Ex Parte Amulu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 4, 2017

13680171 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 4, 2017)

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.
13/680,171 11/19/2012 James Michael AMULU 120027US01 9094
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
12/06/2017 EXAMINER
ALLEN, BRITTANY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2169
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/06/2017 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES MICHAEL AMULU
and
SUHAIL DAVID LALL
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
Technology Center 2100
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15, 16, and 18—20 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Vierich (US 2004/0139045 Al; Jul. 15,
2004), Bedell (US 6,801,910 Bl; Oct. 5, 2004), Barnes (US 6,993,533 Bl;
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
Jan. 31, 2006), and Bhatia (US 2011/035744 Al; Feb. 10, 2011). Final Act.
3-13.
Claims 3,10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Vierich, Bedell, Barnes, Bhatia, and Maze (US 2007/0255731 Al; Nov.
1,2007). Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Vierich, Bedell, Barnes, Bhatia, and Kaufman (US 2011/0191303 Al; Aug.
4, 2011). Final Act. 1^U15.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “generating dynamic drilldown
reports.” Spec. 11. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the
key disputed limitation emphasized:
1. A computer implemented method for generating a child drilled
report corresponding to a parent drilldown report, the method comprising:
rendering, at a user interface, a source in-memory database model
including a plurality of attributes;
receiving a selection of a drillable attribute from the plurality of
attributes included in the source in-memory database model;
at a drilldown property section corresponding to the selected drillable
attribute, rendering a plurality of in-memory database models;
at the drilldown property section, receiving a selection of an attribute
from one or more associated attributes included in a target in-memory
database model from the plurality of in-memory database models, wherein
the selected attribute defines drilldown operation type for the drillable
2
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
attribute as one of a synchronous drilldown operation and an asynchronous
drilldown operation;
based on the selection of the target in-memory database model,
defining a relationship between the selected drillable attribute and the
selected attribute from the one or more associated attributes included in the
target in-memory database model;
storing, in the source in-memory database model, the defined
relationship between the selected drillable attribute of the source in-memory
database model and the attribute from the one or more associated attributes
included in the target in-memory database model;
activating, by a processor of a computer, the source in-memory
database model that stores the relationship between the selected drillable
attribute and the selected attribute from the one or more associated attributes
included in the target in-memory database model, wherein the activated
source in-memory database model is stored in an in-memory database
attribute relationship table;
receiving, at the user interface, a drilldown request for the data value
included in the parent drilldown report, wherein the data value corresponds
to the selected drillable attribute of the source in-memory database model;
identifying, by the processor of the computer, the selected attribute
from the one or more associated attributes included in the target in-memory
database model corresponding to the selected drillable attribute of the source
in-memory database model, based on the in-memory database attribute
relationship table stored in an in-memory database;
based on the data value and the selected attribute from the one or
more associated attributes included in the target in-memory database model,
3
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
searching, by the processor of the computer, one or more database tables,
stored in the in-memory database, to retrieve one or more data values
corresponding to the selected attribute from the one or more associated
attributes; and
generating, by the processor of the computer, the child drilled report
including the retrieved one or more data values.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1,2,4-6, 8,9,11-13,15,16, and
18-20 over Vierich, Bedell, Barnes, and Bhatia
The Examiner finds Vierich, Bedell, Barnes, and Bhatia teach all
limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 3—9. In particular, the Examiner finds
Barnes teaches the disputed limitation. Final Act. 8 (citing Barnes col. 12,
11. 3—7; col. 13,11. 1—48; col. 14,11. 7—36; Fig. 7) (finding “query contains
arguments to specify drill down parameters ... report generated according to
parameters of Fig. 5 query.”).
Appellants contend Barnes does not teach the key disputed limitation
of claim 1. See App. Br. 11—12. In support of this contention, Appellants
present the following principal arguments:
4
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
i. “Barnes nowhere teaches or suggests! that the parameters
(‘selected attribute’ of claim 1) in the query field specifying a query of
Barnes ‘defines a drilldown operation type\ as recited in Claim 1.” App.
Br. 11; see also App. Br. 12—13 (discussing Barnes’s query (550, Fig. 5) and
result set including metadata (660, Fig. 6) for identifying and passing
parameters to a drill-down report).
ii. “fTlhe ‘selected attribute’ in claim 1 defines a ‘drilldown
operation type’ which is an ‘‘operation* (‘one of a synchronous drilldown
operation and an asynchronous drilldown operation'' of claim 1) ‘ for the
drillable attribute’ whereas the drill down parameters in line 564 (‘selected
attribute’ of claim 1) included in the query field 550 of Barnes ‘specify
arguments to pass to the drill down report.’ See Barnes, FIG. 5, Col. 13,
Lines 22-28).” App. Br. 12.
In response to Appellants’ contentions, the Examiner finds Barnes
discloses “the selected attribute” by teaching a selected chart element that
corresponds to metadata parsed to generate a request for a drilldown report.
See Ans. 2. Further the “fact that the data from the drilldown request is
retrieved defines a drilldown operation type; the operation being the retrieval
of data. The type must be either synchronous or asynchronous.” Ans. 3; see
also Barnes Fig. 3, elements 355, 360, 365.
We do not discern any error in the Examiner’s finding that Barnes
teaches the disputed limitation.
Regarding Appellants’ arguments (i) and (ii), these arguments do not
show any error in the Examiner’s findings and we agree Barnes teaches
(claim 1) “the selected attribute” (Barnes’s user selecting a chart element
(Barnes Fig. 3, element 355)) “defines drilldown operation type for the
5
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
drillable attribute” (Barnes drilldown operation is in accordance with
metadata corresponding to the selected chart element; thus, the metadata
defines the drilldown operation type (Barnes Fig. 3, element 360, 365)) “as
one of a synchronous drilldown operation and an asynchronous drilldown
operation” (Barnes’s report (Fig. 9) depicts a synchronous drilldown
operation). See Barnes col. 8,11. 21—24 (“FIG. 9 is a bitmap screenshot of a
drill-down report generated in accordance with the report parameters of FIG.
8, and in response to the selection of the 3D-bar or row corresponding with
‘Andrew Fuller’ in FIG. 7.”)
Further regarding the claim language “synchronous drilldown
operation,” Appellants’ Specification does not define “synchronous
drilldown operation.” Rather, Appellants’ Specification discloses:
A synchronous drilldown operation may provide the next level
of details for the data value of the drillable attribute. In the
above example, a synchronous drilldown operation may be
defined for the drillable attribute “customer sales” when the
user selects “customer sales for product A” and “customer sales
for product B” as the associated attributes for the drillable
attribute “customer sales”. The data values for the associated
attributes “customer sales for product A” and “customer sales
for product B” may provide the next level of detail for data
values corresponding to the drillable attribute “customer sales”.
Spec. 124. We conclude a broad but reasonable interpretation of
“synchronous drilldown operation” includes Barnes’s drilldown report
shown in Fig. 9 generated in response to the selection of an element from the
report shown in Fig. 7 because the drilldown report provides a next level of
details for the selected chart element. See Barnes col. 8,11. 21—24.
6
Appeal 2017-007784
Application 13/680,171
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4—6, 8, 9, 11—13, 15, 16, and
18—20, which are not separately argued with particularity. See App. Br. 13.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3,10, and 17 over Vierich,
Bedell, Barnes, Bhatia, and Maze
Appellants do not argue claims 3,10, and 17 with particularity. See
App. Br. 13.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3,10, and 17
for the reasons discussed above.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and 14 over Vierich, Bedell,
Barnes, Bhatia, and Kaufman
Appellants do not argue claims 7 and 14 with particularity. See App.
Br. 13-14.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 14 for
the reasons discussed above.
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20 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)(1).
AFFIRMED
7