Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 19, 2021

2020002666 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 19, 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. 15/221,934 07/28/2016 Benjamin C. Chamberlain 313581-US- CNT[2]/170101-8 1410 145266 7590 11/19/2021 NovoTechIP International PLLC 1717 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Suite #1025 Washington, DC 20006 EXAMINER BURKE, TIONNA M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2176 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/19/2021 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 BENJAMIN C. CHAMBERLAIN, BRUCE C. JONES, CHRISTOPHER M. STREET, DAVID F. GAINER, and ERIC B. VIGESAA ____________________ Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before THU A. DANG, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–25, 29–34, and 37–40. Claims 1–20 have been canceled (see Appeal Br. 20, Claims App.), and claims 26–28, 35, and 36 have been indicated by the Examiner as allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of respective independent claims 21 and 30 from which claims 26–28, 35, and 36 directly depend (see Final Act. 10). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 2 We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to data visualization techniques for displaying data in varying formats (see Title; Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 2–7). According to Appellant: Data visualization techniques enable users of data to scan and quickly comprehend large quantities of information. Such techniques may also aid in alerting users to anomalies and other data of interest. Visualization tools can include charts, graphs, and reports that collect, summarize, and/or otherwise transform data into meaningful shapes, colors, and patterns. Closer to the source, data visualization has also included the use of conditional formatting in spreadsheets, which frequently serve as receptacles of raw data. Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant recognizes “a need in the art for the ability to vary cell formats in tables and spreadsheets and to apply advanced formats ” which are “not . . . restricted to a limited set of formats based on Boolean conditions” (Spec. ¶ 6). As a result, Appellant discloses a data visualization method that enables “variable formatting, which provides methods for applying a varying format to a range of cells in a spreadsheet, table, or other electronic document” (Spec. ¶ 7). For example, background color of cells may be varied according to a value in the cell, size/shape of a data bar placed in the cell may be varied, or an in-cell icon may be varied selectively based on a cell value (see Spec. ¶ 7). identifies the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 3 Exemplary claim 21, under appeal, with emphases added to key portions of the claim at issue, reads as follows: 21. A method for displaying different visual indicators for different values, comprising: causing display of a graphical user interface (GUI) that presents options used to determine formatting for a range of values, comprising: causing display in the GUI of a style user interface element that is used to display multiple types of visual indicators and receive a selection of a type of visual indicator to apply to the range of values; and causing display in the GUI of formatting criteria user interface elements that are used to receive formatting criteria selections to apply to the type of visual indicator based on values in the range of values; receiving the formatting criteria selections, wherein the formatting criteria selections include a first format of the type of visual indicator correlated to a first value, and a second format of the type of visual indicator correlated to a second value; dynamically determining, based on receiving the first format and the second format, varying formats that vary in a spectrum from the first format to the second format; applying the varying formats to the selected type of visual indicator and values within the range of values; and causing display of the values after applying the selected type of visual indicator and the varying formats (Appeal Br. 20, Claims Appendix (emphases added)). Remaining independent claims 30 (computer-readable memory hardware having instructions to perform the method of claim 21) and 37 (a system for performing the method of claim 21) recite limitations commensurate in scope with the limitations of claim 21. Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 4 The Examiner’s Rejections (1) The Examiner rejected claims 21, 30, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to provide adequate written description of the claimed invention so as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventors had possession of the claimed invention at the time the application was effectively filed (Final Act. 2–3). Specifically, the written description support for the limitation “dynamically determining . . . varying formats that vary in a spectrum” was at issue.2 The Examiner withdrew this rejection, based on the Examiner’s agreement with Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (see Ans. 4; see also Appeal Br. 9–11). Because the Examiner has withdrawn the § 112, first paragraph, rejection (see Ans. 3–4), we will not address this rejection or Appellant’s arguments directed thereto any further. (2) Claims 21–25, 29–34, and 37–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sonoyama et al. (US 6,349,315 B1; issued Feb. 19, 2002) (hereinafter, “Sonoyama”), Hao et al. (US 2004/0205450 A1; published Oct. 14, 2004) (hereinafter, “Hao”), and Zagara et al. (US 2013/0132257 A1; published May 23, 2013 and filed Jan. 9, 2013) (hereinafter, “Zagara”). Final Act. 3–9. Appellant’s Contentions Appellant primarily contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 30, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the failure of the 2 The term “dynamically” was added by Appellant’s Amendment filed February 21, 2019 (see p. 2). Appellant cites (i) paragraphs 33–40 and 51; and (ii) element 402 in Figure 4B and step 1303 of Figure 13, for support for the “dynamically determining . . .” limitation of claims 21, 30, and 37 (see Appeal Br. 5–7, Summary of the Claimed Subject Matter). Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 5 Sonoyama to teach or suggest “dynamically determining, based on receiving the first format and the second format, varying formats that vary in a spectrum from the first format to the second format,” as recited, for example, in claim 21 (see Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 8–10). Principal Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 11– 19) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–16), the following dispositive issue is presented on appeal: Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21– 25, 29–34, and 37–40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Sonoyama, and thus the combination of Sonoyama, Hao, and Zagara, fail to teach or suggest “dynamically determining, based on receiving the first format and the second format, varying formats that vary in a spectrum from the first format to the second format,” as recited in independent claims 21, 30, and 37? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br. 11–19; Reply Br. 2–16), the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 3–9), and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 4–7) to Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown that Sonoyama, and thus the combination of applied references, teach or suggest “dynamically determining, based on receiving the first format and the second format, varying formats that vary in a spectrum from the first format to the second format,” as recited in claims 21, 30, and 37. Our reasoning follows. Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 6 The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks omitted)). We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967). In this light, and in view of the Examiner’s findings of fact for the rejection of claims 21, 30, and 37 (see Final Act. 4, 8; Ans. 6–7) (making findings as to Sonoyama), we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 21, 30, and 37 over Sonoyama, Hao, and Zagara. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites to column 5, lines 9–65 and column 16, lines 25–41 of Sonoyama as teaching the “dynamically determining . . . varying formats that vary in a spectrum” limitation recited in claims 21, 30, and 37 (see Final Act. 4, 8). However, the Examiner fails to articulate within the rejection why these portions of Sonoyama are considered to teach or suggest dynamically determining varying formats as claimed. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner interprets Sonoyama to teach varying formats “at runtime” (Ans. 6, 7). However, columns 5 and 16 of Sonoyama merely describe using different colors for different numerical reference values, and are silent as to dynamically determining varying formats as claimed. As a result, we find the Examiner’s assertion that Appeal 2020-002666 Application 15/221,934 7 Sonoyama dynamically determines varying formats at runtime to be unsupported, conclusory, and speculative at best.3 In light of our careful review of Sonoyama, Appellant’s contentions (Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 9–13, 15, 16) that Sonoyama fails to disclose, teach, or suggest dynamically determining varying formats as set forth in claims 21, 30, and 37, are persuasive. As a result, based on the record before us, Appellant has shown the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 21, 30, and 37, and thus claims 22–25, 29, 31–34, and 38–40 depending respectively therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 21–25, 29–34, and 37–40 over the combination of Sonoyama, Hao, and Zagara. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 21–25, 29– 34, 37–40 103(a) Sonoyama, Hao, Zagara 21–25, 29– 34, 37–40 REVERSED 3 We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d at 1017.