Ex Parte Helal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

11732568 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111732,568 0410412007
63675 7590 08/31/2016
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Helal
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.
CA920085124US1 3455
EXAMINER
DELI CH, STEPHANIE ZAGARELLA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
P AIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PSDocketing@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT HELAL
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,5681
Technology Center 3600
Before, HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and JAMES A.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 14, 15, 17-19, 21-24, 28, 29, 33, 34 and 38--46.2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claim 14 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines Corporation, as the
real party in interest. (Appeal Br. 3).
2 Claims 1-13, 16, 20, 25-27, 30-32, and 35-37 have been canceled. (Final
Act. 2).
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,568
14. A method of creating an analytic framework for use in
analysing business intelligence information stored in a
database system, the method comprising:
receiving a definition of a new role for analysing the
business intelligence (Bl) information stored in the database
system, wherein the definition of the new role specifies Bl
information requirements that are specific to the new role;
receiving selection of one or more analytic type
templates for analysing the Bl information, wherein each
analytic type template specifies a layout of the Bl
information on a Bl report to support a corresponding type of
Bl analysis;
configuring the selected one or more analytic type
templates for the new role on the basis of the Bl information
requirements that are specific to the new role; and
generating, by operation of one or more computer
processors, a new analytic framework based on the
configured analytic type templates, wherein the new analytic
framework defines at least one navigable analytic path
between the configured analytic type templates, wherein the
at least one navigable analytic path relates a summary-level
view of the Bl information to a detail-level view of the Bl
information.
2
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,568
THE REJECTION3
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Ruggieri et al.
("Ruggieri")
Barnard et al.
("Barnard")
Putnam Brookes
Z yman et al.
(" Z yman")
Ainsbury et al.
(" Ains bury")
US 2005/0144114 Al June 30, 2005
US 6,684,191 Bl Jan. 27, 2004
US 2004/02304714 Al Nov. 18, 2004
US 2003/0033192 Al Feb. 13, 2003
us 6,078,924 June 20, 2000
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claims 14--15, 17-19, and 21-24, 28-29, 33-34, and 38--41 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Putnam
Brookes, Ainsbury and further in view of Barnard. (Final Act. 5).
3 Should there be further prosecution of this application (including any
review for allowance), the Examiner may wish to review the claims for
compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light of the most recent Patent Office
guidance on § 101 found in the May 4, 2016 Memorandum to the Examining
Corps, titled "Formulating a Subject Matter Eligibility Rejection and
Evaluating the Applicant's Response to a Subject Matter Eligibility
Rejection," and the "July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility,"
80 Fed. Reg. 45429 (July 30, 2015), which supplements the "2014 Interim
Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility," 79 Fed. Reg. 74618
(Dec. 16, 2014 ), and the "Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of
the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, et al.," Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.
3
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,568
2. Claims 42--43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Putnam Brookes, Ainsbury, Barnard and further in
view of Zyman. (Final Act. 36).
3. Claims 44--46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Putnam, Ainsbury, Barnard, Zyman and further in
view of Ruggieri. (Final Act. 43).
4. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite. (Final
Act. 4)
ANALYSIS
Each of independent claims 14, 21 and 22 recites, in one form or
another,
generating a new analytic framework based on the
configured analytic type templates, wherein the new
analytic framework defines at least one navigable analytic
path between the configured analytic type templates,
1lvherein the at least one navigable analy'tic path relates a
summary-level view of the Bl information to a detail-level
view of the Bl information.
(Claim 21, Appx. 44).
The Examiner found concerning this limitation that,
Putnam does not explicitly recite that the
selectable options for analysis types are templates
that specify layouts, that the new analyses results
in a new framework generated from the templates
or that the paths relate summary level and detail
level views. However, Ainsbury is incorporated to
teach the ability to select a type of analytic
template, Col. 6:50-Col. 7:3 describes how
analysis templates are selected and guide a user
through data collection, interpretation and analysis
4
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,568
processes, Col. 9: 7-25 describe different reports
and analysis templates. A new framework is based
on configured types of analytic templates. Col. 5:
30-38 describes how the templates extend the
notion of quick reports and provide a framework
for analysis on a specific topic. The template
includes a score card guideline for tracking and
gathering information to complete the analysis and
other template are utilized to provide the final
report framework. Col. 8: 50-60 describe how the
information provides a set of pre built interfaces for
browsing reports and analysis, Col. 9: 17-25
describes how the analysis templates are
configured to report information and include
graphs and tables essential to analysis and provide
a framework for the final report.
(Answer 4).
Appellant argues that:
The cited portions of Putnam generally discuss
links for navigating between screens, see Putnam, ,-r
[0117], while the cited portions of Ainsbury
generally discuss analysis templates that provide a
framework for analysis for a specific topic, see,
e.g., Ainsbury, col. 5, lines 31-38. At the same
time, even assuming, arguendo, that the links in
Putnam correspond to the recited linking and that
the analysis templates in A ins bury correspond to
the recited analytic type templates, the references,
even in combination, still do not teach or suggest
that the screens are linked based on a predefined
analytic framework describing relations between
analytic types. [sic] - let alone any new analytic
framework being formed based on the series of
reports and the navigable analytic paths.
(Appeal Br. 17).
5
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,568
We agree with the Appellant. Our review of Ainsbury at the sections
cited by the Examiner to meet this limitation fails to show a disclosure
which would make the claim limitation obvious. Namely, Ainsbury at col.
6:50-7:3 only discloses a catalog wherein "the information platform can
automatically add the new information source to the catalog." Ainsbury at
col. 9: 7-25 only discloses, "[a]nalysis templates extend the notion of Quick
Reports and provide a framework for analysis on a specific topic."
Ainsbury, at col. 5: 30-38, only discloses a 'Score Card' guideline for
tracking information (such as revenue numbers and sales figures) that must
be gathered for complete analysis." Ainsbury, at col. 8: 50-60, only
discloses "the structured and unstructured information from internal and
external sources (captured over time) is collected in a consistent object-
oriented store". Likewise, Ainsbury, col. 9: 17-25, only discloses "[a]nalysis
templates extend the notion of Quick Reports and provide a framework for
analysis on a specific topic." In summary, while Ainsbury at best, discloses
using templates to "provide a framework for analysis on a specific topic,"
this disclosure stops there without any mention of using the analysis
templates themselves to define the claimed "at least one navigable analytic
path between the configured analytic type templates" where "configuring the
selected one or more analytic type templates for the new role [is done] on
the basis of the Bl information requirements that are specific to the new
1 " roe ....
Thus, we will not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 14, 21 and 22. Since claims 15, 17, 18, 19, 23, 24, 28,
29, 33, 34 and 38--46 depend from one of claims 14, 21and22, and since we
6
Appeal2014-007227
Application 11/732,568
cannot sustain the rejection of these independent claims on the merits, the
rejection of the dependent claims likewise cannot be sustained.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 40 as being indefinite under
35 U.S.C. 112(b) (Final Act. 4), because Appellant has shown
(Appeal Br. 40) that the involved term has basis in claim 39.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 14, 15, 17-19,
21-24, 28, 29, 33, 34 and 38--46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claim 40 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b ).
DECISION
REVERSED.
7