Ex Parte Winter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2014

11472818 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2014)

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