Ex Parte McCully

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 6, 2018

11678607 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/678,607 02/25/2007 Eric McCully CA920085010US2 2186
63675 7590 03/08/2018
PATTERSON & SHERIDAN, LLP/IBM SVL
24 Greenway Plaza
SUITE 1600
HOUSTON, TX 77046-2472
EXAMINER
SYED, FARHAN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/08/2018 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):
PAIR_eofficeaction@pattersonsheridan.com
PS Docketing @ pattersonsheridan .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC MCCULLY
Appeal 2016-0001101
Application 11/678,607
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3—11, and 13—21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 3—11, and 13—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Anand (US 5,721,903; Feb. 24, 1998), and Kolton (US
5,778,357; July 7, 1998). Final Act. 5-19.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business
Machine Corporation. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-000110
Application 11/678,607
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention relates to “customized retrieval and presentation
of information from a relational database interfaced to a TCP /IP network.”
Spec. 12. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key
disputed limitations emphasized:
1. An apparatus for generating a report, comprising:
a. one or more server systems, each having at least a processor and a
memory storing one or more applications, executed on the processor to
generate the report by:
i. providing a user interface configured to receive user input indicating
a selection of a predefined report specification, the predefined report
specification comprising code configured to retrieve information from a
database and present a report of the retrieved information;
ii. prompting, via the user interface, for further user input, wherein
the further user input specifies one or more modifications for the report
generated by the predefined report specification;
Hi. generating a script corresponding to the further user input,
wherein the script is configured to modify the code of the predefined report
specification;
b. a first database comprising predefined report specifications;
c. a second database comprising information for incorporation into
reports;
d. wherein the one or more server systems further generate the report
by:
i. finding, in the first database, the predefined report specification
corresponding to the user input;
ii. loading the predefined report specification;
iii. applying the script to modify the predefined report specification to
create a customized report specification by modifying the code of to the
predefined report specification based on the further user input;
iv. running the customized report specification, including retrieving
appropriate information from the second database to generate a customized
report; and
2
Appeal 2016-000110
Application 11/678,607
v. outputting the report to the user interface.
ANALYSIS
Contentions
The Examiner finds Anand and Kolton teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 5—10. In particular, the Examiner finds Kolton teaches the key
disputed limitations of claim 1, and specifically finds Kolton’s user creating
a query describes “generating a script” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act.
8—9 (citing Kolton Figures 3A—3B; col. 3,11. 60-67; col. 4,11. 21—23, 53—67;
col. 5,11. 1-16, 18-49).
The Examiner reasons
It would have been obvious to combine the teachings of
Anand with the teachings of Kolton to include i. prompting, via
the user interface for further user input, wherein the further user
input specifies one or more modifications for the report
generated by the first application and ii. generating a script
corresponding to the further user input wherein the script is
configured to modify code of the first application with the
motivation for generating reports from a computer database
which allows a user to retrieve and analyze data.
Final Act. 10 (citing Anand col. 1,11. 54—55).
Regarding the key disputed limitations, Appellant presents the
following principal arguments:
[A] series of overlaying windows to build a query does not
disclose generating a script. And again the query built from the
“overlapping windows” does not in any way “modify the
predefined report specification to create a customized report
specification by modifying the code of [] the predefined report
specification.” Instead, the query is used to retrieve data from a
database. Again, primarily financial market data retrieved using
a database query.
3
Appeal 2016-000110
Application 11/678,607
That is, the “query” such [as] a database query is not a
“script” that is “configured to modify code of the first
application,” as claimed. The “series of overlaying window
queries and prompts” are not used to generate a script. Instead,
the “series of overlaying window queries and prompts,” are used
to build a database query, again, one related to the pricing of a
financial instrument. The resulting database query composed
using the “series of overlaying window queries and prompts,” in
no way “modifies code of the first application,” as claimed — or
modifies] any code of any application.
App. Br. 15—16; see also App. Br. 17 (“First, again, there is no script being
generated, a database query is being composed. Second, the query composed
using this interface does not ‘modify code of the predefined report
specification’ in the manner claimed (or otherwise). Instead, it provides a
query used to retrieve and format financial data pulled from a database.”)
and Reply Br. 4—5.
Our Review
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Kolton (col. 3,11. 60-67, emphasis omitted) discloses
The windows interface program 104 places in front of the user
105 templates which list the alternative query 10[7] formulations
that the user can select using a mouse pointing device and a
typewriter to prepare specific queries. The query windows,
illustrated below, correspond to the language options that are set
forth in a formal description of the query language that is also
presented below.
Kolton (col. 4,11. 21—23, emphasis omitted) discloses “When the user
is finished defining the query and calls for the generation of reports based
upon the query, the query representation 108 is compressed[.]”
4
Appeal 2016-000110
Application 11/678,607
Kolton (col. 4,11. 53—67, emphasis omitted) discloses
The databases shown in FIG. 2 used in combination with
the system 100 shown at FIG. 1 creates the potential for the user
to generate reports that are of particular use to market traders and
analysts in trying to examine past actions of the market at certain
times, such as when dividends are paid or when special market
events occur. In addition, the user may add the user’s own market
domain knowledge to the market domain knowledge 208 within
the database 114 and thereby create a separate body of
information for special reports. But to realize the potential of the
database, a carefully human-engineered interface between the
user 105 and the remaining parts of the system is provided in the
form of the queries 107 which are implemented using
overlapping windows and which are based upon an English-like
search query language.
Kolton (col. 5,11. 1—17, emphasis omitted) discloses
FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate a way that user queries are
processed in two different embodiments of the invention. In FIG.
3A, the user 105 interacts directly with the windows interface
104 to create and later to modify the query. During this
interaction, information from the windows interface 104 enables
an echo generator 302 to construct a natural language
formulation of the query (or partial query) which is displayed on
a screen 306 to the user but which is not directly editable by the
user. When the query formulation process is completed, the
windows data structure 304, created by the windows interface
104, is passed in a simplified form, stripped of redundancies, to
an execution engine 110 which parses the data structure and then
executes the database retrieval actions for and also causes the
necessary reports to be generated, and formatted for printing and
display. Note that report definition is inherent in the search query
formulation process.
Kolton (col. 5,11. 31—35) discloses “The user is thus given the choice
of entering and revising the query either by writing and revising an ASCII
command string or by working through the series of overlaying window
queries and prompts.”
5
Appeal 2016-000110
Application 11/678,607
Thus, in at least some sense, Kolton describes claim l’s “prompting,
via the user interface, for further user input, wherein the further user input
specifies one or more modifications for the report” because Kolton’s
entering and then revising the query specifies and then modifies a report
definition. See Kolton col. 5,11. 16—17. However, even if we assume, but do
not decide, that a query is a script, and that Kolton’s query generation
describes claim 1 ’s “generating a script corresponding to the further user
input,” Kolton’s query is not, as required by claim 1, “configured to modify
the code of the predefined report specification.”
First, Kolton’s report is defined in the search query formulation
process and is not a predefined report specification selected by the user that
is modified by the query. See Kolton col. 5,11. 16—17. And second,
Kolton’s query is executed to cause database retrieval actions and report
generation; that is, Kolton’s query itself is not configured to modify code, let
alone to modify code of a (predefined) report specification. See Kolton col.
5,11. 9-16. And, we do not readily see any articulation by the Examiner of
how, or why, Kolton’s query would or even could be configured to modify
code of a (predefined) report specification.
The Examiner’s further explanation in the Examiner’ Answer does not
change our result. The Examiner explains:
The Examiner notes, see Appellant’s disclosure, paragraph
[0008] of the Background of the Invention, that it is well known
in the art that in any managed reporting environment there is a
report server, a computer running a program providing a user
interface, receiving input from the user, requesting a specified
predefined repor[t\, ... generating a report, and sending the
report to the user interface. Consistent with the Appellant's
disclosure with respect to a computer running a program,
Kolton, see column 5, lines 2-4, which discloses the user
6
Appeal 2016-000110
Application 11/678,607
interacts directly with the windows interface to create and later
modify the query, thereby illustrating that the query script (e.g.
program/code) may be modified by the user. See also Kolton,
column 5, lines 31-35, discloses the user is given the choice of
entering or revising the query by either writing and revising an
ASCII command string or by working through a series of
overlaying window queries and prompts. The Examiner
interprets the series of overlaying window queries and prompts
as a user generating a script and the choice of revising as a
further user input, since the query and the reports were
previously generated as described in column 5, lines 1-16.
Ans. 6.
The Examiner emphasizes that Kolton’s query (purported script) may
be modified by the user. But as we explained above, the fact that the user in
Kolton may modify the query is not sufficient to teach the key disputed
claim limitations because Kolton’s query itself is not configured to modify
code, let alone to modify code of a (predefined) report specification. See
Kolton col. 5,11. 9—16.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or
of claims 3—10, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claim 11 recites the same key disputed limitations. We,
therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 11,
or of claims 13—21, which depend from claim 11.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3—11, and 13—21 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7