Ex Parte Smith et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 28, 2012

11337382 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 28, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte GREGORY R. SMITH, BRIAN R. MEYERS, DANIEL C.
ROBBINS, GEORGE G. ROBERTSON, MARY P. CZERWINSKI, and
DESNEY S. TAN
________________

Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382

2
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1-20:
1. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Bartell (US 5,625,767; issued Apr. 29,
1997).1
2. Claims 4, 7, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Bartell in view of Jonker (US 2006/0116994 A1; published
June 1, 2006).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe their invention as follows:
A visualization method for processing heterogeneous
data sets. A set of display nodes is generated on a user display
that corresponds to groupings of data elements from a set of
data. As various display nodes are selected, specific searching
criteria corresponding to a selected display node is applied to
the set of data. The data nodes on the user display are
dynamically updated to reflect the processing of the additional
criteria.
(Abstract).
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. In a computer system having a display, a method for
managing the display of data comprising:
identifying a plurality of disparate grouping definitions
from one or more of attributes or metadata associated with a

1 See Ans. 2 (correcting the listing of claims from the Final Rejection, which
had incorrectly stated that claim 13 was also rejected as anticipated).
Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382

3
set of heterogeneous data comprising a plurality of data
element types;
generating a set of display nodes on a computer system
display, wherein each display node at a topmost level in the set
of display nodes corresponds to a grouping definition of the set
of data;
obtaining a selection of a display node;
filtering the set of data based on a grouping definition
corresponding to the selected display node;
updating the set of display nodes on the display by
selectively displaying the filtered set of data comprising data
elements from the set of data satisfying a grouping definition
associated with the selected display node; and
mitigating display of data elements from the set of
heterogeneous data that do not satisfy the grouping definition
associated with the selected display node.
(emphasis added).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
When presented with a claim including nonfunctional
descriptive material, an Examiner must determine whether such
material should be given patentable weight. The Patent and
Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations
when determining patentability of an invention over the prior
art. In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The
PTO may not disregard claim limitations comprised of printed
matter. See Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1384; see also Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191. However, the PTO need not give
patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and
unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1386. See
also In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re
Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The burden of
establishing the absence of a novel, nonobvious functional
relationship rests with the PTO. In re Lowry, 32 F.3d at 1584.
Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382

4
Ex Parte Halligan, 89 USPQ2d 1355, 1367-68 (BPAI 2008) (non-
precedential).

ANALYSIS
I. The § 102 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-12, and 14-20
A. Claims 1, 10, and 17
In concluding that Bartell teaches the limitations of claim 1, the
Examiner relies upon the disclosure of retrieving documents stored locally
and via a network to correspond to the claimed “set of heterogeneous data
comprising a plurality of data element types” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis
added) (Ans. 3, 9; see Bartell col. 5, ll. 10-40).
Appellants argue that Bartell’s text documents are only one “data
element type” and, therefore, are homogeneous data, not heterogeneous data
(App. Br. 6-7). Appellants’ arguments with respect to the Examiner’s other
findings concerning claim 1 have been reviewed but found unpersuasive.
We need not determine whether Bartell’s document data sets are
homogeneous or heterogeneous data because this is not relevant to the
anticipation issue. The heterogeneous characterization of the claimed data
elements constitutes nonfunctional descriptive matter. Whether the data set
is comprised of heterogeneous or homogeneous data element types does not
functionally change the method because the data element types do not alter
how the process steps are performed to achieve the utility of the invention.
The type of data elements neither enhance nor diminish the functionality of
the claim steps of identifying grouping definitions, generating display nodes,
and filtering data. This is because the claim uses grouping definitions from
attributes or metadata, not the date element types, to manage the display of
Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382

5
data. Therefore, the data elements are analogous to printed matter in that
they merely represent underlying descriptions in a data set that lack
patentable weight. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well
as the rejection of claims 10 and 17, which are not argued separately.
B. Claims 2 and 11
Claim 2 reads as follows:
2. The method as recited in Claim 1, wherein displaying the set
of display nodes includes:
identifying all display nodes corresponding to a topmost
organizational criteria in the current set of data;
determining whether all display nodes corresponding to
the topmost organizational criteria can be generated on the
display;
identifying a next highest grouping of organizational
criteria for the current set of data;
generating an additional set of display nodes on the
computer system display, wherein the additional set of display
nodes correspond to the next highest grouping of
organizational criteria.
(Appeal Brief 11) (emphasis added).
Appellants contend that Bartell does not teach the limitation of
“generating an additional set of display nodes on the computer system
display, wherein the additional set of display nodes correspond to the next
highest grouping of organizational criteria,” as recited in claim 2 and as
similarly recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 7-8). Appellants argue that Bartell
does not simultaneously display the “additional set of display nodes” with
the higher display nodes as shown in Appellants’ Figure 4 (id.).
Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382

6
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner
reasons (Ans. 10), and we agree, that the feature Appellants rely upon, the
simultaneous display of the “additional set of display nodes” and the higher
display nodes, is not recited in the claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2, as well
as the rejection of claim 11, which is not argued separately.
C. Claims 3, 12, and 18
Appellants argue that Bartell does not teach the limitation of
“generating the set of display nodes includes generating a textual identifier
for each display node and a number of identifiable elements corresponding
to the display nodes on the computer system display” (emphasis added), as
recited in claim 3 (App. Br. 8). Appellants contend that the claimed “a
number of identifiable elements corresponding to the display nodes”
corresponds to Appellants’ textual identifier (element 310, “Time”) in
Appellants’ Figure 3 (id.). Appellants contend that Bartell does not show
this textual identifier in Bartell’s Figures 11 or 12 (id.).
Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive. The Examiner finds that
Bartell discloses generating a number, e.g., a score for each document
associated with a node (Ans. 10-11) (Bartell col. 2, l. 66 to col. 3, l. 5).
Bartell’s visualizing subsystem displays the score by positioning the
document relative to the classes (display nodes) (Bartell col. 3, ll. 2-5).
Appellants do not present persuasive evidence to rebut the Examiner’s
reasoning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, as well
as of claims 12 and 18, which are not argued separately.
Appeal 2009-011816
Application 11/337,382

7
D. Claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14‐16, 19, and 20
With respect to the rejections of claims 5, 6, 8, 9, 14-16, 19, and 20,
Appellants argue that these claims are not anticipated by Bartell because the
claims depend from claims 1, 10, and 17 (App. Br. 8-9). Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejections of claims 5, 6, 8,
9, 14-16, 19, and 20.
II. Rejection under § 103 of Claims 4, 7, and 13
With respect to the rejections of claims 4, 7, and 13, Appellants
provide no patentability arguments directed to the additional reference of
Jonker (App. Br. 9). Rather, Appellants argue that these claims are
patentable because they depend from claims 1 and 10 (id.). Accordingly, for
the reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejections of claims 4, 7,
and 13.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

rwk