Ex Parte McKnight et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 13, 2012

10734761 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 13, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte DAVID K. McKNIGHT and JEFFREY TURNHAM
_____________

Appeal 2010-000700
Application 10/734,761
Technology Center 2100
______________

Before, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-20 and 22.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

1 Claim 21 was previously cancelled.
Appeal 2010-000700
Application 10/734,761

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method, computer program product, and
system for plotting numerical data by filtering and mathematically analyzing
the data. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of plotting numerical data, comprising:
selecting a root object;
presenting to a user for selection at least one filter, each of
said at least one filter describing at least one of a type of objects
and a type of relationships between objects, each type of objects
and each type of relationships between objects being defined by
a schema;
receiving one or more user-selected filters;
based on said one or more user-selected filters, selecting a set
of objects, each object of said set being related to said root
object either directly, or through a chain of intermediate
objects, where each chain of intermediate objects has the same
length and all objects at a given level of each chain have a
relationship with a parent object which is identical, each object
of said set containing numerical data having a format suitable
for a mathematical analysis;
arranging said mathematical analysis of said numerical data;
and
plotting a result of said mathematical analysis of said
numerical data on a graph.

REFERENCES
Chandra US 6,216,132 B1 Apr. 10, 2001

Hellerstein US 6,836,894 B1 Dec. 28, 2004
(filed July 27, 1999)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 1-20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Hellerstein and Chandra. Ans. 5-12.
Appeal 2010-000700
Application 10/734,761

3
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Hellerstein
and Chandra teaches or suggests:
(a) A filter that describes a type of objects and a type of relationships
between objects wherein each type of objects and each type of
relationships between objects are defined by a schema?
(b) Selecting a set of objects, based on said one or more user-selected
filters, wherein each object of said set containing numerical data
having a format suitable for a mathematical analysis?
(c) Wherein each object of said set being related to said root object either
directly, or through a chain of intermediate objects, where each chain
of intermediate objects has the same length and all objects at a given
level of each chain have a relationship with a parent object which is
identical?
Did the Examiner err in determining that it would have been obvious
to combine Hellerstein and Chandra?
ANALYSIS
We select claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-
20 and 22 since Appellants have not argued any of the claims with
particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Claim 1 recites a “filter
describing at least one of a type of objects and a type of relationships
between objects, each type of objects and each type of relationships between
objects being defined by a schema.” The Examiner finds that Hellerstein
teaches this limitation in column 11, lines 7-24. Ans. 5. Appellants argue
that Hellerstein does not teach or suggest this limitation since there is
nothing in the citation that describes a type of objects, the types of
Appeal 2010-000700
Application 10/734,761

4
relationships between the objects, or a schema. App. Br. 6. In response, the
Examiner cites to additional portions of Hellerstein, mainly column 7, lines
18-22 and column 9, lines 12-36, that shows data stored in tables and
relationships between the tables. Ans. 13-14. Thus, the Examiner finds that
there are relationships between the objects and, since these relationships are
displayed visually, they are described by schemas. Ans. 14. Appellants
have not addressed the Examiner’s specific findings. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner.
Claim 1 also recites “based on said one or more user-selected filters,
selecting a set of objects…each object of said set containing numerical data
having a format suitable for a mathematical analysis.” Appellants argue that
Hellerstein does not disclose this limitation because Hellerstein teaches
selecting events, not filtering events. App. Br. 7. However, the Examiner
finds that Hellerstein mentions throughout its disclosure “filter[ing]” along
with “filter button” that is used to exclude events that are not of interest.
Ans. 14. We agree with the Examiner and note further that the selection of
particular events is also interpreted as the exclusion of every other event.
Appellants also argue that Hellerstein selects data and not objects
containing data. App. Br. 7. We disagree. As indicated by the Examiner, in
Hellerstein, a user rubber-bands an area of interest which includes points
that represent data. Ans. 14. As such, we agree with the Examiner that
these rubber-banded areas of interest that include points are the same as the
claimed objects.
Lastly, claim 1 recites “each object of said set being related to said
root object either directly, or through a chain of intermediate objects, where
each chain of intermediate objects has the same length and all objects at a
Appeal 2010-000700
Application 10/734,761

5
given level of each chain have a relationship with a parent object which is
identical.” Appellants argue that Chandra does not teach or suggest this
limitation since Chandra does not disclose selecting a root object and the
chain of intermediate objects do not have an identical relationship with the
parent object. App. Br. 9. However, the Examiner finds that the example
described in Chandra selects a root object (i.e., stock market) and that each
of the intermediate objects (i.e., stock issue, stock price, and stock volume)
have the same length from the root since they are on the same level in the
tree. Ans. 15. Appellants do not address the Examiner’s specific finding.
As a result, we agree with the Examiner.
Finally, Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to
combine Hellerstein with Chandra because there is no motivation to
combine them and because Hellerstein’s filter may not be used in the place
of Chandra’s filter. App. Br. 8-9. First, we note that the Examiner
determines that it would have been obvious to combine Hellerstein with
Chandra so that a user is able to “use any filtering criterion expressible with
the available predicates,” thereby allowing the user to be “able to choose
which data to view and analyze.” Ans. 6. Appellants have not addressed the
Examiner’s specific finding of motivation. Second, combining Chandra’s
root object selection and relationship tree with Hellerstein’s filter is simply a
combination of familiar elements according to known methods which
produce nothing more than predictable results. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418, (2007).
Thus, for the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20 and 22.
CONCLUSION
Appeal 2010-000700
Application 10/734,761

6
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Hellerstein
and Chandra teaches or suggests:
(a) A filter that describes a type of objects and a type of relationships
between objects wherein each type of objects and each type of
relationships between objects are defined by a schema;
(b) Selecting a set of objects, based on said one or more user-selected
filters, wherein each object of said set containing numerical data
having a format suitable for a mathematical analysis; and
(c) Wherein each object of said set being related to said root object either
directly, or through a chain of intermediate objects, where each chain
of intermediate objects has the same length and all objects at a given
level of each chain have a relationship with a parent object which is
identical.
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine Hellerstein
and Chandra.
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 and 22 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED
tj