Tableau Software Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 21, 2020

2019005068 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2020)

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.
14/603,322 01/22/2015 Robin Stewart 061127-5043-US 2123
159777 7590 12/21/2020
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Tableau)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
FABER, DAVID
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2020 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte ROBIN STEWART1
________________

Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOHN A. EVANS, and
BRIAN D. RANGE, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s non-
final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 22, 23, 25, and
26, which constitute all of the pending claims. Appeal Br. 5.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a
limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the
issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant identifies Tableau Software, Inc. as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief, 3, filed December 3, 2018 (Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A method includes displaying at least a first portion of a
chart at a first magnification, the first portion containing a
plurality of data marks. The method also includes detecting a
first input at a location that corresponds to the first portion of the
chart and, in response, zooming in to display a second portion of
the chart at a second magnification, the second portion including
a first data mark in the plurality of data marks. The method
further includes detecting a second touch input at a location that
corresponds to the second portion of the chart, and, in response:
if one or more predefined data-mark information-display criteria
are not met, zooming in to display a third portion of the chart at
a third magnification, the third portion including the first data
mark; and, if the one or more predefined data-mark-information-
display criteria are met, displaying information about the first
data mark.
Spec., Abstr.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter
of the appealed claims:
1. A method, comprising:
at an electronic device with a touch-sensitive surface and
a display:
displaying at least a first portion of a chart on the display
at a first magnification, the first portion of the chart containing a
first plurality of data marks, wherein a first data mark in the first
plurality of data marks corresponds to a plurality of data points
from a database;
detecting a first touch input at a location on the touch-
sensitive surface that corresponds to a location on the display of
the first portion of the chart;
in response to detecting the first touch input at the location
on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to the location on
the display of the first portion of the chart, zooming in to display
a second portion of the chart at a second magnification, including
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

3
replacing the first data mark with a second plurality of data
marks, each corresponding to a respective data point in the
plurality of data points, wherein the second plurality of data
marks includes a second data mark;
while displaying the second portion of the chart at the
second magnification, detecting a second touch input at a
location on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to a
location on the display of the second portion of the chart;
in response to detecting the second touch input at the
location on the touch-sensitive surface that corresponds to the
location on the display of the second portion of the chart,
zooming in to display a third portion of the chart at a third
magnification, the third portion of the chart including the second
data mark in the second plurality of data marks;
while displaying the third portion of the chart at the third
magnification, detecting a continuation of the second touch
input; and,
in response to detecting the continuation of the second
touch input, and in accordance with a determination that the
second data mark corresponds to a single data point, replacing
the second data mark with a visual record that includes
information about the single data point.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Matina US 2007/0285426 A1 Dec. 13, 2007
Fisher US 2012/0313957 A1 Dec. 13, 2012
Blyumen US 2014/0149947 A1 May 29, 2014
Heinrich US 2014/0157142 A1 June 5, 2014
Kerzner US 8,832,588 B1 Sept. 9, 2014
Vogel US 2014/0281868 A1 Sept. 18, 2014

Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

4
STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23, and 26 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Blyumen, Vogel, Matina,
Kerzner, and Heinrich. Non-Final Act. 3–8.2
Claims 19–22, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Blyumen, Vogel, Matina, Kerzner, Heinrich, and Fisher.
Final Act. 9.

DETERMINATIONS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Blyumen discloses all of the limitations of
claim 1 with the exception of the claim’s final two limitations:
while displaying the third portion of the chart at the third
magnification, detecting a continuation of the second touch
input; and,
in response to detecting the continuation of the second
touch input, and in accordance with a determination that the
second data mark corresponds to a single data point, replacing
the second data mark with a visual record that includes
information about the single data point.
Non-Final Act. 3–4 (citing Blyumen ¶¶ 8, 19, 20, 21, 42 73, 77–81, 84, 85;
Figs. 2D, 3B, 3C).
With respect to these two limitations, the Examiner finds, “Heinrich
teaches an intuitive zooming action that performs the optical zooming and

2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Non-Final Action
mailed June 1, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
April 8, 2019 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed June 10, 2019 (“Reply
Br.”).
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

5
drill-down at the same time using the same gesture. Non-Final Act. 4 (citing
Heinrich ¶¶ 228, 231, 365). The Examiner determines that based on
Heinrich’s teachings, it would have been obvious “to improve the charting
zooming of Blyumen, by performing the magnification and drill-down at the
same time using the same gesture.” Id. at 4–5. The Examiner explains that
such a modification to Blyumen would teach the language of claim 1, “while
displaying the third portion of the chart at the third magnification, detecting
a continuation of the second touch input.” Id.
The Examiner finds that Matina teaches setting thresholds on a zoom-
in factor and a zoom-out factor to display different levels of details on a
chart. Final Act. 5. The Examiner further finds, “one suitable minimum
number of data points per scale would be 2, which means . . . because there
is no need to further drill down if there is only one data point per scale.” Id.
(citing Matina ¶¶ 7, 18, 23, 29, 30). The Examiner determines that it would
have been obvious to improve the charting zooming of Blyumen, by
including the threshold on zoom-in and zoom-out, as taught by Matina. Id.
The Examiner explains that such a modification satisfies the preconditions
set forth in the language of claim 1, “while displaying the third portion of the
chart at the third magnification, detecting a continuation of the second touch
input; and, in response to detecting the continuation of the second touch
input, and in accordance with a determination that the second mark
corresponds to a single data point.”
The Examiner further finds, “Blyumen, as modified by Matina, does
not expressly teach ‘replacing the second data mark with a visual record that
includes information about the single data point,” as claimed. Non-Final
Act. 5. The Examiner finds, Vogel teaches a ‘semantic zoom’ with a pinch
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

6
gesture to zoom in/out and to change the current view at different zoom
threshold.” Id. The Examiner further finds, “two of the possible views are
thumbnail view and underlying data view.” Id. (citing Vogel ¶¶ 4, 16–18).
And the Examiner further finds that Vogel also teaches “performing a stretch
gesture on a chart to enter the data view for a particular segment of the chart.
Id. (citing Vogel, ¶¶ 18, 24–27; Fig. 3, elements 330, 340). The Examiner
determines that this disclosure corresponds to “replacing the second data
mark with a visual record that includes information about the single data
point,” as claimed. Id.
The Examiner further reasons,
because there is no need to further drill down if there is only one
data point per scale on the chart, as being motivated to ease the
navigation of a spreadsheet on small display, it would have been
obvious . . . to further improve the chart zooming of Blyumen, by
including the data view, as taught by Vogel, to display the
underlying data about the single data point on the scale.
Non-Final Act. 5–6 (citing Vogel ¶ 1).
The Examiner further finds, “Kerzner teaches displaying a context-
inclusive magnifying area as overlay/popup to display contextual
information for the selected content element.” Non-Final Act. 6 (citing
Kerzner col. 13, l. 47–col. 15, l. 10; Figs. 6, 7). The Examiner determines
that it would have been obvious to further improve the chart zooming of
Blyumen by including the context-inclusive magnifying area, as taught by
Kerzner, because Kerzner teaches helping the user to quickly identify
interested content. Id. (citing Kerzner col. 3, ll. 38–60).
Appellant asserts that the claims require the following elements:
(1) a determination that a second data mark, displayed in
a third portion of the chart at a third magnification, corresponds
to a single data point of a plurality of data points from a database;
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

7
(2) replacing the second data mark with a visual record
that includes information about the single data point; and
(3) that element (2) be performed both in response to
detecting a continuation of the second touch input [that resulted
in zooming in to display a third portion of the chart at a third
magnification] and in accordance with the determination in (1).
Appeal Br. 13.
Appellant contends that for various reasons, the cited references
neither teach nor suggest this claimed combination of elements. Appeal
Br. 13. For example, Appellant argues,
the claims require that the replacing of the second data mark with
the visual record . . . be performed both “in response to detecting
the continuation of the second touch input [that resulted in
zooming in to display a third portion of the chart at a third
magnification]” and in accordance with the determination [that
the second data mark corresponds to a single data point].
The Examiner appears to rely on Matina for “detecting a
continuation of the second touch input, and, in response to
detecting the continuation of the second touch input.” . . . In
addition, . . . the Examiner relies on Matina for the claim feature
“in accordance with a determination that the second data mark
corresponds to a single data point.”
Separately, . . . the Examiner relies on Vogel and Kerzner
for the claim features “replacing the second data mark with a
visual record . . . ”, ignoring the claim requirement that the
“replacing” be performed “in response to detecting the
continuation of the second touch input[,]” as well as “in
accordance with a determination that the second data mark
corresponds to a single data point.” By relying on one reference
for the conditions precedent, and two other references for the
outcome, the Examiner has improperly dissected the claim. See
MPEP 2103 I.C (“Finally, when evaluating the scope of a claim,
every limitation in the claim must be considered. Examiners may
not dissect a claimed invention into discrete elements and then
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

8
evaluate the elements in isolation. Instead, the claim as a whole
must be considered.” (emphasis added)).
Appeal Br. 18 (citing Non-Final Act. 5).
Appellant further argues,
neither the “underlying data” in Vogel nor the “contextual
elements” in Kerzner would be displayed in response to a
continuation of the same touch input that caused “zooming in to
display . . . the chart at a third magnification.” Vogel’s
“underlying data” is shown in response to a particular gesture,
and Kerzner’s “context-inclusive magnification area” is invoked
when “a user touches the touch screen at a location . . . to indicate
a preference for magnification at that location,” but neither of
these inputs is a continuation of an input that also caused a
change in magnification of the chart.
Appeal Br. 18.
The Examiner responds,
In section VII.A.3. [of the Appeal Brief], Appellant focused on
feature “in response to detecting the continuation of the second
touch input”. Appellant argued that Matina and Vogel are
separate and therefore cannot be combined into a single
continuous gesture. The Examiner respectfully disagrees
because both Blyumen and Vogel make use of the same de-pinch
gesture, therefore the same de-pinch gestures from different
teachings can be obviously combined.
Ans. 12 (citing Appeal Br. 18).

ANALYSIS
Appellants arguments are persuasive of error because the Examiner
has not sufficiently established that the prior art’s combined disclosures
reasonably teach or suggest displaying a visual record that replaces the
claimed second data mark in response to a continuation of the same touch
input that first caused “zooming in to display . . . the chart at a third
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

9
magnification,” as recited by independent claim 1. To be sure, Blyumen
teaches that a pinch-apart or a pinch-open gesture may be used to both zoom
in and drill down into a visual display to filter data and change the level at
which data is summarized. Blyumen ¶¶ 8, 42. Also, Vogel teaches that
performing such a pinch-open gesture on a display element also may be used
to cause the display element to be replaced with a visual record that includes
information about the single data element. Vogel ¶¶ 18, 24–27 (referring to
the pinch-apart gesture as a stretch action or stretch gesture); FIG. 3.
However, the Examiner has not established that these disclosures
further teach or suggest using a stretch gesture to first perform Blyumen’s
zoom-in function and then using the continuation of the same stretch gesture
to perform Vogel’s display-preplacement function. The combined
disclosures may teach, at best, using two distinct stretch gestures
successively to perform respectively these two different functions.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1 and also of claims 2, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 17, 20, 23, and
26, which either depend from or otherwise include claim 1’s disputed
language of performing the replacement action in response to detecting a
continuation of the second touch input.
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 19–22
and 25, the Examiner does not rely on the additional teachings of Fisher to
the deficiency of the obviousness rejection explained above. Non-Final
Act. 9 (wherein the Examiner relies on Fisher for teaching animating
transitions between a chart’s states). Accordingly, we reverse the
Appeal 2019-005068
Application 14/603,322

10
obviousness rejection of these claims for the reasons set forth in relation to
claim 1.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 9,
10, 12, 13, 17,
20, 23, 26
103 Blyumen, Vogel,
Matina, Kerzner,
Heinrich
1, 2, 4, 5, 9,
10, 12, 13, 17,
20, 23, 26
19–22, 25 103 Blyumen, Vogel,
Matina, Kerzner,
Heinrich, Fisher
19–22, 25
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4, 5, 9,
10, 12, 13, 17,
19–23, 25, 26