Ex Parte King et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 13, 2016

12200513 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/200,513 08/28/2008
74739 7590 07115/2016
MILES & STOCKBRIDGE P,C
Oracle International Corporation
17 51 Pinnacle Drive
Suite 1500
Tysons Corner, VA 22102-3833
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Nigel King
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.
T9049- l 9643US01 7831
EXAMINER
BULLOCK, JOSHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/15/2016 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):
Ipdocketing@MilesStockbridge.com
bgoldsmith@milesstockbridge.com
smcvean@milesstockbridge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NIGEL KING, JOSEPH BLAU, ANPING WANG,
TONY K. WONG, SUHAS ROHIT MEHTA, DO JOON RA,
MING LAM, LINDA M. BAO, and TULASI RAM KODALI
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-19. Claims 2, 8, 12, and 14 are
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
Exemplary Claim
1. A method of displaying data, the method comprising:
receiving business intelligence (BI) dimensions, wherein
the BI dimensions comprise levels of aggregation used to
structure BI data;
receiving at least one text search term;
generating and displaying key performance indicators
(KPis) based on the BI dimensions in a single user interface,
wherein the KPis comprise metrics;
generating text-based search results based on the text
search term;
determining facets based on the BI dimensions, wherein
the facets comprise attributes used to filter the text-based search
results;
restricting the text-based search results using the facets
that are based on the BI dimensions; and
displaying the restricted text-based search results in the
single user interface;
wherein the display of the KPis based on the BI
dimensions, and the display of the restricted text-based search
results based on the text-search term and the facets, are combined
using the BI dimensions and the facets; and
wherein the KPis and the restricted text-based search results are
displayed together within the single user interface.
App. Br. 22 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
Rejections
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Stading (US 2008/0244429 Al;
Oct. 2, 2008). Final Act. (Dec. 24, 2012) 3-7.
ISSUES
Appellants' arguments present an issue of whether the Examiner errs
in concluding that Stading discloses the claimed invention's displaying of
KP Is.
CLAIMS 1, 5-7, 11, AND 13
Claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 13 are argued collectively. 1 Our analysis is
directed to claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013) (representative
claims).
Appellants argue that, the Examiner errs in finding Stading's Sort By
menu 2820 of GUI 2800 (Fig. 28) discloses display ofKPis because:
"KPis" are metrics of BI data structured according to BI
dimensions. . . . The options displayed in "SORT BY" menu
option 2820 of Stading are merely names of sorting options that
utilize business data (such as ... industry classifications) to sort
search results 2806, rather than the actual business data itself.
Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive because we agree
with the Examiner that KPI "metrics," given a reasonably broad
1 Appellants state that "[e]ach of the claims is being argued separately."
App. Br. 8. However, Appellants do not provide substantively separate
arguments for any of claims 1, 5-7, 11, and 13. Thus, they are collectively
argued.
3
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
interpretation in light of the Specification, encompass a descnpt10n of data
that define and measure progress or performance. See Spec. i-f 13
("Examples of KPis are metrics such as lead conversion rate (in sales)[.]").
Stading's Sort By menu options 2820 includes the description
"Organizational Revenue," which measures business performance. See Ans.
2 ("[Stading's GUI 2800] displays key performance business indicators
including organizational revenue[.]"). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Stading's Sort By menu options 2820 disclose the claimed
KPis comprising metrics.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 5-7, 11,
and 13, which Appellants do not argue separately.
CLAIMS 3, 9, 15 AND 17
Claims 3, 9, 15, and 17 are argued collectively. App. Br. 16-18
(incorporating, for each of claims 9, 15, and 1 7, "reasoning similar to the
reasoning discussed in Section IV, A, ii" for claim 3). Our anaiysis is
directed to claim 3 .
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and recites "the BI dimensions
comprise a dimension, a dimension member and a dimension level." As to
claim 3, Appellants argue claim 1 's "BI dimensions comprise levels of
aggregation used to structure BI data" and claim 3 's "BI dimensions
comprise ... a dimension level" conflate to require a dimension level used
to structure BI data. Reply Br. 5-6. Appellants further argue: "The list of
top industries 3006 of Stading are merely a subset of the filtered data that is
generated based on slider control options 3008, and is not a level of
aggregation used to further structure the filtered data." Id.
4
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because, as the Examiner
correctly finds, Stading discloses information that includes business or
industry averages. Ans. 3 (citing Stading Fig. 30). This business
information represents a dimension (industry averages) with dimension
members (revenue, number of employees, etc.) and dimension levels
($93,905, 825,401, etc.). See Stading Fig. 30. Appellant's arguments do not
persuasively distinguish the claimed BI dimensions (comprising a
dimension, a dimension member, and a dimension level) of claim 3 from the
disclosed industry averages of Stading.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, and
claims 9, 15, and 17, which Appellants do not argue separately.
CLAIMS 4, 10, 16, AND 18
Claims 4, 10, 16, and 18 are argued collectively. App. Br. 16-18
(incorporating, for each of claims 10, 16, and 18, "reasoning similar to the
reasoning discussed in Section IV, A, iii" for ciaim 4). Our anaiysis is
directed to claim 4.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that "the facets allow for
sorting of the search results." Appellants argue:
The Final Office Action took the position that Fig. 30 of Stading
illustrates sorting of the search results under the heading "Top
Industries." See Final Office Action at page 5 .... [T]he list of
top industries 3006 is data extracted from a list of search results,
rather than the actual search results.
App. Br. 14. The argument is incommensurate with claim 4's scope. There
is no language within claim 4, nor base claim 1, precluding the search results
5
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
from being extracted, filtered, etc., from primary search results (i.e., returned
without ensuing extraction, etc.).
We thus sustain the rejection of claim 4, and claims 10, 16, and 18,
which Appellants do not argue separately.
CLAIM 19
Claim 19 depends from claim 1 and recites "the restricted text-based
search results are displayed under multiple headings based on the facets."
The Examiner finds that Stading's Top Industries list 3006 and visualization
options 2908 teach claim 19's headings. Final Act. 7; Ans. 4.
Appellants argue Stading's "list of top industries 3006 ... is not a list
of search results, but instead is a list of data extracted from a list of search
results." App. Br. 19 (emphasis omitted). And, Appellants argue Stading's
"visualization options ... 2908 are not headings, but instead visualization
names ... to generate the visualization[;] ... not themselves the business
data." Repiy Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. In particular, the
search results 2806 depicted in Stading are not displayed under either the list
of Top Industries 3006 or the visualization options 2908. See Stading Figs.
28-30. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show that Stading
discloses "the restricted text-based search results are displayed under
multiple headings based on the facets," as recited in claim 19.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19.
6
Appeal2014-002174
Application 12/200,513
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3-7, 9-11, 13,
and 15-18.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claim 19.
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-IN-PART
7