Ex Parte Winter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 28, 201411472818 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE __________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD __________ Ex parte STEWART WINTER, ANDREW LEIKUCS, and RANDY WESTMAN1 __________ Appeal 2011-009895 Application 11/472,818 Technology Center 2100 __________ Before DONALD E. ADAMS, MELANIE L. McCOLLUM, and JEFFREY N. FREDMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCOLLUM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 involving claims to computer-implemented method, system, and computer program product. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as International Machines Business Corporation (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2011-009895 Application 11/472,818 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 12-22 and 25-36 are pending and on appeal (App. Br. 3). Claims 12, 25, and 34 are independent. Claim 12 is illustrative and reads as follows: 12. A method that is implemented on a computer, the method comprising: receiving a request to create a constant filtered set definition to select a set of members in a crosstab, the crosstab including data retrieved from a data source; creating, with an expression based filter that depends on data in the data source, the constant filtered set definition; selecting, after the creation of the constant filtered set definition, the set of members in the crosstab based on the constant filtered set definition; and updating the set of members in the crosstab based on the constant filtered set definition and a change to the data in the data source without updating the set of members in the cross tab based on a change to a global definition corresponding to the crosstab such that the constant filtered set definition overrides the global definition. Claims 12-22 and 25-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Leathers (US 2002/0123986 A1, Sept. 5, 2002) in view of Gartung et al. (US 5,915,257, Jun. 22, 1999) (Ans. 3). ANALYSIS The Specification discloses “a mechanism to lock the context of a filtered set of members in a crosstab, allowing update values of the set based on data changes in its underlying data source, but preventing the set from changing when the global context of the report changes” (Spec. ¶ [0007]). “Referring to Figures 9-11, [the Specification describes] an example of locking the context of a selected set . . . using a business case where a manager has a crosstab that shows his top global salespeople with their Appeal 2011-009895 Application 11/472,818 3 Order Amount numbers for the current Year to Date” and “want[s] to see how these top sellers are performing in the Asian markets” (id. at ¶ [0052]). The Specification discloses that seeing “the numbers for only the Asian region . . . is easily accomplished by using the slicer to filter the data values by the Asian region,” but that “adding Asia to the slicer context changes the values that are being used by the filter defining the top salespeople (i.e., it changes the global report context)” (id. at ¶ [0053]). Thus, in “order for the set of top salespeople to be preserved when the data is filtered by the slicer, the context for the filtered set needs to be shielded from it” (id. at ¶ [0054]). The Specification also discloses: A crosstab contains various dimensional members and measure members. A user 20 may manipulate one or more members of a crosstab as a set, and define the set of members collectively to explore and analy[ze] data. During the course of an analysis session, a user may invest a significant amount of time in creating a filtered set definition that results in a set of members that the user wishes to maintain as a constant for further analysis. For example, the user may use such a constant set as a baseline to compare against other sets, or use the constant set as a constant with other elements placed against each other for comparison. The context locking system 100 allows the user to lock the definition or context of such a set of members for further exploration and analysis of data in the data sources 30. (Id. at ¶ [0016] (emphasis added).) Based on how the term “constant” is used in the Specification, and its context in claims 12, 25, and 34, we conclude that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret a “constant filtered set definition” to be a filtered set definition that selects the same set of members even if the global context of the crosstab is changed, but allows Appeal 2011-009895 Application 11/472,818 4 the set of members to be updated based on a change to the data in the data source. The Examiner finds that “Leathers does not explicitly disclose creating a ‘constant filtered set definition’” (Ans. 5). Instead, the Examiner finds that “Gartung teaches a user can save to disk the data and underlying data structure (i.e. the filtered set definition) which were used to generate the cross tab report” and concludes that the “saved file is a ‘constant filter set definition’ as claimed because when the saved file is reopen[ed], it would have the same view as when it was saved” (id.). We are not persuaded. Gartung discloses: The report is accepted as finished by the user. The underlying data structures which are used to generate the report may then be stored to disk. The storage will include the aggregate information stored in each of the cells. Disk storage is used in order to allow the user to reload the cross-tab report without needing to reload the data. (Gartung, col. 16, ll. 20-26.) Although we agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious to store Leathers’ crosstabs to disk, as described in Gartung, we conclude that the Examiner has not adequately explained why this teaches or suggests a “constant filtered set definition,” as this phrase is interpreted above. CONCLUSION The Examiner has not set forth a prima facie case of obviousness. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection. REVERSED cdc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation