Appeal 2007-3554
Application 09/887,602
automatically performs a self-replication operation (col. 10, ll. 4 to 20).
During the cut, copy and paste operation described supra, Anderson uses
Windows clipboard/buffer to store cell data that is changed (col. 7, ll. 32 and
33). When Anderson propagates or percolates a changed range of cells from
one page to another page of the spreadsheet, he automatically determines the
set of ranges of cells to which the changed range of cells belongs,
automatically identifies the ranges of cells belonging to the set, and
automatically pastes the content in each of the identified range of cells
belonging to the set (col. 10, l. 4 to col. 11, l. 30).
The Examiner relied on Barnes for a teaching of copying information
into a clipboard/ buffer, and then pasting the information “from the
clipboard into a specified location (page 60, lines 14-20)” (Answer 4).
According to the Examiner, “Office discloses automatically updating
or pasting spreadsheet cells to a destination Word document, whenever
figures within an originating spreadsheet, such as those in an Excel
spreadsheet, change, (page 174)” (Answer 4).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is met, then the burden shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
See Id.
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013