Ex Parte Hao et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 13, 2010

10463716 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 13, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte MING C. HAO, PANKAJ K. GARG,
MUSTAZIRUL SHAWN ISLAM, VIJAY MACHIRAJU,
UMESHWAR DAYAL, SHARON BEACH,
and KLAUS WURSTER
_____________

Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716
Technology Center 2600

_______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and BRADLEY
W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.

Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 9-23, 25-26, 28-32, 35-36, and 38-47.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to an information visualization system where
a user may select subsets of data for further analysis. The user may select
different attributes of the data and different details of the data will be
displayed. See Spec: 2-3. Claim 9 is representative of the invention and
reproduced below:
9. An information visualization method comprising:
providing data, to a processor-based system, for a
plurality of data items of a data set;
arranging the data items of the data set using the data;
first displaying the data items of the data set in a first
graphical representation after the arranging, wherein the first
displaying comprises displaying the data items using an area
of a display screen;
after the displaying, selecting a portion of the area of the
display screen to select a subset of the data items to be
depicted in a second graphical representation;
partitioning the data items of the subset responsive to the
selecting; and
second displaying the partitioned data items in the second
graphical representation to convey information regarding the
identified data items via the first graphical representation.

2 Claims 1-8 were cancelled in response to an Election/Restriction
Requirement, mailed August 25, 2005. Claim 24 was cancelled in an
Amendment After Non-Final, filed February 15, 2006. Claims 27, 33-34,
and 37 were cancelled in an Amendment After Non-Final, filed December
11, 2008.
2
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

REFERENCES
Baker US 5,581,797 Dec. 3, 1996

Kandogan US 2002/0171646 A1 Nov. 21, 2002

Bauernschmidt US 2004/0168115 A1 Aug. 26, 2004
(filed Feb. 21, 2003)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 9-11, 13-17, 19-20, 26, 28, 30-32, 35-36, 39-41, and 43-45 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Bauernschmidt.
Ans. 3-7.
Claims 12, 18, 21-23, 25, 29, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bauernschmidt in view of Baker. Ans.
7-9.
Claims 42 and 46-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bauernschmidt in view of Kandogan. Ans. 9-10.

ISSUES
Rejection of claims 9-11, 13-14, and 31-32.

Appellants argue on pages 2-3 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4-6 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11, 13-14, and 31-
32 is in error. Appellants argue that Bauernschmidt does not teach
displaying the data items using an area of a display screen and then selecting
a portion of the area of the display screen in order to select a subset of the
data items that are depicted in a second graphical representation. App. Br. 6;
Reply Br. 4.
3
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

Thus, with respect to claims 9-11, 13-14, and 31-32, Appellants’
contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that
Bauernschmidt teaches displaying the data items using an area of a display
screen and then selecting a portion of the area of the display screen in order
to select a subset of the data items that are depicted in a second graphical
representation?
Rejection of claims 15-17, 19-20, and 35-36.
Appellants argue on pages 7-8 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 15-17, 19-20, and 35-36 is in error. Appellants argue that
Bauernschmidt does not teach wherein a data item is associated with one
grouping in the first graphical representation and a different grouping in the
second graphical representation. App. Br. 7.
Thus, with respect to claims 15-17, 19-20, and 35-36, Appellants’
contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that
Bauernschmidt teaches a data item associated with one grouping in the first
graphical representation and a different grouping in the second graphical
representation?
Rejection of claims 21-23, 25, and 38.
Appellants argue on pages 8-10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 8-9 of
the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23, 25, and 38 is
in error. Appellants assert that neither Bauernschmidt nor Baker teaches
displaying a second graphical representation which depicts information
regarding a second attribute of the data item not conveyed in the first
representation as claimed. App. Br. 9. Further, Appellants argue that it
4
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

would not have been obvious to combine Bauernschmidt with Baker. App.
Br. 9; Reply Br. 8-9.
Thus, with respect to claims 21-23, 25, and 38, Appellants’
contentions present us with two issues: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding
that Bauernschmidt in view of Baker discloses displaying a second graphical
representation which depicts information regarding a second attribute of the
data item not conveyed in the first representation? (2) Did the Examiner err
in finding it obvious to combine Bauernschmidt with Baker?
Rejection of claims 26, 28, 30, and 39-40.
Appellants argue on pages 11-12 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 28, 30, and 39-40 is in error. Appellants
argue that Bauernschmidt does not teach directly selecting a portion of the
area of a display screen which depicts a subset of the data items as a result of
the user input which selects the portion of the area. App. Br. 11; Reply Br.
6-7. Additionally, Appellants argue that Bauernschmidt does not disclose
selected data items are individually associated with different groupings of
the data items in the first and second hierarchical levels. App. Br. 12.
Thus, with respect to claims 26, 28, 39, and 39-40, Appellants’
contention presents us with a similar issue to claim 9: Did the Examiner err
in finding that Bauernschmidt teaches directly selecting a portion of the area
of a display screen which depicts a subset of the data items as a result of the
user input which selects the portion of the area? Appellants’ contention
presents us with the additional issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that
Bauernschmidt discloses selected data items are individually associated with
5
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

different groupings of the data items in the first and second hierarchical
levels?
Rejection of claim 41.
Appellants argue on pages 12-13 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 41 is in error. Claim 41 is dependent upon
claim 9. Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claim 41 as
with claim 9. App. Br. 12-13. Additionally, Appellants argue that
Bauernschmidt does not teach “that the subset of data items is not known
before the direct selection of the portion of the area by the user input.” App.
Br. 13.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 41 present us with
an additional issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bauernschmidt
discloses that the subset of data items is not known before the direct
selection of the portion of the area by the user input?
Rejection of claim 42.
Appellants argue on pages 13-16 of the Appeal Brief and pages 10-11
of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 42 is in error.
Appellants argue that Kandogan does not teach that the selected area is used
to determine the points in a subset. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 10. Further,
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to combine
Bauernschmidt with Kandogan. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 10.
Thus, with respect to claim 42, Appellants’ contentions present us
with two issues: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding that Bauernschmidt in
view of Kandogan disclose that the selected area is used to determine the
6
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

points in a subset? (2) Did the Examiner err in finding it obvious to combine
Bauernschmidt with Kandogan?
Rejection of claim 43.
Appellants argue on pages 16-17 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 43 is in error. Appellants make the same
arguments with respect to claim 43 as with respect to claim 26. App. Br. 16.
Thus, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 43 present us with the
same issue as claim 26.
Rejection of claim 44.
Appellants argue on pages 17-18 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 44 is in error. Appellants argue that
Bauernschmidt does not teach a third grouping of the data items. App. Br.
18.
Thus, with respect to claim 44, Appellants’ contention presents us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bauernschmidt discloses
a third grouping of data items?
Rejection of claim 45.
Appellants argue on page 18 of the Appeal Brief that the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 45 is in error. Appellants argue that Bauernschmidt does
not teach wherein at least one data item of the first grouping is not in the
subset of the data items in the second set. App. Br. 18.
Thus, with respect to claim 45, Appellants’ contention presents us
with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bauernschmidt teaches
7
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

at least one data item of the first grouping that is not in the subset of the data
item in the second set?
Rejection of claim 46.
Appellants argue on pages 19-20 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 46 is in error. Appellants make the same
arguments with respect to claims 41 and 42. App. Br. 19. Thus, Appellants’
arguments with respect to claim 46 present us with the same issues as claims
41 and 42.
Rejection of claim 47.
Appellants argue on pages 20-21 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 47 is in error. Appellants make the same
argument with respect to claim 42. App. Br. 20. Thus, Appellants’
argument with respect to claim 47 presents us with the same issue as claim
42.
Rejection of claims 12, 18, and 29.
Appellants argue on pages 20-21 of the Appeal Brief that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 18, and 29 is in error. Claims 12, 19, and
29 are dependent upon independent claims 9, 15, and 26. Appellants argue
that these claims are allowable based upon their dependency on independent
claims 9, 15, and 26. App. Br. 20-21. Thus, with respect to claims 12, 18,
and 29, Appellants’ contentions present us with the same issues as claims 9,
15, and 26.
8
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Bauernschmidt
1. Bauernschmidt discloses a method and system for displaying data on a
monitor in a user-configurable format and in a concise clear manner
that is quickly and readily understood by an operator. ¶¶ [0011],
[0013], and [0018].
2. Data is originally displayed on the monitor after it has been processed
and configured in a standardized format. A user then is able to select
a node from a hierarchical tree in order to display more detailed
information on the monitor that was shown in the original display. ¶
[0013].
3. Figure 3 originally displays hard drive part failures for year 2002.
The information is organized into quarters in the display area. ¶¶
[0047] and [0048] and Fig. 3.
4. In order to obtain more detailed information, a user can select a
portion of the display area by using the tree on the left side to select a
node. Upon selection of the node or nodes, the system displays the
selected information in the display area. ¶ [0052] and Figs. 3 and 4.
5. Figure 3 shows hard drive part failures for the year 2002. The original
display shows the failures separated or grouped into quarters 1-4.
Additional information includes months and weeks. Week 14 is
grouped with quarter 2; week 28 with quarter 3, and week 44 with
quarter 4. Fig. 3.
9
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

6. Figure 4 shows hard drive part failures after a user selects and groups
together week 14 of quarter 2, week 28 of quarter 3, and week 44 of
quarter 4. Fig. 4.
Baker
7. Baker discloses a system and method of displaying large amounts of
information about a large software system in a way that makes it
easily understandable to an operator. Col. 2, ll. 4-7.
8. The system contains a display space that is separated into geometric
shapes that represent information (i.e., non-commentary source code
lines (NCS lines)) of a number of subsystems (i.e., WL, AMA, UA,
etc.). Col. 4, ll. 15-18 and 57-60 and Fig. 3A.
9. Figure 5 shows a user selected subsystem’s directories (i.e.,
WLASN1, WLBSSAP, etc.) in more detail than Figure 3A. The sizes
of these directories are dependent upon their width. Shading is also
used to represent additional information (i.e., percentage of new NCS
code lines and pre-existing NCS code lines). Col. 6, ll. 30-55 and
Figs. 3A and 5.
Kandogan
10. Kandogan discloses a method of visualizing information in a
multidimensional display. ¶ [0007].
11. A user can select information points the user wishes to follow by
using a mouse to create a rectangular border around an area where the
points are located. The points inside the border are selected while all
other points are not selected. ¶ [0036].
10
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 9-11, 13-14, and 31-32.

Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 9. Claim 9 sets forth a second graphical
representation of data items and that these data items are selected by
the user after viewing the first graphical representation of data items.
Appellants argue that Bauernschmidt’s “area” is a report window (330
or 430) where data items are displayed. Reply Br. 4. Thus, in order
to meet the claim limitation that a user select a portion of the area to
be displayed, the user must select something from the report window.
Reply Br. 5. Appellants argue that Bauernschmidt requires the user to
use a tree window 314 or 414 to make a selection. Reply Br. 5.
However, the Examiner finds that nothing in the claim requires the
selection of a portion of the area to be done within the actual display
area. Ans. 10. We agree and find this to be a reasonable
interpretation. As a result, the Examiner finds that Bauernschmidt’s
utilizing a “tree” to select a portion of the area originally displayed
meets the claim limitation since the user’s selection is subsequently
displayed in the “treemap” area. Ans. 11.
Appellants additionally argue that the information displayed in the
first representation is irrelevant to what is selected to be displayed in the
second representation. App. Br. 6. We disagree. Bauernschmidt discloses a
system wherein hard drive part failures are shown for the year in a display
window and separated by quarters and broken down by weeks. FF 5. When
the user wants more detail for a particular quarter or week, the user selects
11
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

the corresponding node in the tree. FF 2, 3, 4. Once selected, the requested
information is displayed in the window display. FF 4. Thus, the
information in the first representation is not irrelevant to the information
displayed in the second representation since the user uses the first
representation to determine what detail the user wishes to view in the second
representation.
Appellants also argue that selecting a time range in Bauernschmidt is
not the same as selecting an area where the failures are displayed. App. Br.
6. The claim does not require that a random area is selected in the first
graphical representation. As such, an “area of the display screen” does not
preclude predefined areas that are broken up by quarters, months, weeks, etc.
Thus, we will not read this limitation into the claim. Therefore,
Bauernschmidt’s selection of a particular week is sufficient to meet the
claim limitation.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in rejecting claim 9. Appellants have not presented
arguments directed to the rejection of claims 10-11, 13-14, and 31-32 which
depend upon claim 9 and as such, these claims are grouped with claim 9.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11, 13-14, and 31-32.
Rejection of claims 15-17, 19-20, and 35-36.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 15. Claim 15 recites “an individual one of the selected
data items is associated with a first grouping of the data items in the first
graphical representation and a second grouping of the data items in the
second graphical representation, and wherein the first and second groupings
12
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

comprise different ones of the data items.” The Examiner finds that
Bauernschmidt discloses this limitation by grouping week 28 with quarter 3
in the first representation and then grouping week 28 with week 14 and week
44 in the second representation. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that the
Examiner’s interpretation of the term “grouping” is inconsistent with the use
of the term in the Application. App. Br. 8. Appellants argue that
“grouping” refers to “items which are grouped together within a common
boundary.” App. Br. 8. While Appellants’ intention may have been to
define “grouping” as described above, a specific definition was not provided
in the Specification. Therefore, we do not import this limitation into the
claims. Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s interpretation, which we find to be
reasonable.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in rejecting claim 15. Appellants have not presented
arguments directed to the rejection of claims 16-17, 19-20, and 35-36 which
depend upon claim 15 and as such, these claims are grouped with claim 15.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15-17, 19-20, and 35-
36.
Rejection of claims 21-23, 25, and 38.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 21. Claim 21 recites “wherein the first graphical
representation depicts information regarding a first attribute of the data items
and the second graphical representation depicts information regarding a
second attribute of the data items of the subset and different than the first
attribute.” Appellants argue that neither Bauernschmidt nor Baker discloses
13
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

a second attribute that is a subset of the first attribute. App. Br. 9. We
disagree.
Baker’s system and method select “WL” from Figure 3A and display
it in window 507 of Figure 5. Ans. 13. “WL” is therefore a subset of the
information shown in Figure 3A. FF 8. The different directories of “WL”,
such as WLASN1, WLBSSAP, etc. that are not visible in Figure 3A become
visible in Figure 5. FF 9. These directories are different attributes that are a
subset of the first attribute WL, and the sizes of these directories are
dependent upon their widths. FF 9. Additionally, within each of these
directories, shading is used to disclose additional information to the user. FF
9. Thus, because Baker discloses both a second and third attribute that is a
subset of the first attribute, Appellants’ argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to show
that the combination of the references is obvious. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8.
Appellants argue that the Examiner has failed to provide a proper rationale
for the combination. App. Br. 9. Additionally, Appellants argue that
obviousness has not been shown because prior art teachings do not suggest
the combination and the Examiner has relied upon Appellants’ disclosure for
the combination. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that there would be no need
to combine Bauernschmidt with Baker because the combination would
defeat the goal of Bauernschmidt. Reply Br. 9. Combining the references
would not allow the user to easily compare subsets. Reply Br. 9. We
disagree.
The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that motivation to combine
the reference is only seen as “helpful insight,” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398 418 (2007), but is not required as long as the combination of
14
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

the elements of the references yields predictable results. Id. at 416-419. As
noted above, Bauernschmidt discloses a system and method that present
reports to a user that allows for quick interpretation. FF 1. The user is able
to select and group portions of the area which are “of interest,” and these
portions are displayed for visual review. FF 2, 3, 4. Baker discloses a
system and method for displaying characteristics of a large software system.
FF 7. The user selects a particular area of interest, and additional
information is provided that was not included in the original display. FF 9.
The systems and methods of both references disclose displaying information
at different hierarchical levels and the ability to select a particular area of
interest to acquire more information. Therefore, we consider combining
Baker’s ability to provide different attributes that are a subset of the first
attribute with Bauernschmidt’s ability to group portions of the original
display area as nothing more than using known display methods together.
As such, we find that the combination of Baker with Bauernschmidt yields
the predictable result of providing additional information to a user when
additional information is requested or required. As such, the combination is
obvious.
Further, though not required, the Examiner has provided a specific
motivation to combine the references. Ans. 8. The Examiner stated that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
Bauernschmidt to show different attributes of a software data item in a
treemap in order to help a user visualize many different statistics about the
software as taught by Baker.” Ans. 8. Appellants do not identify any further
evidence to persuade us that the Examiner’s motivation to combine the
15
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

references is in error. Therefore, we find the Examiner’s motivation to be
sufficient.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in rejecting claim 21. Appellants have not presented
arguments directed to the rejection of claims 22-23, 25, and 38 which
depend upon claim 21. As such, these claims are grouped with claim 21.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 21-23, 25, and 38.
Rejection of claims 26, 28, 30, and 39-40.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 26. Claim 26 recites “access user input which directly
selects a portion of the area which depicts a subset of the data items.”
Appellants argue that directly selecting a node in order to display a subset of
the data items is not the same as directly selecting a portion of the area of the
screen because the selection of a node is an indirect selection of the display
area. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 7. However, as noted above in the rejection of
claim 9, selecting a node results a portion of the area of the screen being
selected. Therefore, directly selecting a node may be reasonably interpreted
as directly selecting a portion of the area of the screen.
Claim 26 additionally recites “wherein the selected data items are
individually associated with different groupings of the data items in the first
and second hierarchical levels.” Appellants argue that the grouping of
weeks 14, 28, and 44 in Bauernschmidt’s Figure 4 contains the same data
items as in Figure 3. We disagree.
Bauernschmidt discloses groupings in Figure 3 that consist of the
entire year. FF 5. Additionally, the groupings are broken out by quarters.
16
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

FF 5. In Figure 3, week 14 is grouped with year 2002, quarter 2; week 28 is
grouped with year 2002, quarter 3; and week 44 is grouped with year 2002,
quarter 4. FF 5. When the user wishes to view additional information found
in the first representation, the user selects that information using the tree,
and it is displayed in a second grouping in the second representation. FF 2.
As shown in Bauernschmidt’s Figure 4, the user has selected to group weeks
14, 28, and 44 together. FF 6. Thus, failures between three different weeks
and three different quarters can be analyzed side-by-side. As a result, we do
not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive.
For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in rejecting claim 26. Appellants have not presented
arguments directed to the rejection of claims 28, 30, and 39-40 which
depend upon claim 26, so as such, these claims are grouped with claim 26.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 26, 28, 30, and 39-40.
Rejection of claim 41.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claim 41. Claim 41 recites “accessing user input which directly
selects the portion of the area.” This limitation is similar to the limitation
argued for claim 26, and Appellants provide the same arguments discussed
above with respect to claim 26. App. Br. 12. Therefore, we do not find
Appellants’ previously presented arguments to be persuasive for the same
reasons as we stated above.
Appellants’ additional argument that the data items subset is known
before the user directly selects a portion of the area is also not persuasive.
App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds that there is nothing in the reference that
17
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

suggests this is true. Ans. 16. The user selects whatever information the
user wishes to take a closer look at. FF 2. Therefore, selection of the area is
not known before it is selected. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 41.
Rejection of claim 42.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in rejection claim 42. Claim 42 recites “accessing the user input which
directly identifies a graphical boundary around the portion of the area, and
further comprising, the processor-based system selecting the data items
within the boundary as being within the subset of data items and excluding
the data items outside of the boundary as not being within the subsets of the
data items.” The Examiner finds that Kandogan discloses a method of
dragging a mouse around data points to create a rectangular box wherein the
data points within the box are selected and the data points outside the box
are not selected. Ans. 9. Appellants argue that this is not the same as
selecting points to include in a subset. App. Br. 13. We do not find
Appellants’ argument to be persuasive. Kandogan uses this process to select
points that the user wishes to follow. FF 11. Thus, Kandogan is selecting a
subset of the points shown on the screen.
Additionally, Appellants argue that the Examiner did not establish a
proper rationale to combine Kandogan with Bauernschmidt. App. Br. 14.
However, as noted above, the Supreme Court has explicitly stated that
motivation to combine the reference is only seen as “helpful insight,” KSR,
550 U.S. at 418, but is not required as long as the combination of the
elements of the references yields predictable results. Id. at 416-419. As
noted above, Bauernschmidt discloses a system and method that present
18
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

reports to a user that allows for quick interpretation. FF 1. The user is able
to select and group portions of the area which are “of interest,” and these
portions are displayed for visual review. FF 2. Kandogan discloses a
system and method wherein particular data points can be selected using a
mouse to create a rectangular border around the particular data points. FF
11. The systems and methods of both references disclose displaying
information at different hierarchical levels and the ability to select a
particular area of interest to acquire more information. Therefore, we
consider combing Kandogan’s ability to select points of interest with
Bauernschmidt’s ability to group portions of the original display area as
nothing more than using known display methods together. As such, we find
that the combination of Kandogan with Bauernschmidt yields the predictable
result of providing additional information to a user when additional
information is requested or required. As such, the combination is obvious.
Further, though not required, the Examiner has provided a specific
motivation to combine the references. Ans. 10. The Examiner stated that
“[i]t would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
Bauernschmidt to allow a user to select and pre-tag a number of points by
making a graphical boundary around them in order to help a user determine
the nature of formed clusters as taught by Kandogan … [and] to make a
user’s view of portions of the cluster even clearer.” Ans. 10-11 and 17-18.
Appellants do not identify any further evidence to persuade us that the
Examiner’s motivation to combine the references is in error. Therefore, we
find the Examiner’s motivation to be sufficient.
19
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

For the aforementioned reasons, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us of error in rejecting claim 42. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 42.
Rejection of claim 43.
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 43. Claim 43 contains similar limitations to
claim 26. Appellants present the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 26. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ previously
presented arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as we stated
above. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 43.
Rejection of claim 44.
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 44. Claim 44 recites “wherein another one of
the selected data items is associated with a third grouping of the data items
in the first graphical representation, and wherein the first and third groupings
comprise different ones of the data items.” The Examiner finds that
Bauernschmidt discloses in Figure 3 that weeks 14, 28, and 44 have different
groupings than in Figure 4. Ans. 19. Appellants argue that the week
groupings each have their own boundaries and therefore contain the same
information in both Figures 3 and 4. App. Br. 17. We disagree.
As noted above, Bauernschmidt groups week 14 with quarter 2; week
28 with quarter 3; and week 44 with quarter 4 in Figure 3. FF 6. In Figure
4, Bauernschmidt groups weeks 14, 28, and 44 together. FF 6. Therefore,
the groupings in Figure 3 and 4 of Bauernschmidt are different and contain
20
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

different information. As such, Appellants’ arguments are not found to be
persuasive, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 44.
Rejection of claim 45.
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 45. Claim 45 recites “wherein at least one
other data item of the first grouping is not selected to be in the subset of the
data items of the data set.” Appellants argue that the information in Figure 3
is the same as the information in Figure 4 of Bauernschmidt. App. Br. 18.
Figure 3 of Bauernschmidt contains quarters 1-4 of year 2002. FF 5. Figure
4 of Bauernschmidt contains only information from weeks 14, 28, and 44
from quarters 2, 3, and 4 (respectively). FF 6. Therefore, the subset shown
in Figure 4, at the very least, does not contain any information from quarter
1, which was included in Figure 3. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not
found to be persuasive, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 45.
Rejection of claim 46.
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 46. Claim 46 contains similar limitations to
claims 41 and 42. Appellants present the same arguments discussed above
with respect to claims 41 and 42. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’
previously presented arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as we
stated above. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
46.
Rejection of claim 47.
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 47. Claim 47 contains similar limitations to
21
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

claim 42. Appellants present the same arguments discussed above with
respect to claim 42. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ previously
presented arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as we stated
above. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 47.
Rejection of claims 12, 18, and 29.
Appellants’ contentions have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 18, and 29. Claims 12, 18, and 29 are
dependent upon claims 9, 15, and 26 (respectively). Appellants present the
same arguments discussed above with respect to claims 9, 15, and 26.
Therefore, we do not find Appellants’ previously presented arguments to be
persuasive for the same reasons as we stated above. As such, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 12, 18, and 29.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt teaches
displaying the data items using an area of a display screen and then selecting
a portion of the area of the display screen in order to select a subset of the
data items that are depicted in a second graphical representation.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt teaches a data
item associated with one grouping in the first graphical representation and a
different grouping in the second graphical representation.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt in view of
Baker discloses displaying a second graphical representation which depicts
information regarding a second attribute of the data item not conveyed in the
first representation.
22
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine
Bauernschmidt with Baker.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt teaches
directly selecting a portion of the area of a display screen which depicts a
subset of the data items as a result of the user input which selects the portion
of the area.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt discloses
selected data items are individually associated with different groupings of
the data items in the first and second hierarchical levels.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt discloses that
the subset of data items is not known before the direct selection of the
portion of the area by the user input.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt in view of
Kandogan discloses that the selected area is used to determine the points in a
subset.
The Examiner did not err in finding it obvious to combine
Bauernschmidt with Kandogan.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt discloses a
third grouping of data items.
The Examiner did not err in finding that Bauernschmidt teaches at
least one data item of the first grouping that is not in the subset of the data
item in the second set.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9-23, 25-26, 28-32, 35-36,
and 38-47 is affirmed.
23
Appeal 2010-007457
Application 10/463,716

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD

HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY
3404 E. HARMONY ROAD
MAIL STOP 35
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ADMINISTRATION
FORT COLLINS, CO 80528

24