Ex Parte Yan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2018

14014062 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/014,062 08/29/2013
58735 7590 12/03/2018
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sui Yan
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.
000005-036600US 4887
EXAMINER
HOANG,SONT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/03/2018 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUI YAN, XIAOJUN FENG and HARISH TY AGI 1
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18, constituting all claims currently
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as SAP SE. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "the analysis of business
information, and in particular to automatic updates and alterations to the
representation of the visual analytic data when a user requests a change to
the type or number of dimensions shown." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below with the disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, in a computer system, user input indicating a
change in a dimension of a previously generated visual
analytic, wherein the previously generated visual analytic
comprises a first visualization of analytic data categorized
based on a first set of dimensions resulting from execution of a
report definition on a business object, wherein the report
definition comprises a first plurality of analytical operations;
referencing a pattern library storing a plurality of visual
analytic patterns and one or more mappings between sets of
dimensions and corresponding visual analytic patterns to
determine an alternative visual analytic pattern for presenting
modified analytic data corresponding to the change in the
dimension, wherein the alternative visual analytic pattern
defines a second visualization of the modified analytic data and
is of a different type than the visual analytic pattern;
modifying, in the computer system, the report definition
based on the alternative visual analytic pattern to generate a
modified report definition, wherein the modified report
definition comprises a second plurality of analytical operations;
executing, in the computer system, the modified report
definition on the business object to generate the modified
analytic data; and
generating, in the computer system, an alternative visual
analytic based on the alternative visual analytic pattern, the
alternative visual analytic comprising the second visualization
2
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
of the modified analytic data categorized based on a second set
of dimensions.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 6-10, 13-16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Robertson et al. (US
2008/0192056 Al; published Aug. 14, 2008) ("Robertson"), Tibrewal et al.
(US 2015/0067556 Al; published Mar. 5, 2015) ("Tibrewal"), and Davis
(US 7,421,648 Bl; issued Sept. 2, 2008). Final Act. 3.
Claims 5, 11, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the combination of Robertson, Tibrewal, Davis, and
Dorrell (US 2013/0111321 Al; published May 2, 2013). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Robertson, Tibrewal, and Davis teaches or suggests "receiving, in a
computer system, user input indicating a change in a dimension of a
previously generated visual analytic," as recited in independent claim 1 and
commensurately recited in independent claims 7 and 13?
Appellants contend Robertson's "dimension" refers to "physical
properties of graphical elements of a chart ( e.g., the height of a bar in a bar
chart)" and does not teach the claimed "dimension," which is a
"categorization by which data can be analyzed." App. Br. 11-12 (citing
Spec. ,r 29). Appellants also argue Robertson's modification of a chart
element or data element of a chart teaches "[ c ]hanging the values of data
element, adding data elements, and deleting data elements of a chart," which
"involve[ s] modifications [to] the data elements of the chart," while the
3
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
claim requires "changing the categorization of the underlying data of a
visual analytic," which "does not involve any modification to the underlying
data." Reply Br. 2; see Reply Br. 2--4 (citing Spec. ,r,r 34--35, Fig. 4,
Robertson ,r 55).
The Examiner finds Robertson's user input modifying a chart element
(i.e., the height or width of a bar chart) or a data element (i.e., data changes
made to related bars in the bar chart) teaches user input changing dimensions
of a visual analytic. Final Act. 3 ( citing Robertson ,r,r 41, 43); Ans. 3 ( citing
Robertson ,r,r 41, 43). According to the Examiner, Robertson's modification
of chart and data elements results in transforming a first chart of a first type
into a second chart of a second chart type. Ans. 3 ( citing Robertson ,r,r 41,
43); see Ans. 4 ( citing Robertson ,r,r 49--50, 55).
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments.
Appellants' Specification describes a "dimension" as a "categorization by
which the underlying data can be analyzed," and provides examples
including "dimensions of a monthly revenue chart for a particular year
would be monthly revenue and the months of the year (i.e., two
dimensions)" and an additional "dimension of employee ( e.g., sales people)
can be added to the monthly revenue chart to show the each employees'
monthly revenue (i.e., three dimensions)." Spec. ,r 29. However,
Appellants' Specification describes a "dimension" broadly, with only
examples to include categories such as revenue, time, and employees, but
without further limiting definitions. The claimed "user input indicating a
change in a dimension of a previously generated visual analytic," in light of
Appellants' Specification, does not preclude changes to data elements that
affect categorization of the analyzed data. As cited by the Examiner (Ans.
4
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
4), Robertson describes "whenever a change to data elements of the chart
data 210 occurs (by any mechanism described herein), the chart construction
module 200 immediately determines new chart parameters corresponding to
the modified data elements, and passes those chart parameters to the chart
animation rendering module 220." Robertson ,r 55 (emphasis added). In
other words, Robertson teaches changing chart parameters in response to
changing data elements of the chart data. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed user input indicating a
change in a dimension of the visual analytic, not precluding changes to data
elements that affect categorization of the analyzed data, is not taught or
otherwise suggested by Robertson's changes to data elements of the chart
data that affect chart parameters.
Appellants' Specification further describes "the dimensions can be
altered (e.g., a change in granularity) while maintaining the same number of
dimensions," providing the example that "the data can be analyzed and
visualized by week or year, and instead of revenue by employee, the revenue
can be analyzed by regional groups of employees (e.g., market regions)."
Spec. ,r 29. Therefore, the claimed "user input indicating a change in a
dimension of a previously generated visual analytic," in light of Appellants'
Specification, includes changing granularity (i.e., by week or by year). As
cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 3; Ans. 3), Robertson describes
"dynamically morph[ing] an original chart into a new chart to reflect
changes either to the underlying data values defining elements of the
original chart or to graphical elements of the original chart via user
interaction with those elements via a graphical user interface." Robertson
,r 41 ( emphasis added). In other words, Robertson teaches reflecting
5
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
changes to graphical or chart elements. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument that the claimed user input indicating a
change in a dimension of the visual analytic, encompassing changes in
granularity of the dimensions, is not taught or otherwise suggested by
Robertson's changes to chart or graphical elements of the original chart
through user interaction.
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of
Robertson, Tibrewal, and Davis teaches or suggests "first visualization of
analytic data categorized based on a first set of dimensions" and "second
visualization of the modified analytic data categorized based on a second set
of dimensions," as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately
recited in independent claims 7 and 13?
Appellants contend Davis "fails to mention anything related to the
concept of dimensions or using dimensions to categorizing [sic] data
elements of a chart." Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue Davis's
charting different series types on a single chart does not teach categorizing
data based on a set of dimensions. App. Br. 12. According to Appellants,
Davis's "[ e ]nsuring that data values are in common units is not the same as
categorizing data." Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Davis's data series on the chart synchronized for
a common graph, and different series of data appearing together on a chart,
and adding series to the chart, teaches two visualization analytics that are
categorized based on sets of dimensions. Final Act. 6-7 ( citing Davis col.
38, 11. 6-40); see Ans. 5.
6
Appeal 2018-004376
Application 14/014,062
We are not persuaded of Examiner error by Appellants' arguments.
As cited by the Examiner (Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 5), Davis describes "the data
viewer 100 adds the new series to the chart with a single mouse click" and
the "existing data is maintained as it was, and any necessary changes to the
chart's type, format, scale, etc. is made automatically by the chart manager
714 and chart view 716 to accommodate the new series." Davis col. 38, 11.
35--40 (emphases added). In other words, Davis teaches presenting two data
series and adjusting the chart's format and scale to accommodate both data
senes.
Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that
the claimed "first visualization of analytic data categorized based on a first
set of dimensions" and "second visualization of the modified analytic data
categorized based on a second set of dimensions" precludes maintaining
multiple data series and accommodating for each data series' chart format
and scale.
For at least the above reasons we sustain the Examiner's§ 103
rejection of independent claims 1, 7, and 13. For the same reasons, we
sustain the Examiner's§ 103 rejections of claims 2---6, 8-12, and 14--18, not
argued separately.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-18 is affirmed.
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
7