Keith Sholes et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 12, 202013754871 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/754,871 01/30/2013 Keith SHOLES ORA120614-US-NP 2499 55498 7590 05/12/2020 Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle) 2160 Lundy Avenue Suite 230 San Jose, CA 95131 EXAMINER GOLDBERG, IVAN R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3624 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2020 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): docketing@viplawgroup.com ev@viplawgroup.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KEITH SHOLES, JEFF ERICKSON, QIU ZHONG, and NA LI ____________ Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before DENISE M. POTHIER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25, i.e., all pending claims. Because the claims have been twice rejected, we have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential). We affirm. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, “[e]nterprise resource planning (ERP) systems integrate management information from the multiple different portions of an organization,” and “[a] very common requirement for a user of an ERP system is the need to create reports over data from the ERP system.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 The Specification explains that ERP systems typically have reporting capabilities that (1) “are very limited as compared to traditional reporting tools (and are normally limited to a data table)” and (2) do not permit users to create “on-demand, highly personalized reports.” Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. The Specification also explains that “reporting tools have sophisticated design features for layout and many choices for output format that users desire.” Id. ¶ 4. Hence, the invention combines an ERP application and a reporting tool. See Spec. ¶ 39, Fig. 2A; see also id. ¶ 35. In particular, the invention employs “dynamic field selection at an ERP application, where [a] user may make selections specifying a plurality of report parameters,” and “[u]sing an ERP query tool, queries are automatically generated based on the user’s inputs.” Id. ¶ 8; see id. at 35 (Abstract). Then, “[a]n engine queries the data based on the user defined query criteria, packages the user selected fields with[] the data and generate[s] the report output on the fly.” Id. ¶ 32; see id. ¶ 8. 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed January 30, 2013; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final Office Action, mailed December 11, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed May 14, 2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 27, 2018; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed August 27, 2018. Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 3 Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows: 1. A computer-implemented method for generating a report for an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, comprising: identifying a plurality of data fields within a database operatively coupled to the ERP system; receiving, by an application server at a query setup path, a plurality of user inputs at a query tool interface portion of a resource management application, the plurality of user inputs including a plurality of report parameters selected from the query tool interface portion, the query tool interface portion having a first set of one or more interface control elements for selecting data fields from among the plurality of data fields within the database and a second set of one or more interface control elements for defining query criteria for the data fields selected; creating, by the application server at a reporting setup path, a new report data model for a new report, the new report data model comprising a set of database tables and fields selected from the plurality of data fields within the database to meet requirements of the new report, the new report data model being stored in the database; automatically generating, at the query setup path, one or more queries for the plurality of report parameters using predicates extracted from the query criteria for the data fields selected using the resource management application; executing the one or more queries against the database and storing raw data returned in response to executing the one or more queries; loading, at the reporting setup path, the new report data model into a layout tool portion of the resource management application; designing, at the reporting setup path, a layout definition using a layout tool interface portion of the resource Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 4 management application, the layout tool interface portion having interface control elements for selecting visualization elements and interface control elements for associating one or more of the data fields from the new report data model with selected visualization elements; storing, at the reporting setup path, the layout definition comprising at least automatically generated instructions corresponding to user selected visualization elements associated to the data fields from the new report data model; and creating the report, by a rendering engine portion of the resource management application, using both the layout definition and the raw data stored by the resource management application, the resource management application integrating creation of the new report data model and creation of the layout definition to create the new report by providing users the query tool interface portion and the layout tool interface portion within the resource management application. Appeal Br. 41–42 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner relies on the following prior art: The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3–11. Kaplan et al. (“Kaplan”) US 5,630,122 May 13, 1997 Devine et al. (“Devine”) US 6,385,644 B1 May 7, 2002 Meyers et al. (“Meyers”) US 2005/0039033 A1 Feb. 17, 2005 Fazal et al. (“Fazal”) US 2007/0239508 A1 Oct. 11, 2007 Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 5 Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fazal and Meyers. Non-Final Act. 11–34. Claims 2, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fazal, Meyers, and Kaplan. Non-Final Act. 35–36. Claims 3, 7, 12, 16, 21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fazal, Meyers, and Devine. Non-Final Act. 37–43. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusions concerning unpatentability under § 103(a) but disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion concerning ineligibility under § 101. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning for the § 103(a) rejections in the Non-Final Office Action and Answer. See Non-Final Act. 11–43; Ans. 18–23. We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. The § 101 Rejection of Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25 INTRODUCTION The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly: “Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Mayo and Alice, the Supreme Court explained that § 101 “contains an important implicit Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 6 exception” for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014); see Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a two-step analytical framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–80; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. Under Mayo/Alice step one, we “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to” a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Step one involves looking at the “focus” of the claims at issue and their “character as a whole.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In January 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance for determining whether claims are directed to a judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). The 2019 Guidance applies to the Board. Id. at 50–51, 57 n.42; see 35 U.S.C. § 3(a)(2)(A) (investing the Director with responsibility “for providing policy direction” for the PTO). Neither the Examiner nor Appellant had the benefit of the 2019 Guidance when presenting their respective positions concerning subject-matter eligibility. The 2019 Guidance specifies two prongs for the analysis under Mayo/Alice step one (PTO step 2A). 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Prong one requires evaluating “whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.” Id. at 54. “If the claim does not recite a judicial exception, it is not directed to a judicial exception,” and it satisfies § 101. Id. “If the claim does recite a judicial exception, then it requires further analysis” under prong two. Id. Prong two Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 7 requires evaluating “whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” Id. “When the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception,” and it satisfies § 101. Id. “If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception,” and it “requires further analysis” under Mayo/Alice step two (PTO step 2B). Id. Under Mayo/Alice step two, we “consider the elements of each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the additional elements” add enough to transform the “nature of the claim” into “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18, 221–22 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). Step two involves the search for an “inventive concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18, 221; Univ. of Fla. Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “[A]n inventive concept must be evident in the claims.” RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017). MAYO/ALICE STEP ONE: PTO STEP 2A PRONG ONE In Alice, the Supreme Court “did not establish any ‘precise contours’ for defining whether claims are directed to ‘abstract ideas’ or something else.” Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). Further, for Mayo/Alice step one, the Federal Circuit has noted that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the Examiner determines that the claims are directed to “a combination of abstract ideas, specifically collecting information, analyzing Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 8 it, and displaying the results and/or collecting, displaying, and manipulating data.” Non-Final Act. 3 (citations omitted) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Appellant disputes that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 21–27; Reply Br. 3–6. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the claims “are rooted in computer technology, and would not exist outside the paradigm of computer technologies (e.g., automatically generating queries using the query tool . . . and a layout tool using a data model created from the resource management application for designing a layout to present the data).” Appeal Br. 21 (alteration in original). Under the 2019 Guidance, we determine that the claims recite abstract ideas falling within one of the three groupings of abstract ideas specified in the 2019 Guidance, i.e., “mental processes.” See 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52. The 2019 Guidance describes “mental processes” as “concepts performed in the human mind,” such as “an observation, evaluation, judgment, [or] opinion.” Id. at 52 (footnote omitted). Here, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite “identifying a plurality of data fields within a database operatively coupled to the ERP system.” Appeal Br. 41, 44, 47. The “identifying” limitation in each claim encompasses an evaluation performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. In particular, a database schema provides a diagram or blueprint identifying the data in the database and how the database arranges the data. See, e.g., Meyers ¶¶ 36, 108, Fig. 2. Hence, someone could mentally evaluate a database schema and mentally identify a plurality of data fields, Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 9 e.g., customer name, customer address, and order number, for data retrieval and further processing. For these reasons, the “identifying” limitation in each independent claim encompasses an evaluation performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper. The 2019 Guidance identifies an evaluation performed by a human mentally or with pen and paper as a mental process, and thus an abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 & nn.14–15; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”). MAYO/ALICE STEP ONE: PTO STEP 2A PRONG TWO Because we determine that each independent claim recites an abstract idea, we consider whether each claim as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. “Only when a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception into a practical application, is the claim ‘directed to’ a judicial exception . . . .” Id. at 51. Appellant contends that “the claims are directed toward the technological innovation of tightly integrating” two features: (1) “a resource management application” having “a query tool interface for extracting data from a database” and (2) “a reporting tool” having “a particular layout tool interface for designing layout definitions for creating customized user reports.” Appeal Br. 21. According to Appellant, “legacy approaches of using reporting tools that are not integrated with the database applications require[d] database experts to figure out how to extract the data directly Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 10 from the database or via a database middleware.” Id. at 24 (citing Spec. ¶ 4). Appellant contends that the claimed invention improves upon legacy approaches. Appeal Br. 24. In particular, Appellant argues that the claimed invention provides (1) “a query tool interface that allows end users to define queries to retrieve the raw data that they wish to generate a report on” and (2) “a query builder that automatically creates queries in response to user selections of data input fields and query criteria defined by the user within the query tool interface without the user needing to have a deep understanding of the underlying database schema.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 43). We determine that each independent claim as a whole integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Each claim does so because the limitations following the “identifying” limitation in each claim use the recited abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment to provide an improvement over prior systems. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. In particular, the Specification explains that “[t]raditional report creation tools require deep knowledge of the database schema and table relationships” and that users “typically do not have the database schema and table relationship knowledge required to build reports using traditional reporting tools.” Spec. ¶ 84; see id. ¶ 4. The Specification also explains that “[t]his often leads to a reliance on IT to build these reports” and “makes the process costly and inefficient.” Id. ¶ 84. In contrast to prior systems, the claimed invention “does not require the user to have a deep understanding of the schema of the underlying database.” Id. ¶ 40; see id. ¶¶ 43, 49, 89. Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 11 In Core Wireless, the claims were “directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices” that “improve[d] the efficiency of using” the devices. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit decided that the claims satisfied § 101 under Mayo/Alice step one because they “recite[d] a specific improvement over prior systems.” Id. at 1363. Here, similar to the claims in Core Wireless, claims 1, 10, and 19 are directed to a particular manner of selecting, retrieving, organizing, and presenting information in an ERP system. According to the Specification, those operations provide an improvement over prior systems. See Spec. ¶¶ 4, 40, 43, 49, 84, 89. Hence, we conclude that each claim is not directed to a judicial exception and, therefore, satisfies § 101 under Mayo/Alice step one. SUMMARY FOR PATENT ELIGIBILITY For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the § 101 rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the § 101 rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 11, 12, 14–16, 20, 21, and 23–25. Since our determination under PTO step 2A prong two resolves the eligibility issue for all pending claims, we need not address eligibility under PTO step 2B (Mayo/Alice step two). See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”); 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 12 The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23, and 24 CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19: THE “CREATING . . . A NEW REPORT DATA MODEL” LIMITATION As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 rests on Fazal and Meyers. See Non-Final Act. 12–33. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19 because Fazal and Meyers fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in each claim: creating, by the application server at a reporting setup path, a new report data model for a new report, the new report data model comprising a set of database tables and fields selected from the plurality of data fields within the database to meet requirements of the new report, the new report data model being stored in the database. See Appeal Br. 32–34; Reply Br. 19–20. Specifically, Appellant asserts that Fazal “does not disclose allowing end users to create new custom reports.” Appeal Br. 33. Appellant also asserts that Fazal “discloses that it is desirable to provide a mechanism that provides predefined reports that can be easily configured to meet the diverse requirements of various users.” Id. (emphasis by Appellant). Further, Appellant urges that “in sharp contrast to the current claims which recites [sic] storing data models in the storage system, the cited portions of Fazal instead discloses [sic] storing of generated reports.” Reply Br. 19 (emphasis by Appellant). Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error for two reasons. First, the “creating . . . a new report data model” limitation does not require “creat[ing] new custom reports.” See Appeal Br. 41. Appellant Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 13 cannot rely on unclaimed features for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348, 1350 (CCPA 1982). Second, Fazal discloses creating a new report and a new report data model for the new report. See Fazal ¶¶ 352–355, 365–373, 376–377, Fig. 50; see Non-Final Act. 20–21; Ans. 18–19. The Specification describes a “data model” as a set of data fields. See Spec. ¶¶ 32, 41, 45, 65; see Ans. 18. Fazal’s system creates a new set of data fields for a new report, and thus “creat[es] . . . a new report data model for a new report.” Specifically, Fazal’s system assembles report content based on “user role” in an organization, such as account representative, sales manager, or senior vice president. Fazal ¶¶ 352–354, 370–372, Figs. 51–52; see id. ¶¶ 9–10, 73. Fazal describes “measures” as a set of data fields, such as “current sales, current receivables, expenses, margin, net income, and productivities.” Id. ¶ 355; see id. ¶¶ 359, 372. Fazal explains that each “user role” has “one or more relevant measures,” i.e., specific data fields, associated with it. Id. ¶ 355. For instance, “a sales manager is interested in current sales, and account department members may need information of current receivables.” Id. With Fazal’s system, a user may create (1) a new user role for an individual in an organization and (2) a new report for the new user role. Fazal ¶¶ 354, 367–373, 376, Fig. 50. The new user role “has one or more relevant measures,” i.e., specific data fields, associated with it. Id. ¶ 355. For example, “to assign measures to the new role, the user selects the Measures tab in the user role pane” of an interface and then selects appropriate measures for the new user role, such as “Margin, Revenue, Expenses, Current sales, Revenue and Profitability.” Id. ¶ 372. Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 14 Fazal’s system uses the specific data fields associated with a new user role to generate a new report for the new user role. Fazal ¶¶ 370–373, Fig. 53. Thus, when a user creates a new user role and a new report for the new user role, Fazal’s system “creat[es] . . . a new report data model for a new report” according to claims 1, 10, and 19. Further, with Fazal’s system, a user may change measures for a user role, i.e., change the set of data fields associated with a user role. Fazal ¶ 365; see id. ¶ 356. Changing measures for a user role “results in creating new reports for the user role.” Id. ¶ 365. Thus, when a user changes measures for a user role, Fazal’s system “creat[es] . . . a new report data model for a new report” according to claims 1, 10, and 19. As the Examiner properly reasons, reconfiguring a report for a new or different user role just changes the “data fields to those that are appropriate for that role.” Ans. 19. In addition, Fazal’s system stores “[a] metadata description of the user roles, the measures important to the role, [and] members of the role.” Fazal ¶ 365; see id. ¶ 366; Non-Final Act. 21, 24–25. By storing that information, Fazal’s system stores “the new report data model . . . in the database” according to claims 1, 10, and 19. See Non-Final Act. 20–21. Although Fazal discloses configuring predefined reports, as Appellant asserts, Fazal also discloses creating a new report and a new report data model for the new report. See Fazal ¶¶ 352–355, 365–373, 376–377, Fig. 50. Appellant overlooks Fazal’s disclosure about creating a new report and a new report data model for the new report. See Appeal Br. 32–34; Reply Br. 19–20. Appellant contends that Fazal “explicitly teaches away from having users create custom written reports because it is time consuming and Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 15 requires special knowledge of business intelligence tools and underlying data stores.” Appeal Br. 33 (citing Fazal ¶¶ 2, 377). That contention lacks merit. See Ans. 19. The “mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of [the] alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant fails to explain how Fazal “criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]” creating a new report. See Appeal Br. 33. To the contrary, Fazal states that the system allows “easy creation of new reports tailored for user roles that are used in the organization,” thus permitting “easy retrieval and delivery of the right information to the right people at the right time.” Fazal ¶ 376. For the reasons discussed above, Fazal teaches or suggests the “creating . . . a new report data model” limitation. CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19: THE “LOADING” LIMITATION Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19 because Fazal and Meyers fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in each claim: “loading, at the reporting setup path, the new report data model into a layout tool portion of the resource management application.” See Appeal Br. 34–36; Reply Br. 21–23. Appellant notes that the Examiner cites Fazal paragraph 362 as teaching or suggesting the “loading” limitation. Appeal Br. 34; see Non-Final Act. 23. Appellant quotes paragraph 362 as follows: “The layout handler 2026 allows the user to define layout templates.” Appeal Br. 35; see Fazal ¶ 362. Appellant then contends that paragraph 362 “does not disclose loading anything into a Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 16 layout tool portion of an application.” Appeal Br. 35. Appellant also contends that “[n]owhere else in Fazal clarifies or further defines” layout handler 2026. Id.; see Reply Br. 21. We disagree that Fazal fails to clarify layout handler 2026. See Non-Final Act. 23; Ans. 20–21. Fazal discloses data warehouse solution system 10 including (1) user interface 30 that allows users to customize reports and (2) engine 40 that generates “business intelligence content that satisfies [user] information needs.” Fazal ¶¶ 71, 79–82, Figs. 2, 4; see id. ¶¶ 351, 353, 356, 359, 374, 378; Non-Final Act. 15–16, 30. In particular, user interface 30 includes report management system 2000. Fazal ¶ 349; see id. ¶ 68. Report management system 2000 includes report assembler 2006, report refiner 2008, interactive modeling user interface 2010, and interactive consumer user interface 2012. Id. ¶ 350, Fig. 48. Report assembler 2006 “assembles a report for a user role based on the information of the measures assigned to the report” and outputs to report refiner 2008. Fazal ¶ 357. Report refiner 2008 “handles various refinement of reports assembled by” report assembler 2006. Id. ¶ 358. Report refiner 2008 includes layout handler 2026 that “allows the user to define layout templates” for reports. Id. ¶¶ 358, 362, Fig. 49; see id. ¶ 369; Non-Final Act. 29. Further, a user may refine reports by “modifying layout templates.” Fazal ¶ 375. The Specification describes a “layout tool” as an “interface” that “allows the user to create a layout for the report.” Spec. ¶ 46; see Ans. 20 (citing Spec. ¶ 46). Fazal discloses an “interface” that “allows the user to create a layout for the report.” In particular, user interface 30 includes report management system 2000 having report assembler 2006 and report refiner Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 17 2008 with layout handler 2026. See Fazal ¶¶ 349–350, 357–358, Figs. 48–49; see id. ¶¶ 79–80, 82, Figs. 2, 4. When report assembler 2006 “assembles a report for a user role” and outputs to report refiner 2008 with layout handler 2026, Fazal’s system “load[s] . . . the new report data model into a layout tool portion of the resource management application” according to claims 1, 10, and 19. For the reasons discussed above, Fazal teaches or suggests the “loading” limitation. CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19: THE “CREATING THE REPORT” LIMITATION Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19 because Fazal and Meyers fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in each claim: “creating the report, by a rendering engine portion of the resource management application, using both the layout definition and the raw data stored by the resource management application.” See Appeal Br. 36–38; Reply Br. 23–24. Appellant notes that the Examiner cites Fazal paragraphs 284, 362, 363, and 374 as teaching or suggesting the “creating the report” limitation. Appeal Br. 36; see Non-Final Act. 26–27. Appellant then contends that “nowhere in the cited portions” does Fazal disclose the “creating the report” limitation. Appeal Br. 37. We disagree. See Non-Final Act. 26–27; Ans. 22–23. As the Examiner properly reasons, the “creating the report” limitation “covers creating/generating any kind of report” using “any layout definition” and “any raw data retrieved from the databases based on the queries.” Ans. 22. Fazal paragraph 374 explains that a user may define or further refine a report through a user interface and then generate the report for review. Fazal Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 18 ¶ 374; see id. ¶¶ 368–369; Non-Final Act. 27. Paragraph 374 references Figure 55, and Figure 55 depicts a report with, among other things, bar charts, pie charts, and tabular data. Fazal ¶ 374, Fig. 55; see id. ¶ 191. Fazal’s system created the report depicted in Figure 55. See id. ¶¶ 366–374. Fazal explains in more detail that “[w]hen a user requests generation of a report,” engine 40 in “data warehouse solution system 10 checks the role of the user and locates reports created and stored” for that user role. Fazal ¶ 366; see Non-Final Act. 15. Then, engine 40 “executes the selected report, and generates an instance of the report with the information retrieved from the data warehouse 110.” Fazal ¶ 366; see Non-Final Act. 40. Further, Fazal’s system “may produce multiple outputs” for various electronic devices and various media, such as “[c]ustom visualizations” for electronic displays and spreadsheets. Fazal ¶ 378; see Non-Final Act. 17, 25. For the reasons discussed above, Fazal teaches or suggests the “creating the report” limitation. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Fazal does not disclose the “creating the report” limitation because (1) Fazal “must disclose each of the preceding claim elements” for Fazal to “disclose this claimed limitation” and (2) “Fazal does not disclose at least” the “automatically generating” limitation. Reply Br. 23–24. That argument does not, however, respond to any arguments in the Answer. See Ans. 22–23; see also Non-Final Act. 26–27. Appellant advances that argument for the first time in the Reply Brief. Such arguments “will not be considered by the Board” unless an appellant shows good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1475 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (discussing procedural difficulties with belated arguments). Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 19 Here, Appellant has not shown good cause for the belated argument. Hence, we decline to consider it. “Considering an argument advanced for the first time in a reply brief . . . is not only unfair to an appellee, but also entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues tendered.” McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharm., Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). SUMMARY FOR CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19 For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19 for obviousness based on Fazal and Meyers. In our view, the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19. DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, AND 24 Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1; claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 10; and claims 23 and 24 depend from claim 19. Appellant does not argue patentability separately for these dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 32–38; Reply Br. 19–24. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 10, and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, and 25 Claims 2, 3, and 7 depend from claim 1; claims 11, 12, and 16 depend from claim 10; and claims 20, 21, and 25 depend from claim 19. Appellant does not argue patentability separately for these dependent claims. See Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 20 Appeal Br. 32–39; Reply Br. 19–24. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 10, and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We reverse the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We affirm the rejections of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection for each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject all of the claims on appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, 23–25 101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, 23–25 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 103(a) Fazal, Meyers 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23, 24 2, 11, 20 103(a) Fazal, Meyers, Kaplan 2, 11, 20 3, 7, 12, 16, 21, 25 103(a) Fazal, Meyers, Devine 3, 7, 12, 16, 21, 25 Appeal 2018-008557 Application 13/754,871 21 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed Overall Outcome 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, 23–25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation