null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 29, 2019

14918887 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2019)

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.
14/918,887 10/21/2015 BRUCE E. VILLARD JR. END920150147US1_IEN107853 1594
26681 7590 11/29/2019
DEPT. IEN
DAUGHERTY & DEL ZOPPO CO., L.P.A.
38500 CHARDON ROAD
WILLOUGHBY HILLS, OH 44094
EXAMINER
EL-BKAILY, AHMAD M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/29/2019 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):
adelzoppo@DD-IPLAW.COM
info@DD-IPLAW.COM
pdaugherty@DD-IPLAW.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE E. VILLARD, JR. and HENRY C. WILL, IV
____________

Appeal 2019-001303
Application 14/918,887
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
The invention concerns a method for a structured cloud data analyzer
that includes comparing data in different, respective (for example, first and
second) ranges of spreadsheet file cells, and determining a scope of a

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001303
Application 14/918,887

2
formula with respect to selected cells of the first range of cells and selected
cells of the second range of cells.
Spec. ¶ 4.2
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for a structured cloud
data analyzer, the method comprising executing on a computer
processor the steps of:
comparing data in each of a plurality of cells of a first
range of spreadsheet file cells to data in each of a plurality of
cells of a second range of spreadsheet file cells that is different
from the first range of cells;
determining a scope of a first formula with respect to
selected cells of the first range of cells and selected cells of the
second range of cells, wherein the first formula pulls input data
from the selected cells of the first range of cells and pulls input
data from selected cells of the second range of cells or
responsively generates output data to revise the data within each
of the selected output cells of the second range of cells; and
automatically generating a review flag in association with
data in a flagged cell selected from one of the first range of cells
and the second range of cells in response to determining that a
specified percentage of data values in respective corresponding
rows or columns of the first range of cells and the second range
of cells match, and that a location of the flagged cell within one
of the first range of cells and the second range of cells is shifted
by at least one row or column from a corresponding cell within
another of the first range of cells and the second range of cells.

2 This decision employs the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed Oct. 21, 2015; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed Jan. 12, 2018; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed July 6, 2018;
“Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed Sept. 28, 2018; and “Reply Br.”
for the Reply Brief, filed Nov. 26, 2018.
Appeal 2019-001303
Application 14/918,887

3
Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 5–12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Creason (US 2016/0055139 A1, pub. Feb. 25,
2016) in view of Todd (US 2002/00048801 A1, pub. Jan. 10, 2002). 3
Claims 2, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Creason in view of Todd and further in view of Jones (US
2013/0231904 A1, pub. Sept. 5, 2013).
Claims 4, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Creason in view of Todd and further in view of Hiatt (US
9,158,832 B1, iss. Oct. 13, 2015).

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of the pending claims in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In doing so, we have
evaluated only the arguments that Appellant actually makes on appeal.
Independent Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a method that requires, inter alia, “determining that a
specified percentage of data values in respective corresponding rows or
columns of the first range of cells and the second range of cells match,”
(disputed limitation, emphasis ours). Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.).

3 We note that in the Claim Rejections section of the Final Action the
Examiner listed claims 2, 13, and 18 under the § 103 rejection over Creason
and Todd (Final Act. 2); however, the Examiner provided this rejection for
claims 1, 3, 5–12, 14, 16, 17, and 19 in the Final Action (Final Act. 3–9).
We find that the Examiner’s failure to list the claims correctly was an
inadvertent and harmless error.
Appeal 2019-001303
Application 14/918,887

4
The Examiner finds that Todd discloses the disputed limitation of
claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Todd ¶ 51).
Paragraph 51 of Todd discloses:
When the formulae in referencing arrays are computed, bound
array references are looked up as shown in FIG. 8. Firstly, the
name of the bound array is found (300) in the list held by the
spreadsheet. Next, the “base” cell of the bound array, that is, the
cell at the top left of the range is looked (310) up. Then, the
standard cell reference is computed (320) in order to compare
(330) the cell to the bound array range. Comparison (330)
determines whether the standard cell reference lies within the
range and if this is so, the appropriate result of the computation
is returned (340). If the standard cell does not lie within the
range, then the “ERR” function is returned (350). The “ERR”
function is a standard function in Lotus 1-2-3, which flags
errors in cells involved in calculations or with data input.

Among other things, Appellant argues that Paragraph 51 of Todd does
not teach the disputed limitation, i.e., “determining that a specified
percentage of data values in respective corresponding rows or columns of
the first range of cells and the second range of cells match” Reply Br. 3–4.
In particular, Appellant argues that “the ‘matching’ subject matter
limitations at issue in the independent claims is clearly defined as
‘determining that a specified percentage of data values in respective
corresponding rows or columns of the first range of cells and the second
range of cells match’” (Id. at 3), and the “metes and bounds of the limitation
subject matter of ‘matching data values’ are readily understood by one
skilled in the art by the plain meaning of the terms themselves: the ‘data
values’ within the respective cells must ‘match.’” Id.

Appeal 2019-001303
Application 14/918,887

5
We agree with Appellant as our interpretation of the disclosure of
Todd coincides with that of Appellant. See Reply Br. 3–4. We conclude
that the Examiner’s findings are not supported by Creason and Todd for the
reasons set forth by Appellant. Therefore, on this record, we find the weight
of the evidence supports the positions articulated by Appellant in the briefs.
Accordingly, we find that the Examiner has failed to show that Todd
teaches determining that a specified percentage of data values in respective
corresponding rows or columns of the first range of cells and the second
range of cells match as required by the claims.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claim
1, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner
error.
Independent claims 12 and 17 include limitations commensurate to
the disputed limitation of independent claim 1. Accordingly, based on the
record before us, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 12, and 17 based on Creason and Todd. For the reasons discussed
regarding independent claims 1, 12, and 17 we do not sustain the
obviousness rejections of their respective dependent claims.

Appeal 2019-001303
Application 14/918,887

6

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5–12,
14, 16, 17,
19
103 Creason, Todd 1, 3, 5–12,
14, 16, 17,
19
2, 13, 18 103 Creason, Todd, Jones 2, 13, 18
4, 15, 20 103 Creason, Todd, Hiatt 4, 15, 20
Overall
Outcome

1–20

REVERSED