Appeal No. 2006-2379
Application No. 09/740,585
spreadsheet, and automatically making changes to the spreadsheet based on changes made to
the visual representation” (brief, page 7; answer, page 4). The appellants additionally agree with
the examiner that “Himmel discloses a method for automatically updating an internet bookmark
that is used to access a webpage by detecting changes in the webpage data” (brief, page 8;
answer, page 4). Appellants argue (brief, page 11) that “automatically updating a dynamic
bookmark in a web browser is completely different and unrelated to maintaining a functional
equivalence between a spreadsheet and a visual representation of the spreadsheet.” We agree.
In summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 22 is reversed because the
teachings of the applied references neither teach nor would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art that any changes made to the spreadsheet are automatically shown in the visual
representation, and that any changes made to the visual representation are automatically shown
in the spreadsheet.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007