Ex Parte Marum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

13420919 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/420,919 03/15/2012
51835 7590 11/01/2016
IBM Lotus & Rational SW
c/o Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP
33 Boston Post Road West
Suite 410
Marlborough, MA 01752
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Gordon Marum
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.
CAM920110015US2_063Cl 3505
EXAMINER
CASANOVA, JORGE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATTHEW GORDON MARUM,
SAMUEL GEORGE PADGETT,
STEVEN KEITH SPEICHER, and MICHAEL JOHN TABB
Appeal2015-008280
Application 13/420,919
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
Appeal2015-008280
Application 13/420,919
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "the use of database query
results, and more specifically, to systems and methods for changing contents
of a query result set displayed according to a graphical representation."
Spec. i-f 2. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for changing query result data graphically
displayed on an electronic device, comprising:
performing a query of a data repository;
displaying a graphical representation of a set of query
results identified from the query, the set of query results
including a plurality of query result records, the graphical
representation including a first location corresponding to a first
record field value and a second location corresponding to a
second record field value;
displaying at a first location at least one query result record
having the first record field value;
selecting a query result record of the at least one query
result record having the first record field value; and
changing a field value of the selected query result record
from the first record field value to the second record field value
by transitioning the selected query result record to a second
location of the graphical representation.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-14 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non-
statutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 26-39 of co-pending
Application No. 13/159,682.
Claims 1--4 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gemmell et al. (US 2008/0059899 Al; Mar. 6, 2008) and
Hirata et al. (US 6,317,739 Bl; Nov. 13, 2001).
2
Appeal2015-008280
Application 13/420,919
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gemmell, Hirata, and Kagawa (US 2007/0027855 Al; Feb. 1, 2007).
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gemmell, Hirata, Kagawa, and Bedworth et al. (US 2006/0004721 Al; Jan.
5, 2006).
Claims 8-17 and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Gemmell, Hirata, and Folting (US 2007/0074130 Al;
Mar. 29, 2007).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Gemmell, Hirata, Folting, Kagawa, and Bedworth.
Claims 24 and 25 stand under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Gemmell, Hirata, Folting, and Kagawa.
ANALYSIS
Non-statutory Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants have not contested the Examiner's non-statutory double
patenting rejection and have therefore waived any argument concerning this
rejection. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.47(c)(iv), 41.4l(b)(2). We summarily affirm
this rejection.
§ 103 Rejections
Claim 1 recites "[a] method for changing query result data graphically
displayed on an electronic device," the method including the following
steps:
displaying a graphical representation of a set of query
results identified from the query, the set of query results
including a plurality of query result records, the graphical
3
Appeal2015-008280
Application 13/420,919
representation including a first location corresponding to a first
record field value and a second location corresponding to a
second record field value
selecting a query result record of the at least one query
result record having the first record field value; and
changing a field value of the selected query result record
from the first record field value to the second record field value
by transitioning the selected query result record to a second
location of the graphical representation.
App. Br. 19. Appellants argue the cited portions of Gemmell do not teach or
suggest changing a field value as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 12-13;
Reply Br. 2--4. According to Appellants, Gemmell's "records are not moved
to different locations of the histogram" and Gemmell's "search results ...
are not changed or transitioned between record field values at different
locations of the histogram." App. Br. 10, 11. Appellants also contend one
of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined Gemmell' s histogram
with Hirata's drag-and-drop operation to arrive at the claimed invention. Id.
at 11-13.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The cited portions of
Gemmell disclose a histogram of search results, the histogram including a
selection pane that allows a user to highlight a desired portion of the
histogram and generate a new histogram for the search results associated
with the highlighted histogram portion. See Gemmell i-fi-17, 10; Fig. 2, 3;
Non-Final Act. 6-8. The Examiner found the search results associated with
the highlighted portion of the histogram teach the recited "selected query
result record." Non-Final Act. 7. The Examiner also found Gemmell's
process of generating a new histogram "implicitly teaches" changing a field
4
Appeal2015-008280
Application 13/420,919
value of a selected query result record as recited in claim 1 because the
"user's newly selected portion ... prompts the interface to generate a new
histogram with respect to that portion." Id. at 7-8. But as argued by
Appellants, the Examiner has not demonstrated that Gemmell' s process of
generating a new histogram changes the value of the associated search
results. Rather, the cited portions of Gemmell indicate that highlighting a
portion of the histogram merely filters the search results so that Gemmell' s
system only displays the highlighted search results. See, e.g., Gemmell
iTiT 45--46; Figs. 2, 3.
As for Hirata, the Examiner found Hirata' s drag-and-drop operation
also teaches changing a field value in the manner recited in claim 1 and
concluded it would have been obvious to combine Hirata's and Gemmell's
teachings to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1. Non-Final Act. 8-9.
However, even if Hirata's drag-and-drop operation teaches changing a field
value as recited in claim 1, the Examiner has not provided sufficient
reasoning to support the conclusion that it would have been obvious to
combine Hirata's and Gemmell's teachings in the proposed manner. The
Examiner equated Gemmell's histogram with the recited locations
corresponding to field values. See id. at 7-8. Gemmell's histogram
represents the number of search results that have a particular attribute.
Gemmell iT 41. For example, when the search results consist of images, the
histogram represents the number of images created on a certain date. See id.
The Examiner has not clearly explained why one of ordinary skill in the art
would modify Gemmell's invention to allow users to drag-and-drop parts of
the histogram to change a static characteristic such as the number of images
created on a specific date, much less a field value associated with any
5
Appeal2015-008280
Application 13/420,919
particular search result as required by claim 1. The Examiner's conclusory
assertions that "[d]oing so would have enhanced the user interface of
Gemmell" and "allowed users to specifically tailor results to their needs" do
not adequately address this issue.
For the above reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 15 and 24, which suffers from similar deficiencies. Finally, because
claims 2-14, 16-23, and 25 depend from claim 1, claim 15, or claim 24, we
also do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's provisional rejection of claims 1-14 on the
ground of non-statutory double patenting. We reverse the Examiner's
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
6