Ex Parte McCully

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 29, 2013

11678607 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ERIC McCULLY
____________________

Appeal 2010-006970
Application 11/678,607
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of
claims 1-21, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-006970
Application 11/678,607

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a method of customized
retrieval and presentation of information from a relational database,
involving generating a script based on user input to modify the code of first
application configured to retrieve information and present a report. See
Spec. ¶ [0013]. Claim 1 is reproduced below with certain disputed
limitations italicized:
1. An apparatus for generating a report, comprising:
a. a user interface for receiving user input indicating a selection
of a predefined report specification, the predefined report
specification comprising a first application configured to
retrieve information from a database and present a report of the
retrieved information;
b. a server for:
i. prompting, via the user interface, for further user input,
wherein the further user input specifies one or more
modifications for the report generated by the first application;
ii. generating a script corresponding to the further user
input, wherein the script is configured to modify code of the
first application;
c. a first database comprising predefined report specifications;
d. a second database comprising information for incorporation
into reports;
e. a report server for:
i. finding, in the first database, the predefined report
specification corresponding to the user input;
ii. loading the predefined report specification;
iii. applying the script to the predefined report
specification to create a customized report specification to
modify the predefined report specification based on the user
input;
iv. running the customized report specification, including
retrieving appropriate information from the second database to
generate a customized report; and
f. means for outputting the report to the user interface.
Appeal 2010-006970
Application 11/678,607

3

REJECTION
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Anand (US 5,721,90; issued Feb. 24, 1998) and Munsil
(US 5,761,650; Jun. 2, 1998). Ans. 3-15.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ANAND AND MUNSIL
The Examiner finds that Anand teaches the elements of independent
claim 1 regarding “prompting, via the user interface, for further user input,”
and “generating a script corresponding to the further user input, wherein the
script is configured to modify code of the first application.” Ans. 4.
Furthermore, the Examiner relies upon the combination of Anand with the
teachings of Munsil regarding indicating a selection of a predefined report
specification comprising a first application configured to retrieve
information from a database and present a report of the retrieved
information, in concluding that claim 1 is obvious. Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that Anand fails to teach a server configured to
prompt for the “further user input,” where the “further user input” is used to
“generat[e] a script corresponding to the further user input,” and where “the
script is configured to modify the code of the first application.” App. Br. 11-
12 (quoting claim 1) (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues that
while Anand does disclose allowing users to compose a Smart Report using
a number of options, Anand does not teach generating a script to modify an
existing predefined report according to the further user input. App. Br.
12-13.

Appeal 2010-006970
Application 11/678,607

4
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Munsil
and Anand collectively teach “prompting, via the user interface, for further
user input,” and “generating a script corresponding to the further user input,
wherein the script is configured to modify code of the first application”?

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Anand teaches “generating a report (i.e.
script) corresponding to the further user input.” Ans. 4, 17 (citing Anand,
col. 2, ll. 1-5; col. 7, ll. 38-50; col. 9, ll. 29-40) (emphasis added). Thus, the
Examiner maps the report generated in Anand to the “script” in Appellant’s
claim 1. The Examiner correctly relied upon Anand as teaching generating a
“Smart Report” for a “user which allows the user to make decisions, without
requiring the user to understand or interpret data itself.” Anand, col. 2, ll. 1-
5. In addition to mapping Anand’s report to the claimed “script,” however,
the Examiner maps the metadata API disclosed in Anand to the “script”
recited in Appellant’s claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the
“metadata API is a script that may modify code of the first application, i.e.
first subsystem, that allows the user to create or change business reports.”
Ans. 4, 17 (citing Anand, col. 9, ll. 5-40 and 45-67; col. 10, ll. 22-35)
(emphasis added). Therefore, the Examiner relies upon two separate
elements in Anand, the report and the metadata API, as teaching the “script”
recited in Appellant’s claim 1. See Ans. 4, 17.
Contrary to the Examiner’s findings however, the cited portions of
Anand relied upon by the Examiner do not support the Examiner’s
proposition. More particularly, Anand discloses metadata API, but does not
Appeal 2010-006970
Application 11/678,607

5
teach that this metadata API generates a script, corresponding to further user
input, to modify code of a first application, as required by claim 1. See
Anand, col. 9, l. 48 – col. 10, l. 35.
Anand fails to disclose script generation and code modification, as
required by Appellant’s claim 1. Specifically, Anand discloses that
“Metadata API 60 provides the ability to request a report, get the status of a
report, retrieve a report and cancel a report request” (Anand, col. 9, ll. 54-
56), but Anand fails to teach that the Metadata API 60 generates a script to
modify code of a first application, as recited in claim 1. For example, Anand
states that the metadata “is the core of system 10” and is the “primary
vocabulary for the specification of Smart Reports” (Anand, col. 10, ll. 31-
34), but Anand fails to provide any disclosure that this metadata can also
generate scripts to modify the code of a first application.
Therefore, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1,
independent claim 11, containing similar limitations to claim 1, or claims 2-
10 and 12-21 dependent therefrom.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-21 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc