1C LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2020

14635475 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
14/635,475 03/02/2015 Sergey Georgievich Nuraliev 035385.00001 1061
38485 7590 10/30/2020
ARENT FOX LLP - New York
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5344
EXAMINER
WILLOUGHBY, ALICIA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2020 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):
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGEY GEORGIEVICH NURALIEV and
MAXIM MIKHAYLOVICH LEYBOVICH
___________

Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
Technology Center 2100

____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
2

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–12 and 15–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 10. Claims 1, 15 and 20 are
independent. Claims 13 and 14 are canceled. See Appeal Brief 19 (Claims
Appendix). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter “relates generally
to the field of electronic report generation, and more specifically to systems
and methods for automated report generation.” See Specification ¶ 2.

Representative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
generating a report comprising:
creating a data structuring schema by a hardware
processor, and storing the data structuring schema in a
repository;
creating default data structuring settings via the hardware
processor and storing the default data structuring settings in a
repository, wherein the default data structuring settings are
editable by an end user;

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed September 19, 2019), the
Final Action (mailed February 26, 2019) and the Answer (mailed December
16, 2019), for the respective details. An oral hearing was held on October
14, 2020 and a transcript will be filed in due course.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies 1C LLC, as the real party in interest. Appeal
Brief. 4.
Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
3

receiving user settings via a user interface, wherein the
user settings comprise settings related to data fields, selection
of the data fields and filtering of the data fields;
generating a report template by the hardware processor,
wherein the report template is generated based on the data
structuring schema, the default data structuring settings and the
user settings;
generating, by the hardware processor, a customizable
report based on the report template; and
modifying, by the hardware processor, the customizable
report when it is determined that input data is received from the
user interface modifying the default data structuring settings
and from input settings, the input settings comprising one or
more of a query text, data sets, data links, available report fields
and data retrieval parameters, the query text comprising data set
query templates having specific fragments marking modifiable
query parts, wherein the modification of the customizable
report is performed by:
generating a new report template based on the
modified default data structure and input settings when
the modification is made; and
generating a new customizable report based on the
new report template when the modification is made.

References
Name3 Reference Date
Jiang US 2006/0048096 A1 March 2, 2006
Klein US 9,384,464 B2 July 5, 2016

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–12 and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Jiang and Klein. Final Action 2–7.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.

Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
4

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the combination of Klein and Jiang fails to
disclose the following claim limitations as recited in claim 1 and similarity
recited in independent claims 15 and 20:
receiving user settings via a user interface, wherein the
user settings comprise settings related to data fields, selection of
the data fields and filtering of the data fields; generating a report
template by the hardware processor, wherein the report template
is generated based on the data structuring schema, the default
data structuring settings and the user settings.
Appeal Brief 10 (emphasis omitted).
Klein describes three different types of users, including a “Type
A” (technical user), “Type B” (more technical business user), and
“Type C” (business user). Klein 2:48–3:5, 3:37–54. Appellant argues
that “Klein describes a manual creation of a template by a Type B
user, and the accessing and execution of the template by a Type C
user to view the report, and thus Klein appears to be dividing up
various tasks of a manual process to different users.” Appeal Brief
11. Appellant concludes: “However, no portion of Klein describes
‘generating a report template by a hardware processor’ as recited in
Applicant’s claims 1, 15 and 20.” Appeal Brief 11 (emphasis added).
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because we
agree with the Examiner’s determinations and findings that Klein’s
three-layered system for creating report templates and report
discloses:
In the first layer, a type A user creates a framework for report
development (col. 2 lines 58-60). In a second layer, a type B user
develops report templates by accessing data framework
structures created by the type A user (col. 2 lines 61-64; col. 4
lines 33-36). In the third layer, a type C user may customize the
Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
5

report templates by making changes/edits to the report templates
created by the type B user (col. 2 lines 65-67; col. 4 lines 36-38).
Klein states that each user interacts with the reporting system
through a graphical user interface accessible via the Internet at a
user terminal (col. 3 lines 4-8 and lines 55-59). Therefore, it is
clear that the users of Klein work together to generate a report
template, and that the generation of the report template is done
by the users using a computer (i.e. a hardware processor). As
such, the finalized report template as customized by the type C
user is the generated report template.
Answer 4 (emphasis added).
Appellant argues that Klein fails to teach “query templates having
specific fragments marking modifiable query parts” as recited in claim 1
because “Klein merely describes query for accessing views and stored
procedures. Klein is entirely silent in regards to query templates having
specific fragments marking modifiable query parts.” Appeal Brief 13. We
do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner’s error because we
agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that the
limitation is recited as being optional as it is part of a “one or
more” clause. The claim recites “the input settings comprising
one or more of a query text, data sets, data links, available report
fields and data retrieval parameters, the query text comprising
data set query templates having specific fragments marking
modified query parts.” Therefore, the claim does not actually
require receiving query text comprising data set query templates
having specific fragments marking modified query parts.
Answer 9 (emphasis added).
Appellant further contends:
[T]he Examiner conceded that Klein fails to disclose generating
the new report template. However, the Examiner alleges that
Jiang closes the significant gap left by Klein. In regards to the
Examiner’s statement as to the user generating a report or
customizing a template, again, the user manually creating the
Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
6

initial template is not the same as or equivalent to a hardware
processor generating the initial template.
Appeal Brief 13.
The Examiner determines that:
Although it is obvious that the type A, B and C users in
Klein use a computer, and thus a hardware processor, to generate
reports and report templates, the examiner provides a secondary
reference to explicit recite generating a report template by the
hardware processor.

Jiang teaches creating computer reports (see abstract), in
which he teaches generating a report template by a hardware
processor (i.e. template processor), wherein the report template
is generated based on data structuring schema, date structuring
settings and user settings (i.e. initial template document)
(paragraphs 29 and 32-36).
Final Action 4.
We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive of Examiner error
because we agree with the Examiner’s determination that:
Similar to Appellant’s invention, Jiang teaches that a user
inputs some type of settings that are used by the template
processor to generate the report template (paragraphs 29 and 32-
36). Jiang refers to the input settings as an initial template
document, while Appellant calls the input settings user settings
and data structuring settings. Furthermore, the user creating the
initial template document also uses a computer, and thus is using
a hardware processor.
Answer 10. “In an embodiment, the method of flowchart 300 is performed
by a template processor, such as template processor 210 discussed above.”
Jiang ¶ 32.
Appellant contends, that “Jiang teaches away from the claims of the
present disclosure” because the “claims recite ‘generating a report template
by the hardware processor...’ and ‘... generating a new report template based
Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
7

on the modified default data structure and input settings...’” whereas “Jiang
teaches users creating the initial template” and “Jiang’s automation is for
creating the report after the initial template is already created by the user.”
Appeal Brief 13 (underlining omitted). We do not find Appellant’s
arguments persuasive of Examiner error. Jiang does not teach away from
combining with Klein invention because “[a] reference may be said to teach
away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be
discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led
in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.” In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (noting that merely disclosing more than one
alternative does not teach away from any of these alternatives if the
disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the
alternatives). Appellant has not indicated in Jiang where an artisan would be
discouraged from following the path in Klein since both Klein and Jiang
utilize hardware processors to generate the template. See Klein column 3,
lines 4, 5; column 4, lines 6–20; see also Jiang ¶ 32.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claims 1, 15 and 20, as well as dependent claims 2–12 and 16–
19 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 14.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 15–20 103 Klein, Jiang 1–12, 15–
20

Appeal 2020-002626
Application 14/635,475
8

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)(v).

AFFIRMED