Ex Parte Singh

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2016

12901580 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/901,580 10/11/2010
62730 7590 04/04/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
SHIV PRATAP SINGH
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.
2010P00305US 1388
EXAMINER
LIN, SHEW FEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2166
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2016 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 SHIV PRAT AP SINGH
Appeal2014-005608
Application 12/901,580
Technology Center 2100
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-21, which are all the claims
pending in the present patent application. (App. Br. l; Final Act. 2.) 1 We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification ("Spec."), filed Oct. 11, 2010 and
Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed Oct. 24, 2013. We also refer to the Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.") mailed Jan. 29, 2014, and Final Office Action (Final
Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Apr. 3, 2013.
Appeal2014-005608
Application 12/901,580
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns articles of manufacture,
computer systems, and methods for optimizing queries. The method
categorizes data provider objects, which are part of a query, into "used" data
provider objects (data provider objects that are used in a report) and
"unused" data provider objects (data provider objects that are not used in the
report). The method also creates a modified query that excludes the unused
data provider objects, retrieves and stores the used data provider objects
(retrieved using the modified query), and displays the unused data provider
objects such that they are selectable for use in a second report. (Spec. i-fi-f l,
6; Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed
limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. An article of manufacture including a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium to tangibly store instructions,
which when executed by a computer, cause the computer to:
categorize a plurality of data provider objects into one or
more used data provider objects that are used in a report at a
first instance and one or more unused data provider objects that
are not used in the report at the first instance, wherein the
plurality of data provider objects are part of a query;
create a modified query by excluding the unused data
provider objects;
retrieve and store data of the used data provider objects in
a local data source using the modified query; and
display the unused data provider objects such that the
unused data provider objects are differentiated from the used
2
Appeal2014-005608
Application 12/901,580
data provider o~bjects and selectable for use in the report at a
second instance.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Ah-Soon (US 2011/0125772 Al, published May 26, 2011
(filed Nov. 24, 2009).)
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issues
before us follow:
Does the Examiner err in finding that Ah-Soon discloses
"categoriz[ing] a plurality of data provider objects into one or more used
data provider objects that are used in a report at a first instance and one or
more unused data provider objects that are not used in the report" and
"display[ing] the unused data provider objects such that the unused data
provider objects are differentiated from the used data provider objects and
selectable for use in the report at a second instance" within the meaning of
Appellant's claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 8 and 15?
ANALYSIS
Appellant does not separately argue independent claims 8 and 15, or
dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21. (Br. 11.) Accordingly, we select
independent claim 1 as representative of the group comprising claims 1-21.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We adopt to the extent consistent with our analysis (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
3
Appeal2014-005608
Application 12/901,580
taken (Final Act. 2-3), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2---6) in response to Appellant's Appeal Brief. We
concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we
provide the following for emphasis.
Appellant contends that Ah-Soon does not disclose the disputed
features of representative claim 1, namely, "categoriz[ing] a plurality of data
provider objects into one or more used data provider objects ... and one or
more unused data provider objects" and "display[ing] the unused data
provider objects such that [they] are differentiated from the used data
provider objects and selectable for use in the report at a second instance"
(claim 1). (See Br. 8-11.) Specifically, Appellant contends that Ah-Soon
filters query results (data) so as to "prevent a user from seeing unauthorized
data" (Br. 9), but does not categorize the results (records/data) into "used"
data provider objects and "unused" data provider objects (Br. 9). Appellant
further contends that Ah-Soon does not display unused objects (objects a
particular user is prevented from viewing) such that these objects may be
selected for use in a second report (report at a second instance). (Br. 10-11.)
We find Appellant's contentions unpersuasive of Examiner error. As
explained by the Examiner, Ah-Soon describes a set of objects associated
with a data source (data provider objects) (Ans. 2-3; Final Act. 2-3) that
may be used in a report (Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 2-3) and modifying a query to
prevent a user from viewing certain groups of data (objects) (Ans. 3-5; Final
Act. 2-3) (citing Ah-Soon i-fi-188-91; Figs. 12-14). We interpret claim
language to give the recited limitations the "broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the [S]pecification" in accordance with our
mandate that "claim language should be read in light of the [S]pecification
as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art." In re Am.
4
Appeal2014-005608
Application 12/901,580
Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations and
internal quotation marks omitted). As such, we agree with the Examiner that
the displayed objects are "used" objects in that the viewer/user is able to
display and view (use) such objects. (See Ans. 2-5.) Similarly, we agree
with the Examiner that the undisplayed objects are "unused" objects in that a
second viewer/user is not able to display and view (prevented from
displaying and viewing or using) such objects. (Id.) Appellant's claim
language places no temporal limits on reporting (using) data or any limits on
who may view (use) the data.
To the extent Appellant argues that all records (data) be retrieved and
then categorized (see Br. 9), this argument is not commensurate with the
scope of Appellant's claim 1. Similarly, to the extent Appellant argues that
any particular process is utilized in performing categorization (see Br. 9-11),
this argument is not commensurate with the scope of Appellant's claim 1.
As further explained by the Examiner, Ah-Soon also describes
viewing data objects in a displayed profile (user interface, i.e., a report) such
that particular objects may be made viewable or un-viewable for particular
users. (Ans. 5---6; Final Act. 3 (citing Ah-Soon i-fi-176-77, 88-91; Figs. 11-
14).) We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure describes viewable
and selectable objects that may be displayed to a particular user (used) or not
displayed (where the user is prevented from viewing the data- i.e.,
unused), which meets Appellant's recited limitation- "display[ing] the
unused data provider objects" such that they are "differentiated from the
used data provider objects and selectable for use in the report at a second
instance" (claim 1 ).
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of representative independent claim 1. Accordingly,
5
Appeal2014-005608
Application 12/901,580
we affirm the Examiner's anticipation rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-21,
not separately argued with particularity (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6