Ex Parte Hodge et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 8, 201411950257 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHNATHAN HODGE, PETER ROY BALLANTINE, and SASA CONIC __________ Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,2571 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before HUBERT C. LORIN, MICHAEL W. KIM, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. LORIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Johnathan Hodge, et al. (Appellants) seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) of the final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002). 1 The real party in interest, identified by Appellants, is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 2 SUMMARY OF DECISION We AFFIRM-IN-PART.2 THE INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method comprising: receiving contribution data of an enterprise in accordance with a multi-level enterprise model; storing the contribution data within a database, wherein the database comprises a multidimensional database comprising N dimensions, and wherein N is greater than two; receiving a first annotation for an object of the contribution data; retrieving a context definition defining a context in which the first annotation was received, wherein the context corresponds to a sheet of the multidimensional database comprising full versions of two of the N dimensions and single values for each of the remaining N dimensions; receiving a second annotation for the object within the same context as the context in which the first annotation was received; storing the first annotation, the second annotation, and the context definition; and outputting the first annotation and the second annotation. 2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Jan. 14, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 25, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 25, 2011). Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability: Norden-Paul Norden-Paul Shelton Anderson Easterly US 4,878,175 US 5,247,611 US 5,325,478 US 5,590,259 US 2008/0249761 A1 Oct. 31, 1989 Sept. 21, 1993 June 28, 1994 Dec. 31, 1996 Oct. 9, 2008 The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 13–17, 18, 20, and 21–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton and Anderson. 2. Claims 7, 8, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘175. 3. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘611. 4. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Easterly. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 13–17, 18, 20, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton and Anderson; claims 7, 8, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘175; claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘611; and, claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Easterly? Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 4 FINDINGS OF FACT We rely on the Examiner’s factual findings stated in the Answer. Additional findings of fact may appear in the Analysis below. ANALYSIS The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, 13–17, 18, 20, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton and Anderson. Claims 1 and 21 are independent claims and the subject matter claimed is limited to multi-dimensional databases. With respect to claim 1, the Examiner takes the position that Shelton discloses all the claim limitations but for “wherein the database comprises a multidimensional database comprising N dimensions, and wherein N is greater than two, and wherein the context corresponds to a sheet of the multidimensional database comprising full versions of two of the N dimensions and single values for each of the remaining N dimensions” for which Anderson is relied upon. Ans. 5. (The Examiner takes the same position for claim 21. See id. at 10). According to the Examiner, “Anderson teaches the above limitations (see col. 9 line 35 - col. 10 line 39, ‘selection of 3-D cell blocks’ for a a [sic] ‘spreadsheet notebook’).” Id. at 5. The Examiner found that [i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Shelton, disclosing a method of storing and retrieving annotations for contribution data, with the teachings of Anderson because this allows annotations for contribution data to be maintained across multidimensional data structures that represent complex associations of real world data (see Anderson, col. 2 line 56 – col. 3 line 33, col. 10 lines 23–39). Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 5 Id. The difficulty with the rejection lies with the scope and content of Anderson. Anderson is characterized as disclosing a multidimensional database — a limitation missing from Shelton. Ans. 5. However, Anderson nowhere mentions multidimensional databases. Anderson is directed to spreadsheets. The passages cited in Anderson that are relied upon as evidence of a multidimensional database show only spreadsheets. Although there is discussion of 3-D cell blocks (see col. 9, ll. 36–37: “3-D cell blocks, i.e., cell ranges spanning more than one page”), the discussion does not relate to multidimensional databases but to cells in a spreadsheet. There is no discussion of “a multidimensional database comprising N dimensions, and wherein N is greater than two” as claimed. As neither Shelton nor Anderson discloses a multidimensional database as independent claims 1 and 21 require, and no other evidence showing said multidimensional database has been presented; a prima facie case of obviousness has not been made out in the first instance for claims 1 and 21 and claims 2, 4–6, 9–11 and 21–23. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4– 6, 9–11, and 21–23 under § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination is not sustained. We reach a different conclusion as to the other independent claims 13 and 16. The subject matter of these claims is not limited to a multidimensional database, but rather calls for “an enterprise system, wherein the contribution data is arranged in N dimensions, and wherein N is greater than two” (claim 13) and “a user interface to receive contribution data of an enterprise and to display a sheet of the contribution data, wherein Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 6 the contribution data is arranged in N dimensions, wherein N is greater than two” (claim 16). The Briefs are focused on claim 1 and the contention is that neither Shelton nor Anderson discloses a multidimensional database, a contention that does not apply to claims 13 and 16 as they are not limited to multidimensional databases. To the extent the Appellants’ arguments are designed to apply also to claims 13 and 16, they are not commensurate in scope with what is claimed, and therefore are not persuasive as to error in the rejection of claims 13 and the claims depending therefrom: i.e., claims 14 and 15, and claims 17, 18, and 20. (We include claim 20 even though it should have been rejected with the claim from which it depends; that is, claim 19 (see below). The reason for affirming the rejection of claims 19 and 20 is the same.) The rejection of claims 7, 8, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘175. Claims 7, 8, and 24 depend from claims 1 and 21 whose rejection we have reversed. For the same reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 7, 8, and 24 over the cited prior art. Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious.”). The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘611. Claim 12 depends from claim 1 whose rejection we have reversed. For the same reasons, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 12 over the cited prior art. Ibid. Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 7 The rejection of claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Easterly. Claim 19 depends from claim 16 whose rejection we have sustained above. The rejection of claim 19 is discussed on pages 16–17 of the Appeal Brief. The discussion relies on “reasons discussed above with respect to claim 16” (id. at 17). Those reasons being the ones addressed above regarding representative claim 1 and found unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 16, we find them equally unpersuasive as to error in the rejection of claim 20. The remaining discussion repeats the claimed subject matter and concludes, without addressing the Examiner’s position in any detail, that the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest what is claimed. The remaining discussion is inadequate to persuade us that the rejection of claim 19 was made in error. CONCLUSIONS The rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–11, and 21–23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton and Anderson is reversed. The rejection of claims 13–18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton and Anderson is affirmed. The rejection of claims 7, 8, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘175 is reversed. The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Norden-Paul ‘611 is reversed. The rejection of claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shelton, Anderson, and Easterly is affirmed. Appeal 2011-011959 Application 11/950,257 8 DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, and 4–24 is affirmed-in-part. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART hh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation