EMC IP Holding Company LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 2, 2021

2020001850 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 2, 2021)

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.
15/071,009 03/15/2016 Kai Chen EMC-13-0751-US-2 6345
24227 7590 11/02/2021
IP - Patent Department
EMC IP HOLDING COMPANY LLC/DELL PRODUCTS L.P.
176 SOUTH STREET
HOPKINTON, MA 01748
EXAMINER
SPRATT, BEAU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2021 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):
Kevin_Henry2@Dell.com
deanna.santos@emc.com
jeannie.wu@emc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAI CHEN, PING CHEN,
MICHAEL JOHN DUTCH, BO CHEN,
CHRISTOPHER HERCULES CLAUDATOS, and
FENG SHAO

Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009
Technology Center 2100
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–21. See Final
Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as EMC IP
Holding Company LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

2
We AFFIRM IN PART.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to guidance associated with active input and
providing a context sensitive rule in real time via a user interface, wherein
the context-sensitive rule is associated with content and the guidance
includes content assistance. Spec. ¶ 48. The context-sensitive rule is
associated with content, wherein a user interface is associated with selecting
elements in a database. Spec. ¶ 44. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, via a user interface, a user-defined, structured
input which: (1) identifies a column, having a format, which
may or may not already exist in a database and (2) includes an
active input having a format and associated with the column;
using a processor to determine one or more context-
sensitive rules including a format-related, context-sensitive rule
which applies to the active input, including by:
determining, based at least in part on context, whether
to enforce a context-sensitive rule associated with ensuring
that the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the
database;
in the event it is determined to enforce the context-
sensitive rule associated with ensuring that the user-defined,
structured input causes a hit in the database, communicating
with the database in order to check whether the user-defined,
structured input causes a hit in the database;
in response to receiving the user-defined, structured
input, communicating with the database in order to obtain
the format of the column in the database; and
determining an expected format for the active input
based at least in part on the format of the column in the
database; and
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

3
providing, in real time via the user interface, guidance
associated with satisfying the one or more context-sensitive
rules, including by:
in the event it is determined to enforce the context-
sensitive rule associated with ensuring that the user-defined,
structured input causes a hit in the database, displaying, in
real time in the user interface, an indication associated with
whether the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the
database; and
performing one or more of the following:
displaying, in real time in the user interface, format
assistance associated with the format-related, context-
sensitive rule, including by performing one or more of the
following: (1) identifying the expected format or (2)
automatically configuring the user interface so that the
active input has a format which matches the expected
format, including by: for a not-yet-input value, (a)
automatically inserting a beginning character and an ending
character into the active input so that the not-yet-input value
will have the expected format and (b) placing a cursor
between the beginning character and the ending character
for the not-yet-input value to be input; or
displaying, in real time in the user interface, format
validation associated with the format-related, context-
sensitive rule, including by indicating whether the format of
the active input matches the expected format.

Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

4
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Delo US 6,389,414 B1 May 14, 2002
Larcheveque US 2004/0189708 A1 Sept. 30, 2004
Batthish US 2006/0059429 A1 Mar. 16, 2006
Ait-Mokhtar US 2011/0271173 A1 Nov. 3, 2011
Markovich US 2013/0226953 A1 Aug. 29, 2013
Prakash US 2015/0026145 A1 Jan. 22, 2015

REJECTIONS

Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 5, 9 103 Larcheveque, Markovich
2, 6, 10, 19–21 103 Larcheveque, Markovich,
Ait-Mokhtar
3, 7, 11 103 Larcheveque, Markovich,
Batthish
13–15 103 Larcheveque, Markovich,
Prakash
16–18 103 Larcheveque, Markovich,
Delo

OPINION
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Action
and the Answer to the extent consistent with our opinion. We add the
following primarily for emphasis.
Claims 1, 5, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Larcheveque and Markovich

a. Does the combination of Larcheveque and Markovich teach or
suggest the limitation of “communicating with the database in order
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

5
to check whether the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the
database” recited in claims 1, 5, and 9?

Appellant argues that Markovich does not teach or suggest the
limitation of “communicating with the database in order to check whether
the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the database.” Appeal Br.
33. According to Appellant, in Figures 3–8B, Markovich shows the one or
more templates (e.g., in cascaded drop down menu 320) that are selected and
displayed in response to the partial queries in search field 300. Appeal Br.
34. Appellant explains that in all of the examples shown in Figures 3–8B,
the cascaded drop down menu 320 is never empty and Markovich does not
describe the case where there is no hit. Id. Appellant argues that selecting
and displaying one or more things (i.e., something is always selected) is not
the same thing as displaying an indication associated with whether an input
causes a hit in a database (i.e., in the form of an error message or a red
highlight). Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. During prosecution,
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation while reading
claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one
of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Although claims are interpreted in light of the
specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims.
In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 only requires “communicating with the database in order to
check whether the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the database”
and not “in the form of an error message or a red highlight” as argued by
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

6
Appellant. See Appeal Br. 34. The “error message” or “the red highlight”
are not read into the claims. See Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Markovich ensures input gets
results (i.e., hit a database) by selecting a template from a database based on
user input (i.e., communicate with database), which provides search
assistance (i.e., for example airport codes in your search are known to
provide efficient results). Ans. 31–32 (citing Markovich ¶ 43 stating
“efficiently search for airport flight information”). The Examiner further
finds, and we agree, that Larcheveque teaches comparing input with a
database, which involves communicating with a database. Ans. 32 (citing ¶
32). “[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that the combination of Larcheveque and Markovich
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of “in the event it is determined to
enforce the context-sensitive rule associated with ensuring that the user-
defined, structured input causes a hit in the database, communicating with
the database in order to check whether the user-defined, structured input
causes a hit in the database,” as recited in claims 1, 5, and 9.

b. Does the combination of Larcheveque and Markovich teach or
suggest the limitation of “displaying, in real time in the user interface,
an indication associated with whether the user-defined, structured
input causes a hit in the database” recited in claims 1, 5, and 9?

Appellant argues that Markovich does not describe the claim
limitation of “displaying, in real time in the user interface, an indication
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

7
associated with whether the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the
database.” Appeal Br. 33. Appellant argues that Markovich’s teaching of
selecting and displaying one or more things (i.e., something is always
selected) is not the same thing as displaying an indication associated with
whether an input causes a hit in a database (i.e., in the form of an error
message or a red highlight). Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Markovich teaches displaying, as the user types,
templates that are more useful or efficient for searching. Ans. 32–33 (citing
Markovich paras. 65, 90, and Fig. 3). The Examiner finds, and we agree,
that a user seeing suggestions beside a search field while his/her input is
being entered would provide an indication that results will be provided and
they would not get a no results found interface by misspelling terms. Ans.
33. The Examiner relies on Larcheveque for teaching real time validation
that includes error messages. Ans. 33 (citing Larcheveque ¶ 83). In
particular. we agree that in the case of error entries by the user, Larcheveque
teaches or suggests “[t]he invalid number dialog box 802 informs the user
through an invalid number information line 806 that the data entered is not
valid.” Larcheveque ¶ 83. Accordingly, when the user enters a misspelled
term, an error message would be displayed, as taught by Larcheveque, and
once the user corrects the misspelling then suggestion hits will be shown, as
taught by Markovich. See Ans. 33.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Larcheveque and Markovich teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of
“displaying, in real time in the user interface, an indication associated with
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

8
whether the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the database” as
recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5 and 9.

Claims 19–21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Larcheveque, Markovich, and Ait-Mokhtar

Appellant argues that Ait-Mokhtar does not teach the limitation of
“deciding not to enforce the context-sensitive rule associated with ensuring
that the user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the database in response
to the user interface being associated with adding one or more new columns
to the database” as recited in claims 19–21. See Appeal Br. 35. Appellant
argues inter alia that the Examiner’s finding that Ait-Mokhtar teaches an
encoding system that “may use an algorithm to generate form filling rules
based on answers to questions posed to an operator who answers based on
reading the text of the sample form” and “a service provider may provide a
service for scanning paper forms and entering data in the fields based on a
supplied user datafile and optionally uploading the entered data to the
organization's database” does not describe deciding to enforce the rule in
response to a user interface associated with adding one or more new
columns to a database. Appeal Br. 36 (citing ¶ 50 of Ait-Mokhtar).
Appellant explains that for example, the “uploading [of] the entered data to
the organization's database” of Ait-Mokhtar is not described as triggering or
causing a decision to not enforce some rule. Id.
We agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with Appellant that
Ait-Mokhtar does not teach or suggest deciding to enforce the rule in
response to a user interface associated with adding one or more new
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

9
columns to a database, but rather uploading of entered data is a separate
embodiment not tied to deciding to enforce a rule. See Ait-Mokhtar ¶ 50.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 19–21.

Claims 16–18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Larcheveque, Markovich and Delo

Appellant argues that Delo does not teach the disputed limitation of
determining whether to enforce the context-sensitive rule
associated with ensuring that the user-defined, structured input
causes a hit in the database includes: deciding to enforce the
context-sensitive rule associated with ensuring that the
user-defined, structured input causes a hit in the database in
response to the user interface being associated with specifying
symptom data for a bug associated with an existing element in
the database

as recited in claims 16–18. In particular, Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s reliance on Delo’s description (270) is merely a textual
description of the check or validation being performed, for example to
explain to a user why a particular column failed validation. Appeal Br. 38
(citing Delo col. 8, ll. 5–14). According to Appellant, a description of a
validation and/or why a particular column (value) failed to validate (270) is
not the same thing as deciding (i.e., in the affirmative) to perform that
validation (i.e., enforce a rule associated with ensuring that an input causes a
hit in a database). Appeal Br. 38.
Appellant further argues that Delo’s description (270) does not tie any
such decision to enforce a rule or perform a validation with a user interface
being associated with specifying symptom data for a bug associated with an
existing element in the database. Id. Appellant explains that for example,
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

10
Figure 2A of Delo shows an application (240), validation module (225),
database, API (230), database engine (220), and a database (200) but does
not specifically describe bug reporting and/or the specification of symptom
data. Id.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. “[O]ne cannot show
non-obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” Keller, 642 F.2d at
426. The Examiner finds that Larcheveque teaches an interface with
instructions that detect invalid numbers or errors and providing information
on how to fix (or remedy) the error. Id. (citing Larcheveque paras. 82–83
and Figs. 7–8). The Examiner further finds that Larcheveque teaches
existing zip-code data that may be checked with a database. Ans. 34 (citing
Larcheveque ¶ 132). The Examiner also finds that Delo teaches validation
with a database already having valid and invalid data further including a
description of why data is invalid or an error message. Ans. 34 (citing Delo
col. 7–8, ll. 63–14). We agree with the Examiner that Delo teaches error
messages that explain failure (i.e., symptom) with database. Final Act. 24–
25 (citing col. 8, ll. 5–14 stating “error message explaining why a particular
column value failed to validate”). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the
combined teachings of Larcheveque, Markovich, and Delo teach or suggest
the disputed limitation. Ans. 34–35.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16–18.

Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13–15
Appellant does not separately argue claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 13–
15 and relies on the same arguments addressed above with respect to claims
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

11
1, 5, and 9. See Appeal Br. 34–37. Accordingly, we also affirm claims 2, 3,
6, 7, 10, 11, and 13–15 for the same reasons articulated supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–3, 5–7, 9–11, and 13–18 under
§ 103 are AFFIRMED.
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 19–21 under § 103 are
REVERSED.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 9 103 Larcheveque,
Markovich
1, 5, 9
2, 6, 10, 19–
21
103 Larcheveque,
Markovich,
Ait-Mokhtar
2, 6, 10 19–21
3, 7, 11 103 Larcheveque,
Markovich, Batthish
3, 7, 11
13–15 103 Larcheveque,
Markovich, Prakash
13–15
16–18 103 Larcheveque,
Markovich, Delo
16–18
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–7, 9–
11, 13–18
19–21

RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-001850
Application 15/071,009

12
AFFIRMED IN PART