Ex Parte Couper

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2018

11757254 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2018)

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.
11/757,254 06/01/2007 CHRISTOPHER C. COUPER CHA920070008US1_8134-0121 2364
73109 7590 03/15/2018
Cuenot, Forsythe & Kim, LLC
20283 State Road 7
Ste. 300
Boca Raton, EL 33498
EXAMINER
CHOY, PAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2018 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):
ibmptomail@iplawpro.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER C. COUPER
Appeal 2016-0037331
Application 11/757,2542
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—15, 18, and 20—23. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Br.,” filed June 10,
2015), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 13, 2015), and Final
Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Dec. 18, 2014).
2 Appellant identifies “International Business Machines Corporation” as the
real party in interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s present invention “relates to a software tool for
organization structures, and more particularly, to storing and depicting
organizations that are subject to dynamic event driven restructuring.” Spec.
11. Claims 1, 12, and 20 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A software tool stored in a machine readable
medium for managing and depicting organization structures
comprising:
a set of indexed tables specifying positions in an
organization structure, personnel assigned to the positions, and
reporting authority relationships among the positions, wherein
information for the positions, the assigned personnel, and the
reporting authority relationships is stored in different ones of the
indexed tables;
a charting tool configured to automatically generate at
least one organization chart based upon information stored in the
indexed tables, wherein said charting tool is also configured to
create different views of the organization structure specified
within the set of indexed tables, wherein selective ones of the
different views hide at least one position included in the
organization structure; and
a structure charting engine configured to dynamically
change the at least one organization chart in response to changes
in the set of indexed tables.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—15, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Make Visio 2002 Organization Charts from Personnel Files, Microsoft
Office (Feb. 3, 2002),
2
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
http://office.microsoft.com/assistance/2002/articles/spotlight5_July OO.aspx
[http://web.archive.Org/web/20020203003415/http://office.microsoft.com/as
sistance/2002/articles/spotlight5_July00.aspx] (hereinafter “Visio”) and
Flammer (US 2008/0091441 Al, pub. Apr. 17, 2008).
Claim 2—5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Viso, Flammer, and Raghuram G. Rajan & Julie Wulf, The Flattening Firm:
Evidence from Panel Data on the Changing Nature of Corporate
Hierarchies, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania (2003)
(hereinafter “Rajan”).
Claim 6 is rejected 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Visio, Flammer, and
Durrant (US 6,691,120 Bl, iss. Feb. 10, 2004).3
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Visio, Flammer, Durrant, and Lindley (US 2007/0143336 Al, pub. June 21,
2007).
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Visio, Flammer, and Cromp (US 2006/0211404 Al, pub. Sept. 21,
2006).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Visio, Flammer, and Jarrell (US 2004/0102924 Al, pub.
May 27, 2004).
Claims 12—14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Visio and Lindley.
3 We treat the identification of claim 7 in the heading of the rejection at
page 20 of the Final Office Action as inadvertent error. Claim 7 is not
addressed in the rejection; instead, the claim is separately rejected at pages
21-22.
3
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Visio, Lindley, Durrant, Jarrell, and Cromp.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Visio, Lindley, and Jarrell.4
Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Visio, Flammer, Cromp, and Rajan.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Visio, Flammer, Cromp, Rajan, and Lindley.
ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated a two-step framework, set forth
previously in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75—77 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of these concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first step in that analysis is to
“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
ineligible concepts.” Id. If they are, the second step is to analyze whether
the claim elements, either individually or as an ordered combination, contain
an “‘inventive concept’” that “‘transform[s] the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—73, 78).
At step one, we must “articulate what the claims are directed to with
enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful.” Thales
4 We treat the inclusion of “Cook” in the heading as inadvertent error, at
least in view of the claim’s dependence from claim 12.
4
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We
must be mindful that “all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest
upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Mayo,
566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look to “whether the focus of the claims is on
the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead,
on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are
invoked merely as a tool.” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determines that the claims are directed to “charting an organization,” which
is a long-standing business process. Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 38. With
reference to independent claim 12, the Examiner determines that the
business process for charting is performed by identifying, receiving,
querying, converting, and presenting the graphical organization chart. Final
Act. 9; see also Ans. 38—39 (describing steps of “identifying a set of
database tables (accessing data), receiving user request.. .(receiving data),
querying database tables...(retrieving data), converting organization object
into a graphical organization object (data processing), and presenting the
graphical organization chart.. .(data displaying, data transmitting)”). The
Examiner determines that the limitations, taken individually and in
combination, “fail to yield an improvement to the computer itself, to another
technology or technical field, nor involve limitations that are reasonably]
understood as anything more than linking the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment.” Ans. 39; see also Final Act. 9. The Examiner
determines that independent claims 1 and 20 and their dependent claims do
not add anything of substance to the underlying abstract idea and, thus, are
5
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
rejected for substantially the same reason as claim 1 and its dependents.
Final Act. 10.
We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to charting an
organization, which is a long-standing business practice and an abstract
concept. For example, independent claim 1 recites a software tool for
“managing and depicting organization structures.” The tool includes a set of
indexed tables, a charting tool configured to generate at least one
organization chart based upon information stored in the indexed tables and
to create different views of the organization structure, and a structure
charting engine configured to dynamically change the at least one
organization chart in response to changes in the set of indexed tables.
Independent claim 12 recites a method for “charting an organization”
comprising the steps of identifying a set of database tables for an
organization structure, receiving a user request for an organization chart,
querying the set of database tables to generate an organization object,
converting the organization object into a graphical organization chart, and
presenting the graphical organization chart to a requestor. Independent
claim 20 recites an organizational management computing system
comprising software configured to centrally manage incidents involving at
least one organization having an organization structure that dynamically
varies as situation factors of a managed incident changes, and a charting tool
configured to dynamically generate organization charts depicting the
organization structure based upon a set of indexed relational database tables.
Thus, each of the independent claims focuses on charting an organization
structure. Our understanding of the claims comports with the Specification’s
description of the subject matter. See, e.g., Spec. ]Hf 1 (describing invention
6
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
as relating to a software tool for storing and depicting organization
structures), 5 (describing that prior art charting tools require organization
leaders to manually modify organization charts, such as adding and deleting
positions and position manning and re-arranging organization charts).
Turning to step two of the analysis, Appellant argues that the claims
include meaningful limitations that go beyond the use of generic technology
to implement the abstract idea. Br. 40. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant
explains that computer drawing tools, such as Visio, suffice for relatively
static organization charts, but are cumbersome for tasks involving dynamic
or complex organization charts. Br. 11 (citing Spec, 2—3). Complex
organizations lack an ability to generate a current organization structure, and
instead rely on manually created templates. Id. (citing Spec. ^fl[ 4—5).
“Despite personnel systems and organizational charting being relatively
mature fields, prior to [Appellant’s] disclosure, the long felt problems with
dynamic [organization] chart modification/changes” remained unresolved.
Id. Appellant’s invention permits a user to specify constraints that greatly
affect a resulting organization chart and dynamically produce a modified
chart in response. Id. (citing Fig. 4).
Claim 1, for example, uses a set of indexed tables that specify
positions in an organization the claims employ a set of indexed tables
specifying positions in an organization structure, personnel assigned to the
positions, and reporting authority relationships among the positions. A
charting tool is configured to automatically generate an organization chart
based on information stored in the index tables, a structure charting engine is
configured to dynamically change the at least one organization chart in
response to changes in the set of indexed tables.
7
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
The Specification describes that the set’s organizational positions are
independent of the set’s current reporting structure and assigned personnel
tables. Spec. 19. The set of tables can be used to generate and restructure
organization charts depicting the organization structure. Id. 9, 11—12. In
addition, the set of indexed tables also can be used to generate different
views for organization chart, support multiple nodes at a top level reporting
structure, manage certain staff independent of other position, and hide
confidential information for protection. Id. ]Hf 9—10.
In other words, Appellant explains in the Specification and Appeal
Brief, that the arrangement of the recited elements provides particular
technical advantages. See Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“an inventive concept can be found in
the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces”). Accordingly, on the record before us, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 15, and
the remaining claims.
Obviousness
Independent Claim 1
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Visio does
not disclose or suggest “a structure charting engine configured to
dynamically change the at least one organization chart in response to
changes in the set of indexed tables,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner
relies on Visio at page 6, paragraph 3 as disclosing the argued limitation.
Final Act. 12.
8
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
Here, claim 1 recites a software tool comprising: (1) a set of indexed
tables specifying: (i) positions in an organization structure; (ii) personnel
assigned to the positions; and (iii) reporting authority relationships among
the position, wherein information for (i), (ii), and (iii) is stored in different
ones of the indexed tables; (2) a charting tool configured to automatically
generate at least one organization chart; and (3) a structure charting engine
configured to dynamically change the at least one organization chart in
response to changes in the at least one organization chart in response to
changes in the set of indexed tables. The plain language of the claim, thus,
requires the structure charting engine to be configured to dynamically
change an existing organization chart in response to changes to information
in the set of indexed tables specifying (i), (ii), and (iii). In other words, as
noted by Appellant (see App. Br. 28), information specified in the set of
indexed tables must be linked with the organization chart such that changes
to information in the set of tables result in dynamic changes to the
organization chart.
Visio describes an Organization Chart Wizard that generates an
organization chart using personnel data stored in an electronic data file or
accurate employee data in a Microsoft Exchange Server Directory. Visio 1.
To run Visio’s Organization Chart Wizard, a user selects a new
“Organization Chart” file from the “File” menu, and selects the
“Organization Chart Wizard” option. Id. at 2. Then, the user selects
“Information That[’]s Already Stored in a File or Database,” clicks “Next,”
and follows the instructions on the wizard pages. Id. The Organization
Chart Wizard reads data in a variety of file formats, including a file format
for databases created in an Open Database Connectivity (ODBC)-compliant
9
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
database application. Id. at 1. Alternatively, SAP/R3 files are customized
from SAP/R3 files and generated in flat data files to be imported into
Microsoft excel or another ODBC-compliant database application. Id. at 3.
To successfully generate an organization chart from a personnel file,
the Organization Chart Wizard must recognize the following information in
the file for each employee: (1) a unique employee identification, (2) name,
and (3) a unique manager identifier, indicating to whom the employee
reports. Id. If no employees have the same name, the name field can serve
as the unique identifier. Id. at 2. If the file includes additional fields, the
Organization Chart Wizard allows users to display additional pieces of data
along with the employee name on position shapes in the organization chart,
to store the data in fields associated with the shapes for access by others, or
ignore the data for purposes of the organization chart. Id.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Visio teaches storing “information for the positions, the assigned personnel,
and the reporting authority relationships ... in different ones of the indexed
table [sic].” Final Act. 11 (citing Visio 1, 3). The Examiner finds that
Visio’s Organization Chart Wizard constitutes the claimed charting tool, and
Visio’s organization chart solution argument “/LINK-TO-DB” teaches the
claimed structure charting engine configured to dynamically change the at
least one organization chart in response to changes in the set of indexed
tables. Id. at 12 (describing /LINK-TO-DB as allowing changes to the data
source to be passed to the drawing automatically). We disagree.
The Examiner does not address how Visio teaches the claimed set of
indexed tables, wherein information for positions in the organization
structure, personnel assigned to the positions, and reporting authority
10
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
relationships among the positions are stored in different ones of the indexed
tables, as recited in claim 1. In the Answer, the Examiner finds that Visio’s
Organization Chart Wizard reads data in a variety of formats, and that one
of ordinary skill would appreciate that files can have any number of
database tables. Ans. 6. Yet, in identifying the set of indexed tables taught
by Visio, the Examiner points only to a single table that combines data
relating to employee identification, employee name, and who the employee
reports to, not a set of tables. The Examiner does not address how Visio’s
disclosure of a single table combining employee identification, position data
(see, e.g., Visio 1 (identifying cells in an employee name field as positions),
and reporting data teaches or suggests the claimed set of separate tables.
Additionally, even if the Examiner had accounted for the set of tables,
Appellant argues that Visio allows only a single table to be entered into the
Organization Chart Wizard. See Br. 14—15. Appellant acknowledges that a
plurality of tables can be reduced into a single table for input into Visio’s
Organization Chart Wizard, but argues that this input data file is a single flat
data file and subsequent changes to the set of index tables would not result
in dynamic changes to the organization chart, as required by the claim. Id.
at 15; see also Visio 2 (showing single table), 3 (describing eleven-step
process for formatting data from SAP/R2 files for use by the Organization
Chart Wizard). Instead, a new flat file would need to be constructed
manually from the modified set of indexed tables, and the Organization
Chart Wizard would need to be re-run. Br. 15.
Pointing to a portion of Visio describing the “/LINK-TO-DB”
argument, the Examiner responds that the “/LINK-TO-DB” argument passes
changes made to the data source to the drawing automatically. Ans. 28; see
11
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
also Visio 3. Yet, the Examiner does not address Appellant’s argument that
Visio’s data source for the Organization Chart Wizard, even if based from a
set of tables, would not be the claimed set of tables, but rather a single table
reduced from the set. Thus, the “/LINK-TO-DB” function would form a
link between the organization chart and the table input to the Organization
Chart Wizard, not the set of tables. It is unclear how, and the Examiner
does not adequately explain how, changes to a set of tables in Visio would
dynamically change the organization chart, as required by claim 1, and not
require, for example, the modified set of indexed tables to be processed for
subsequent input to the Organization Chart Wizard.
The Examiner finds that the claimed set of indexed tables is directed
to nonfunctional descriptive material “because they cannot exhibit any
functional interrelationship with the way the steps are performed.” Id. at 13.
Yet, a set of indexed tables refers to a particular data structure having a
functional relationship with the other claimed structures, namely, a charting
tool and a structure charting engine.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent Claims 2—11
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2—11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 2—11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Independent Claims 12 and 20
Claims 12 and 20 each contains similar language to claim 1. The
rejections of independent claims 12 and 20 are based on the same erroneous
12
Appeal 2016-003733
Application 11/757,254
findings described above with respect to claim 1. See Final Act. 26—28, 36—
37,41.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of independent claims 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Dependent claims 13—15, 18, and 21—23
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 13—15, 18, and 21—23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) does not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s
rejections of independent claim 12 and 20. Therefore, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 13—15, 18, and 21—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
We REVERSE the rejection of claims 1—15, 18, and 20-23 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We REVERSE the rejections of claims 1—15, 18, and 20—23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
13