Emmanuel Zarpas

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 20, 2021

2020001793 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 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.
14/028,740 09/17/2013 Emmanuel Zarpas 22135-0581001/130046US01 6440
32864 7590 07/20/2021
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, JASON T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2144
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2021 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMMANUEL ZARPAS

Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
Technology Center 2100

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–19, which constitute all of the claims
pending. Appeal Br. 6 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed Sept. 17, 2013 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action, mailed Dec. 10, 2018 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed July 31,
2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Nov. 22, 2019 (“Ans.”),
and Reply Brief, filed Jan. 7, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE.
Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to a
method and system for automatically displaying in a graphical user interface
(GUI) an updated visualization table graphically representing data objects
underlying data in a fact table including a calculated measure derived from
existing measures and dimensions of data objects retrieved at various
intervals from a remote database. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 21, 28. Figure 3C, reproduced
below, is useful for understanding the claimed subject matter:

Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
3

Figure 3C illustrates the visualization of fact table (250) including columns
(300, 302, 304, 330) depicting measures such as sales revenues (302) and
quantity sold (304) sorted by dimension lines (300) (alternatively sorted by
city (300) as in Fig. 3D) selected by a user to subsequently display
calculated measure (330) defining the ratio of sales revenue (302) and
quantity sold (304). Id. ¶¶ 43–46.

Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for providing a
calculated measure from one or more existing measures of a
data object, the method being executed using one or more
processors and comprising:
receiving, by the one or more processors, data associated
with the data object, the data being associated to operations of
an enterprise;
displaying, by the one or more processors, a data
visualization based on the data, the data visualization being
displayed within a graphical user interface (GUI) and
comprising a fact table that comprises a first plurality of
columns, at least one column of the first plurality of columns
being associated with at least one existing measure of the data
object that defines a quantitative data configured to be
manipulated according to a logic to assist the operations of the
enterprise and at least another column of the first plurality of
columns being associated with at least one dimension of the
data object that defines a category of the data, the at least one
dimension of the data object comprising a plurality of sub-
dimensions;
receiving, by the one or more processors, a user input
comprising a formula defining a derivation of the calculated
measure, the formula indicating a relationship between the at
least one existing measure of the data object, the at least one
dimension of the data object, and an aggregation schema, the
formula defining the logic that assists the operations of the
enterprise and the aggregation schema enabling automatic
retrieval of data at particular intervals from measure tables
stored in a remote database, the measure tables corresponding
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
4
to the at least one existing measure of the data object and
dimension tables corresponding to the at least one dimension of
the data object; and
displaying, by the one or more processors, a modified
data visualization comprising a modified fact table that
comprises a second plurality of columns that comprises the first
plurality of columns and at least one column that is associated
with the calculated measure, the modified data visualization
being automatically updated based on a selected dimension of
the dimension tables.
Appeal Br. 21–22 (Claims App.).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references.3
Name Reference Date
Yeung US 2013/0124241 A1 May 16, 2013
Pandey US 8,479,092 B1 July 2, 2013
Schneider US 2014/0095518 A1 Apr. 3, 2014
Yang US 2014/037457 A1 Dec. 18, 2014

IV. REJECTION4
The Examiner rejects claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatenable over the combined teachings of Pandey, Yang, Schneider, and
Yeung. Final Act. 4–38.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
4 The Examiner withdrew the indefiniteness rejection previously entered
against claims 1, 10, and 15. Ans. 3.
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
5
V. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 20–27, and the Reply Brief, pages 22–29.5 We are
unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions. Except as otherwise indicated
herein below, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
Final Action, and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 2–38; Ans. 3–10. However, we highlight and address
specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows.
Appellant argues thatthe Examiner erred in concluding that the
combination of Pandey, Yang, Schneider, and Yeung teaches or suggests all
the limitations as recited in independent claims 1, 10, and 15. Appeal Br. 16.
First, Appellant argues that Pandey’s disclosure of arranging in a table
content items with respect to one another does not teach or suggest a
modified data visualization automatically updated based on a selected
dimension of the dimension tables. Id. (citing Pandey 6:15–24). Second,
Appellant argues that Yang’s disclosure of performing statistics by applying
an algorithm to feature values for samples in multiple categories does not
teach or suggest a formula indicating a relationship between an existing
measure of the data object, one dimension thereof, and an aggregation
schema. Id. at 17 (citing Yang ¶¶ 33, 34). Third, Appellant argues that
Schneider’s disclosure of a query request result including a total revenue for
each country does not teach or suggest retrieving data particular intervals
from measure tables stored in an external database. Id. at 17, 18 (citing

5 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
6
Schneider ¶¶ 43, 44). Fourth, Appellant argues that Yeung’s disclosure of
generating cubes that aggregate data in the dimension tables and fact tables,
and generating formula tables and business applications enabling users to
query, manipulate and view data therein does not teach or suggest the
formula defining a derivation of a calculated measure to assist the operations
of an enterprise by automatically retrieving data from the external database
at particular intervals. Id. at 18–19 (citing Yeung ¶¶ 189, 190).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of reversible Examiner error
because they are tantamount to individual attacks against Pandey, Yang,
Schneider, and Yeung, as opposed to addressing the combined teachings
thereof, as relied upon by the Examiner in the obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 10, and 15. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking the
references or the embodiments thereof individually where the rejections are
based on the combined teachings of the references and/or embodiments. In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
The Examiner relies upon Pandey for its teaching of displaying a data
visualization of content items, and displaying a modified data visualization
of a subset thereof. Ans. 4 (citing Pandey 6:15–24, 49–67.) Further, the
Examiner relies upon Schneider for its teaching of generating a modified
data visualization including an extended table (4E) produced by adding two
columns or dimensions to base table (4A) aggregating revenues of a country
and customer dimensions based on external or remote tables stored in
memory. Id. at 4–5 (citing Schneider ¶¶ 44–46). Furthermore, the Examiner
relies upon Yeung for its teaching generating modified table reports based
on stored dimension tables. Id. at 5 (citing Yeung ¶¶ 3, 93). The Examiner
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
7
then concludes that the combination of Schneider and Yeung teaches
calculating extended column data from dimension tables (customer/country)
to form aggregated dimensions (customer/country revenues). Id.
Additionally, the Examiner relies upon Yang for its teaching of
receiving a user input including a formula modified by Schneider’s specific
aggregation technique. Id. at 6 (citing Yang ¶¶ 33, 34). Moreover, the
Examiner finds because Appellant’s Specification indicates that retrieving
data at particular intervals encompasses a range or interval of values
retrieved from the database tables, Schneider’s disclosure of retrieving data
for customers and countries to generate aggregate dimensions therefor
discloses automatically retrieving data at intervals separately in database
tables in memory. Id. at 7–8 (citing Spec. ¶ 28; Schneider ¶¶ 23, 44–46, 52).
Likewise, the Examiner finds that Schneider’s aggregation dimensions for
country and customer are derived based on a formula indicating a
relationship between existing revenue dimensions for country and customer
that are automatically retrieved from source tables, which are categorized as
separate dimensions by Yeung. Id. at 9–10 (Schneider ¶¶ 23, 24, 27, 28, 30,
41, 44; Yeung ¶¶ 8, 93).
We find the Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited teachings6
of Pandey, Yang, Schneider, and Yeung is no more than a simple

6 “The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425. “The obviousness analysis cannot be confined by [the]
formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or
by overemphasis on the importance of . . . the explicit content of issued
patents.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007).
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
8
arrangement of old elements with each performing the same function it had
been known to perform, yielding no more than what one would expect from
such an arrangement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, the ordinarily
skilled artisan, being “a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton,”
would have been able to fit the teachings of the cited references together like
pieces of a puzzle to predictably result in a modified visualization table
graphically representing data objects underlying data in a fact table
including a calculated measure defining an aggregated schema enabling
automatic retrieval of data from existing measures and dimensions of data
objects in a remote database. Id. at 420–21.
Appellant argues that the Examiner improperly construes retrieving
data at “particular intervals” from measure tables stored in a remote
database, consistent with the Specification. Reply Br. 2–4 (citing Spec.
¶ 28). According to Appellant, the ordinary and customary meaning of
“particular intervals” includes “a frequency defined by particular intervals,”
but it does not encompass a range or interval of values. Id. at 4. We are not
persuaded of Examiner error by Appellant’s argument because the cited
portion of the Specification does not provide a definition for “particular
intervals,” let alone confine it to “a frequency” or any notion of time. During
prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
when 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); see also In re Smith Int'l, Inc.,
871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that such interpretation is
one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his
invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with
Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
9
the specification’”). We find no evidence on this record that precludes the
limitation “at particular intervals” recited in claim 1from encompassing a
range or interval of values. However, even if the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “at particular intervals” were confined to a frequency of
data retrieval from the external database, we find that the ordinarily skilled
artisan would have been apprised of such fact at the time of the claimed
invention because it is well-known in the art to periodically retrieve data
from databases for purposes of producing and displaying reports. Because
Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s proffered combination
would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill
in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modification
would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. See
Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Consequently, we are satisfied that, on
this record, the Examiner has established by a preponderance of the evidence
that the combination of Pandey, Yang, Schneider, and Yeung teaches or
suggests the disputed claim limitations. Because we are not persuaded of
Examiner error, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 10, and 15
as unpatentable over the combination of Pandey, Yang, Schneider, and
Yeung.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–9, 11–14, and 16–19, because
Appellant does not present separate patentability arguments, or merely
reiterates substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for
the patentability of claims 1, 10, and 15 above, claims 2–9, 11–14, and 16–
19 fall therewith. See Appeal Br. 19; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2020-001793
Application 14/028,740
10
VI. CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–19.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103 Pandey, Yang, Schneider, Yeung 1–19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED