Ex Parte Nouard et alDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 28, 201613101166 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation