Ex Parte Nouard et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2016

13101166 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/101,166 05/05/2011
62730 7590 02/01/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arnaud Nouard
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2011P00016US 4450
EXAMINER
HILLERY, NATHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3715
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2016 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARNAUD NOUARD and LUDOVIC ENGRAND
Appeal 2014-000403 i,2
Application 13/101, 166
Technology Center 3700
Before PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, KENNETH G. SCHOPPER, and
BRADLEY B. BAY AT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-15, and 17-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our decision references Appellants' Specification ("Spec.," filed May 5,
2011), Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.," filed July 5, 2013), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed Sept. 27, 2013), as well as the Final Office Action ("Final
Action," mailed Jan. 17, 2013) and the Examiner's Answer ("Answer,"
mailed July 30, 2013).
2 With respect the real party in interest, Appellants state "[ t ]he ...
application is assigned to Business Objects Software Limited . . . . Business
Objects Software Limited is owned by SAP AG." Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2014-000403
Application 13/101, 166
According to Appellants, the invention "relates to visually tracking
data changes in report documents." Spec. i-f 1. Claims 1, 8, and 14 are the
only independent claims on appeal. We reproduce below claim 1 as
representative of the appealed claims.
1. A computer implemented method for dynamic report
generation comprising:
in a user interface presenting a report document,
receiving a user interaction for modification of at least one
report element in the report document;
classifying the modification of the at least one report
element by:
receiving a unique identifier of the at least one
report element;
matching the unique identifier with the user
interaction for modification of the at least one report
element; and
identifying a class based on the unique identifier
and the user interaction for modification;
identifying a visual effect based on the classified
modification of the at least one report element; and
updating the report document by applying the identified
visual effect together with the modification of the at least one
report element.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
REJECTION AND PRIOR ART
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-15, and 17-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Elseth (US 2010/0094815 Al, pub.
Apr. 15, 2010) and Voronov (US 2006/0136510 Al, pub. June 22, 2006).
See Final Action 2-7.
2
Appeal2014-000403
Application 13/101, 166
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1, from which claims 2 and 4--7 depend, recites
"classifying the modification of the at least one report element by ...
receiving a unique identifier of the at least one report element [in the report
document]." Appeal Br., Claims App. (emphasis added). Appellants argue
the rejection is in error because, contrary to the Examiner's findings (see
Final Action 4; see also Answer 4--5), Voronov does not disclose the
claimed unique identifier (see Appeal Br. 7). Based on our review, we
determine that the Examiner does not establish by a preponderance of the
evidence that V oronov discloses the claimed unique identifier.
Specifically, the Examiner relies on Voronov's property identifier to
disclose the claimed unique identifier. See, e.g., Final Action 4; see also,
e.g., Answer 3-8. Paragraph 29 ofVoronov, which is discussed throughout
the prosecution of the application, including in the Final Office Action and
Appeal Brief, reads, in relevant part, "[ e ]xamples of properties to track
include: start/finish dates of a specific task, the duration of a task, a deadline
date for completion of a task, and the resources assigned to a task."
Voronov i-f 29. Further, we note that Voronov's paragraph 29 is similar to
paragraph 21, which is also discussed extensively throughout the
prosecution of the application. The disclosure in Voronov's paragraphs 21
and 29 does not state, and the Examiner does not identify any other portion
of Voronov that states, the identified properties are properties in a report
document as required by claim 1, but rather discuss that the properties relate
to or are about a report document. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 7. Thus, based on
the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--7.
3
Appeal2014-000403
Application 13/101, 166
Each of independent claims 8 and 14 recites similar limitations. See
Appeal Br., Claims App. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 8,
10-15, and 17-20 for reasons similar to those discussed above with respect
to claim 1.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of
claims 1, 2, 4--8, 10-15, and 17-20.
REVERSED
msc
4