Bhargav Senjalia

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 29, 2020

13168525 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 29, 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.
13/168,525 06/24/2011 Bhargav Senjalia 4952-004 1209
27820 7590 01/29/2020
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, P.L.L.C.
106 Pinedale Springs Way
Cary, NC 27511
EXAMINER
KIM, SANG H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2141
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/29/2020 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BHARGAV SENJALIA
____________________

Appeal 2018-0077651
Application 13/168,525
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20
and 21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for presenting data, comprising:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Bhargav Senjalia. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007765
Application 13/168,525

2
presenting, by a computing device, in a user interface, user-selectable
entity labels identifying a plurality of different entity types modeled in a
database, each entity type modeled in the database by a corresponding entity
structure;
receiving, by the computing device, input identifying at least two
selected entity types of the plurality of different entity types;
accessing, by the computing device, a plurality of entity instance
relationship sets, each entity instance relationship set identifying a
relationship between entity instances of at least three different entity types of
the plurality of different entity types, the at least three different entity
types including the at least two selected entity types, the plurality of entity
instance relationship sets identifying a same relationship between same
entity instances of the at least two selected entity types multiple times, the
entity instances of each entity type being maintained in the corresponding
entity structure;
selecting, from the plurality of entity instance relationship sets, only
those entity instance relationship sets that identify a relationship between
entity instances of the one or more selected entity types to form a subset of
entity instance relationship sets, wherein only a single entity instance
relationship set is selected for each different identified relationship between
entity instances of the at least two selected entity types; and
for each entity instance relationship set in the subset, presenting, in
the user interface, attribute data from each of the entity instances identified
as having a relationship in the each entity instance relationship set.

REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Crim US 2010/0161644 A1 June 24, 2010
Gill US 2010/0299348 A1 Nov. 25, 2010

2 All citations herein to patent and pre-grant publication references are by
reference to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2018-007765
Application 13/168,525

3
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20
and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of
Gill and Crim. Final Act. 5–20.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief arguments.
Appellant raises the following arguments in contending that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant’s recited embodiments utilize sets of
information, referred to in Appellant’s specification and claims
as “entity instance relationship sets,” that are neither taught nor
suggested by either Gill or Crim. Because many of the steps
recited in claim 1 utilize the recited entity instance relationship
sets, those steps are likewise not taught or suggested by either
Gill or Crim. Appellant’s claims do not merely recite the
existence of entity instance relationship sets; the claims also
explicitly recite what they are.
Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant notes that Figure 4C of Gill is a search result. In other
words, it is an example of what might be displayed in response to the
input of a certain search query. Gill discloses that Figure 4C “depicts
a portion of an interface displaying the data items of interest found
based on search conditions specified for attributes of primary and/or
secondary entities in one embodiment" (Gill, para. 0013) (emphasis
added). Thus, Gill does not disclose the existence of "entity instance
relationship sets" upon which processing may be performed. Gill
discloses the results of a search result.
. . . .

Appeal 2018-007765
Application 13/168,525

4
. . . The search results of Figure 4C show two data items, “Last
Name” and “First Name” that come from a single “contacts” entity
(Gill, Fig. 4B). The search results of Figure 4C also display a data
item from a second entity “Accounts.” Gill explicitly discloses
“Display area 490 depicts the details of interest such as the values of
the attributes ‘Last Name’, and ‘First Name’ of the primary entity
‘Contacts’ and the attribute ‘Account Name’ of the secondary entity
‘Accounts’” (Gill, para. 0080)(emphasis added). Thus, Figure 4C, in
contrast to the Patent Office’s assertion, does NOT disclose a
“relationship between entity instances of at least three different entity
types,” because it merely discloses the relationship between two entity
types. Two is not the same as three, and Appellant has specifically
recited “three.”

Appeal Br. 16–17.
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument and expands his
reasoning as follows:
First, Gill teaches a search graphical user interface for a
customer relationship management (CRM) system supported by data
modeled in a relationship database [Abstract]. To further describe
the teachings, Gill provides an example of a relationship among three
different tables in Fig. 6 - “Contact”, “Account” and “Service
Request” (illustrated is “SR”), with each of tables 510, 520 and 530 in
database 500 representing a corresponding entity type [Para 0087]
and the rows of the table representing the instances of the entity type
[Para 0086]. The instance relationships are established by linking
together based on an appropriate combination of primary and foreign
keys within the tables [Para 0092]. This proves that Gill passes the
first test of having a relationship among at least three different entity
types. Secondly, by using the keys that in the three tables, one with
ordinary skill in art can rewrite entity instances of Fig. 6 in an
extended format shown below. . . .Accordingly, Examiner asserts that
Gill sufficiently teaches the claimed “entity instance relationship
sets”.
…

Appeal 2018-007765
Application 13/168,525

5
First, Appellant argues that Gill's entity instance relationship set
is only from a search result and not processing/selecting is performed.
However, the claim does not specify how the selection is made, and
certainly does not exclude a query system to perform the functions
stated in the claims. Besides the fact that Gill teaches a search query
tool to select a subset of relationship instances, Gill describes a
database backend such as a schema and metadata of a relational
database in which the structure of relationships are stored [Fig. 5,
Para 0095 and 0096], reciting “Metadata 550 contains data
specifying the details/attributes of entity types (such as “Contacts”,
“Accounts”, “Service Requests”, etc.) defined in the CRM system, the
relationship between the entity types ... a CRM application (or query
tool 150) retrieves the desired entity types and their attributes (values)
from data 500 (based on metadata 550) and generates memory objects
corresponding to the entity types and entity instances in memory
560”. As such, Examiner interprets that metadata and schema of the
Gill’s system store the data for “entity instance relationship sets”.. . .
Examiner introduced the Crim reference to strengthen the
rejection, since Crim's teaching is more explicit. Crim describes an
architecture of a database where such relationship tables are stored,
reciting, “the database architecture 700 provides a data abstraction
between one or more source tables 706a-706n and user actions
relating to the source tables 706” [Para 0072] and “an example
background table 800 that can be used to store relationship
information. In some implementations, the background tables 708 can
be created by joining one or more source tables 706 to specify data
relationships” [Para 0076]. As illustrated in Fig. 8 of Crim,
Examiner notes that each instance of the background table illustrated
as Table 800 in Fig. 8 is unique with no duplicate instance.

Ans. 4–7.
We agree with the Examiner that Gill and Crim teach the claimed
entity instance relationship sets under the broadest reasonable interpretation
of the claim language consistent with the Specification.
Appeal 2018-007765
Application 13/168,525

6
Regarding claims 4, 8, 10, 13, 15, and 21, although Appellant raises
additional arguments for patentability (App. Br. 19–24), we find that the
Examiner has established the references teach or suggest the claim
limitations by a preponderance of the evidence and sufficiently rebutted in
the Answer each of the arguments. Ans. 8–10. Therefore, we adopt the
Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated
herein by reference.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10, 12, 13,
15, 17, 18, 20 and 21 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6–8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 17, 18,
20, 21
103 Gill, Crim 1, 2, 4, 6–8, 10,
12, 13, 15, 17,
18, 20, 21

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED