Spreadsheet Tabs Survive Alice Test of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
| November 2, 2018
Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC
October 9, 2018
Before Reyna, Bryson, Stoll. Opinion by Stoll.
Summary:
This case is about patent claims to spreadsheet functionality. On an appeal from a grant of a motion for judgement on the pleadings for lack of patent-eligible subject matter, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed-in-part finding some of the claims patent eligible. Specifically, the claims reciting a “spreadsheet page identifier being displayed as an image of a notebook tab” were held as not being directed to an abstract idea. However, claims that more generally recite identifying and storing electronic spreadsheet pages and claims that recite methods that allow electronic spreadsheet users to track their changes were held as invalid under § 101 because they fail step one of Alice as being abstract, and they fail step two of Alice because they merely recite the method of implementing the abstract idea itself.
Details:
This case is an appeal from a grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings under FRCP 12(c) for lack of patent-eligible subject matter of all of the asserted claims. The patents at issue (U.S Patent Nos. 5,590,259; 5,784,545; 6,282,551; 5,303,146) are owned by Data Engine Technologies LLC (“DET”).
- Tab Patents
The ‘259, ‘545 and ‘551 patents are grouped together and referred to as the “Tab Patents.” The Tab Patents describe providing “an electronic spreadsheet system including a notebook interface having a plurality of notebook pages, each of which contains a spread of information cells, or other desired page type.” Figs. 2A and 2D of the ‘259 patent are shown below. Fig. 2A shows a spreadsheet page having notebook tabs along the bottom edge. Fig. 2D shows just the notebook tabs of the spreadsheet.
Claim 12 of the ‘259 patent is a representative claim of the Tab Patents and is provided below:
- In an electronic spreadsheet system for storing and manipulating information, a computer-implemented method of representing a three-dimensional spreadsheet on a screen display, the method comprising:
displaying on said screen display a first spreadsheet page from a plurality of spreadsheet pages, each of said spreadsheet pages comprising an array of information cells arranged in row and column format, at least some of said information cells storing user-supplied information and formulas operative on said user-supplied information, each of said information cells being uniquely identified by a spreadsheet page identifier, a column identifier, and a row identifier;
while displaying said first spreadsheet page, displaying a row of spreadsheet page identifiers along one side of said first spreadsheet page, each said spreadsheet page identifier being displayed as an image of a notebook tab on said screen display and indicating a single respective spreadsheet page, wherein at least one spreadsheet page identifier of said displayed row of spreadsheet page identifiers comprises at least one user-settable identifying character;
receiving user input for requesting display of a second spreadsheet page in response to selection with an input device of a spreadsheet page identifier for said second spreadsheet page;
in response to said receiving user input step, displaying said second spreadsheet page on said screen display in a manner so as to obscure said first spreadsheet page from display while continuing to display at least a portion of said row of spreadsheet page identifiers; and
receiving user input for entering a formula in a cell on said second spreadsheet page, said formula including a cell reference to a particular cell on another of said spreadsheet pages having a particular spreadsheet page identifier comprising at least one user-supplied identifying character, said cell reference comprising said at least one user-supplied identifying character for said particular spreadsheet page identifier together with said column identifier and said row identifier for said particular cell.
The CAFC stated that claim 12 is not directed to an abstract idea, and thus, the group of claims represented by claim 12 is patent-eligible subject matter. Claim 12 is directed to “a specific method for navigating through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets” and “provides a specific solution to then-existing technological problems in computers and prior art electronic spreadsheets.” The opinion described that in the prior art it was difficult and burdensome to find or access commands and features available in prior art computer spreadsheets and it was difficult to build and navigate three-dimensional spreadsheets. However, the Tab Patents solved this technological problem by providing an intuitive and user-friendly interface. The CAFC also pointed to articles included in the prosecution history showing that the invention was applauded in the industry for improving computer functionality. Thus, the CAFC concluded that “the claims require a specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers.”
Referring to the Core Wireless case (Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the opinion stated that claim 12 provides a “specific” and “particular” manner of navigating a three-dimensional spreadsheet and improves the efficient functioning of computers.
Google attempted to characterize claim 12 as abstract because it is directed to a method of organizing and presenting information. However, the CAFC distinguished the cases cited by Google to dismiss Google’s argument. The opinion stated that “claim 12 is not simply directed to displaying a graphical user interface or collecting, manipulating, or organizing information to improve navigation through three-dimensional spreadsheets. Instead, the claim recites a specific structure (i.e., notebook tabs) within a particular spreadsheet display that performs a specific function (i.e., navigating within a three-dimensional spreadsheet).”
Claim 1 of the ‘551 patent is the only claim in the “Tab Patents” group held to be ineligible subject matter. Claim 1 is provided below:
1. In an electronic spreadsheet for processing alphanumeric information, said said electronic spreadsheet comprising a three-dimensional spreadsheet operative in a digital computer and including a plurality of cells for entering data and formulas, a method for organizing the three-dimensional spreadsheet comprising:partitioning said plurality of cells into a plurality of two-dimensional cell matrices so that each of the two-dimensional cell matrices can be presented to a user as a spreadsheet page;
associating each of the cell matrices with a user-settable page identifier which serves as a unique identifier for said each cell matrix;
creating in a first cell of a first page at least one formula referencing a second cell of a second page said formula including the user-settable page identifier for the second page; and
storing said first and second pages of the plurality of cell matrices such that they appear to the user as being stored within a single file.
This claim was held to be “directed to the abstract idea of identifying and storing electronic spreadsheet pages.” Claim 1 was distinguished from claim 12 in that claim 1 does not recite the specific implementation of a notebook tab interface and covers any means for identifying electronic spreadsheet pages. Under step two of the Alice step, the opinion stated that the limitations of the claim merely recite the method of implementing the abstract idea itself.
- Track Changes Patent
The ‘146 patent is directed to a method of tracking changes in three-dimensional spreadsheets. Claim 1 of the ‘146 patent is provided below:
- In an electronic spreadsheet system for modeling user-specified information in a data model comprising a plurality of information cells, a method for automatically tracking different versions of the data model, the method comprising:
(a) specifying a base set of information cells for the system to track changes;
(b) creating a new version of the data model by modifying at least one information cell from the specified base set; and
(c) automatically determining cells of the data model which have changed by comparing cells in the new version against corresponding ones in the base set.
The claims of the ‘146 patent were held as ineligible subject matter. The CAFC stated that representative claim 1 is “directed to the abstract idea of collecting spreadsheet data, recognizing changes to spreadsheet data, and storing information about the changes.” The opinion characterized the claim as the abstract idea of manually tracking modifications across multiple sheets and further stated that automating this process does not negate its abstraction. The CAFC also stated that the claims of the ‘146 patent do not recite an inventive concept under step two of Alice. “These claims do not recite anything more than simply stating the abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it.’”
Takeaway
In order to have a better chance of surviving challenges under § 101 for ineligible subject matter, patent applications should be drafted to include specific solutions to technological problems. Claims of varying scope should be used in which a varying amount of specifics about the solution are included in the claims. In this case, the broader and more general claims did not survive, but the claims reciting more specifics about implementing the solution survived the § 101 challenge.
Also, when defending your patent from a § 101 challenge, you should look to the prosecution history in addition to the specification for evidence of a technological problem and a specific solution to the problem. In this case, the CAFC referred to the prosecution history which includes articles from the industry showing that the invention provides a good solution to a technological problem.
