays an interactive document (i.e., a user form) that contains
user data entry components (e.g., cells or widgets), detects changes to the
document via user input (e.g., when a user inputs information into a widget
within the document), and subsequently updates the displayed interactive
document based on the user input. See Heiney ¶¶ 19, 21, 24, 25, 52, 53.
Thus, Heine at least suggests an application “identifying control information
with which to control the user form” as recited in claim 1.
With respect to “publishing” the “user form” “to a location external to
the spreadsheet and external to the spreadsheet application” (Appeal Br. 11
(Claim App.) (claim 1)), Appellant asserts that Kloiber’s “superactive
document” is not externally published, but instead “Kloiber discloses the
creation and use of a new application” (Appeal Br. 7). We disagree with
Appellant’s interpretation of Kloiber.
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

7
As pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4),
Kloiber’s superactive document includes various data from external sources
and is stored in a document repository. See Kloiber ¶¶ 69, 201, 202. Also,
Kloiber’s superactive document is created in a design environment (see
Kloiber ¶ 72). Changes can be made to the document in a separate
interactive environment, fed back to the document (e.g., via an orchestration
process), and the modified document is stored in a document store (see
Kloiber ¶¶ 69, 98–102; Fig. 1). After the superactive document is finalized,
user interaction (utilization) of the document can result in additional changes
to the document, which are then saved in the document (see Kloiber ¶¶ 108–
109; Fig. 1). Thus, Kloiber (in combination with Heiney) at least suggests
an application “publishing, to a location external to the spreadsheet and
external to the spreadsheet application, a user form comprising a plurality of
user data entry components derived from the plurality of base data entry
components of the base form” as recited in claim 1.
With respect to “communicating the control information to the user
form” (Appeal Br. 11 (Claim App.) (claim 1)), Appellant asserts that “any
changes to the superactive document 110 regarding content or structure
occur within the limits defined by the design phase” (Appeal Br. 7 (quoting
Kloiber ¶ 74). We disagree with Appellant’s interpretation of Kloiber.
Also, Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred
because Appellant does not address the combination of Heiney and Kloiber.
See Final Act. 4.
One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references
individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

8
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). This guidance is applicable here,
Heiney describes identifying control information that is sent
(communicated) to update the displayed interactive document. See supra.
Kloiber describes feeding back information to the superactive document. As
pointed out by the Examiner (see Final Act. 4; Ans. 4–5 (citing Kloiber ¶¶
69, 201, 202)) and discussed with respect to the publishing limitation
(supra), changes can be made to the document in a separate interactive
environment and fed back to the document. See Kloiber ¶¶ 69 98–102; Fig.
1. Further, after the design and initial editing of the superactive document is
completed, user interaction with (utilization of) the document can result in
additional changes to the document. See Kloiber ¶¶ 108–109; Fig. 1. Thus,
Kloiber (in combination with Heine) at least suggests an application
“communicating the control information to the user form in response to the
user input, to control the user form with respect to subsequent user input” as
recited in claim 1.
Additionally, although a Reply Brief is not required, Appellant did not
file a Reply Brief and failed to address the Examiner’s clarified findings and
additional discussion (see Ans. 3–5) of Heiney and Kloiber and the disputed
limitations of claim 1, or otherwise rebut the findings and responsive
arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer. Accordingly, Appellant’s
contentions do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative independent claim 1. Therefore, we affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15
that include limitations of commensurate scope, and dependent claims 5–7,
12–14, and 18–20, not separately argued with particularity (supra).
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

9
Obviousness Rejection of Claims 2–4, 9–11, 16, and 17
The Examiner rejects claims 2–4, 9–11, 16, and 17 over Heiney,
Kloiber, and Malkin. See Final Act. 6–8.
Appellant does not argue dependent claims 2–4, 9–11, 16, and 17
separately. See Appeal Br. 9.
For the same reasons as claim 1 (and claims 8 and 15) (supra), from
which claims 2–4, 9–11, 16, and 17 depend, Appellant does not persuade us
of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of dependent claims 2–4,
9–11, 16, and 17, not separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2–4, 9–11, 16, and 17.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–20.
Appeal 2020-000101
Application 13/359,322

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 12–
15, 18–20
103(a) Heiney, Kloiber 1, 5–8, 12–
15, 18–20

2–4, 9–11,
16, 17
103(a) Heiney, Kloiber,
Malkin
2–4, 9–11,
16, 17

Overall
Outcome
1–20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED