Ex Parte SinghDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 201612901580 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation