Ex Parte Hao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201612925684 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/925,684 10/27/2010 MingC. Hao 56436 7590 03/01/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 82264619 8552 EXAMINER LINDSEY III, JOHNATHAN J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com mkraft@hpe.com chris.mania@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING C. HAO, CHRISTIAN ROHRDANTZ, UMESHW AR DAY AL, DANIEL KEIM, and LARS-ERIK HAUG Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 Technology Center 3600 Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE1 Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-23. We affirm. 1 The Appellants identify the Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1 ). Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants claim methods for visualization of data. (Spec. para. 9). Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: receiving, by a system having a processor, data records representing a time sequence of events, wherein time gaps between successive events vary; generating, by the system, a first visualization having a sequence of graphical elements representing the corresponding events, wherein the graphical elements do not overlay each other, and wherein the graphical elements are arranged in the first visualization without any spacings that represent the time gaps between the successive events; and generating, by the system, a second visualization comprising a time density track having gap representing elements, wherein the gap representing elements have different characteristics to represent different time gaps between respective successive events. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Santos Mercuri US 2006/0106659 Al May 18, 2006 US 2011/0246921 Al Oct. 6, 2011 Daniela Oelke, et. al., "Visual Opinion Analysis of Customer Feedback Data", IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology, Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, Oct. 12-13, 2009 (hereinafter "Oelke"). REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mercuri and Santos. 2 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mercuri, Santos, and Oelke. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 16-20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Mercuri, Santos, and Official Notice. FINDINGS OF FACT We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence. 1. Mercuri discloses a graph of events displayed in a horizontally in time sequence based on when the events took place, at Figure 4, shown below: f7G. 4 Figure 4 of Santos showing a horizontal display of events in time sequence 2. Santos discloses a line chart disclosing both a line connecting data points, as well as a line representing an average value of the data points, at element 66, shown in a portion of Figure 4, below, where the value of the data points displays a value representing a time gap between events: 3 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 l\. l ' . A line chart as shown in Santos Figure 4. 3. Santos discloses that in Figure 4 line 66 represents an average of date gap analysis data values, and lines 68 and 69 represent upper and lower control limits, with point 70 falling outside the limits. (Para. 34). ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 Initially, we note that the Appellants argue independent claims 1 and 11 together as a group. (App. Br. 8). Correspondingly, we select representative claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining claim 11 standing or falling with claim 1. Appellant does not provide a substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 12, 4 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 13, 21, and 22 that depend from claims 1and11. Thus, claims 2, 6, 9-13, 21, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Appellants argue the Examiner has set forth no reason to combine Mercuri with Santos, except impermissible hindsight. (Appeal Br. 5-7, Reply Br. 2--4). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner found, and we agree, that "the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable." (Final Act. 3--4). The 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). Here the Examiner found in "[p]aragraphs 0005,0025 and 0037-38[,] [that] Mercuri discloses a system which produces sentiment visualizations for corresponding content items," and found that in "Figures 3-4; [p ]aragraphs 0015-16[,] Santos discloses date gap analysis techniques, wherein a data gap is defined broadly as the amount of time between an event in question and the previous event." (Final. 2-3). Our review of these references confirms the Examiner's findings as correct. (FF 1, 2). Mercuri displays events in time sequence, horizontally, without regard to how much time takes place between events. Santos uses the same concept of a sequence of events as in Mercuri, but instead displays data about the time that takes place between events, i.e., time gaps, on a graph. Mercuri and Santos, thus, display data about the same underlying event data, but display 5 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 different information inferred from the underlying data, displayed in different ways. We find that the combination of these items is a predictable, because the underlying items themselves show that it would be desirable to compare two different attributes of the data, namely, data about a sequence of events, and information inferred about the time gaps between the events, in juxtaposition, to make it easier to understand the data and time gap information determined from the data. This is particularly so when the two visualizations relate to the same underlying data. Appellants argue that the graphs of Santos and Mercuri would not perform the same function as before the combination, because the way to convey time information is different from each other. (Appeal Br. 7). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because it does not demonstrate that either graph, when displayed together, would cease to convey what it otherwise conveys in the proposed combination. After the proposed combination, the portion from Mercuri still displays events in sequence order, and the portion from Santos still displays time gap information about the same events. Appellants also argue that because Mercuri displays dates in textual form, there would be no reason to display date gaps in graphical form. (Appeal Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 3). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because displaying both text date data and graphical date gap data conveys time information in different ways. Even though a user would be able to calculate date gaps from the disclosed text date information in Mercuri (FF 1 ), the second graph showing date gaps visually would eliminate the need to do so, and, thus, 6 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 communicate time gap information clearly, without requiring additional analysis by the viewing user. Claim 7 Dependent claim 7 recites "calculating the heights of corresponding ones of the points based on the time gaps between the respective successive pairs of events and based on an average time gap." Appellants argue that the display of a centerline in Santos is "different" from the claimed calculating. (Appeal Br. 8). Appellants also argue "[b ]eing able to ascertain the height of a point on a curve relative to a centerline that indicates an average number of days between events, has nothing to do with calculating a height of a point on a curve based on the average time gap." (Reply Br. 5). Appellants, thus, argue the Examiner has "disregarded the entirety of the 'calculating' clause of claim 7." (Reply Br. 6). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We find that Santos discloses a graph with points located in proximity to a line representing the average value of the displayed points. (FF 2, 3). Santos, thus, calculates an average. Santos also displays both the data values and the average data value. (Id.). The data points in Santos' Figure 4 are clearly based on time gaps, as indicated by the title of the chart and discussion. (Id.). Whether the value of data point 70, as an example, is calculated based on an "an average time gap" is a matter of design choice. Mathematically if a value is x, and an average of values is y, when one graphically displays the values of x and y, the way x is displayed in relation to y takes in account where each is on the graph, so both values can be displayed. In Santos, the 7 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 average value is shown at line 66, and one of the data points is shown at element 70. (FF 2). Element 70 is outside a control limit zone, so to ensure it is properly displayed in the graph, the height of the point at element 70 above the lowest part of the graph must be calculated relative to, among other things, the average line 66, so that both are displayed, along with the other elements. In constructing the graph, then, Santos discloses "calculating the heights of corresponding ones of the points based on the time gaps between the respective successive pairs of events and based on an average time gap," as claimed. Notwithstanding, we find that the ordinary artisan would understand that it is a simple subtraction operation to calculate the difference, for example, between the value of data point 70 and the average, represented by line 66, if that particular value is needed. See KSR, at 418 (In making the obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.") Claims 8 and 16 Appellants argue claims 8 and 16 together as a group, so we select claim 8 as representative. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). Dependent claim 8 recites "aligning the gap representing elements with the graphical elements to depict relative time gaps between successive events in the time sequence." The Examiner takes Official Notice that "it is old and well known with the computer arts to align the two charts to depict relative gaps between successive events." (Final Act. 10). 8 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 Appellants argue that aligning a sequential graph with a time gap graph is not well-known. (Appeal Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 6-7). We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The data sets in Mercuri and Santos disclose different derived information (sequence and time gaps) about the same set of underlying events. Because the different displayed information in Mercuri and Santos relate to data about the same underlying events, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the value of aligning the display of different data, about the same events underlying both graphs, to improve the comprehension of the information being conveyed, as a creative step the ordinary artisan would employ. See KSR, at 418. Claims 3, 5, 14, and 15 Claims 3, 5, 14, and 15 are argued only by reference to the arguments directed to claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9). We affirm the rejection of the claims for the same reasons we affirm claim 1, above. Claims 17-20 and 23 Appellants argue claims 17-20 and 23 only by reference to the arguments directed to claim 1. (Appeal Br. 10). We affirm the rejection of the claims for the same reasons we affirm claim 1, above. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 9 Appeal2013-010070 Application 12/925,684 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-23 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation