Ex Parte Attili et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 10, 2015

11385585 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 10, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111385,585 03/21/2006 Srinivas Attili
30449 7590 12/14/2015
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
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.
END920050151US1 3215
EXAMINER
SHMATOV, ALEXEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2015 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):
30449@IPLA WUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte SRINIVAS ATTILI, AJAY A. DIVEKAR,
SRINIV AS JUJJURU, and PRADEEP MIGLANI
Appeal2014-000903
Application 11/385,585
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-000903
Application 11/385,585
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to dynamic data collection.
Abstract. Claim 1 reproduced below with emphasis, labeling, and
formatting added to the disputed limitations, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for dynamically generating a web-based data
collection tool, the method comprising:
generating a web-based framework of data dimensions,
wherein the web-based framework includes settable data
dimensions settable to specific points of data dimension
intersection, which points of data dimension intersection are
selected by an end-user, and
(LI) wherein the settable data dimensions are descriptors
for data that is to be collected from the end-user and a data
dimension intersection is a combination of multiple data
dimensions, (L2) where the multiple data dimensions include a
car make, an engine type, a color, an area, and a period;
(L3) transmitting the web-based framework to the end-
user, (L4) wherein the end-user inputs data into the web-based
framework to create a user-defined data collection tool, and the
end-user selects user-selected data dimensions from a plurality
of data dimensions that are offered through the web-based
framework and configures the data collection tool to operate as
a specific type of data collection tool providing data specific to
the user-selected data dimensions, wherein selection of different
points of intersection yields different types of data collection
tools and different data; and
receiving the user-defined data collection tool populated
with the data input by the end user at the points of data
dimension intersection selected by the end-user.
2
Appeal2014-000903
Application 11/385,585
REFERENCES AND REJECTION
Claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barg (US 6,707,454 Bl;
issued Mar. 16, 2004) and Borghesi (US 5,950,169; issued Sept. 7, 1999).
Final Act. 2-12.
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Barg and Borghesi teach or
suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, as well as commensurate
limitations of claims 6 and 11?
Appellants reproduce the cited portions of Barg and argue limitations
LI, L3, and L4 of claims 1, 6, and 11 are not taught because, although "a
user of the Barg tool can change which data set from a multi-dimensional
data structure is displayed, the Barg tool does not collect data (that is set by
an end-user) from the end-user." Br. 8. Appellants also argue "Borghesi
does not disclose vehicle information that includes an area (e.g., America,
Europe, Asia) and a period (e.g., 2001, 2002, spring, summer, fall)," and
therefore, does not teach limitation L2 of claims 1, 6, and 11. Id. at 9.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 do not specify how the data is inputted by or
collected from the end-user, nor do Appellants provide a claim interpretation
for "data", e.g., "data that is to be collected" or "data input by the end-user",
that would exclude the teachings of Barg with respect to data collection.
Ans. 4--5. Based on the broadest interpretation of the claim term, any "type"
of data, and any involvement by the end-user in (i.) setting data dimensions
for data that is to be collected and in (ii.) inputting data, meets limitations
LI, L3, and L4 of claims 1, 6, and 11. As such, we are not persuaded by
3
Appeal2014-000903
Application 11/385,585
Appellants' arguments and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own, which
we highlight infra.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Barg teaches a user that (i.) sets
data dimensions for data that is to be collected by, for example, by adding
various dimensional views; and (ii.) inputs data with respect to these
dimensional views by, for example, changing or selecting a particular
measure field to weight the display of dimensional views and inputting a
color mapping between color values and a range of data values for the user-
selected dimensional view. See, e.g., Final Act. 3 citing Barg, col. 7, 11. 1-
16; see also Ans. 4--5 citing Barg, col. 23, 11. 41-51; col. 15, 11. 25-33; col.
24, 11. 16-24. We further agree Barg teaches limitationL3. Final Act. 2-3
citing Barg, col. 29, 11. 26-38 (describing how the input multi-dimensional
data structure is obtained by a computer over a network connection). In
view of the above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Barg
teaches limitations LI, L3, and L4.
With regard to limitation L2, the argument Borghesi does not teach
the claimed "period" or "area" is unpersuasive because Borghesi teaches
"[g]eneral descriptive information may be entered by the user such as
vehicle identification number, year, ... etc." in the cited portion in column
9, and Barg depicts a state in the cited portion in Fig. 2. See Final Act. 4
citing Borghesi, col. 9, 11. 57----67; see also Ans. 6 citing Barg, Fig. 2.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Barg and Borghesi teaches or suggests
limitations LI, L2, L3, and L4 as recited in claims 1, 6, and 11. Therefore,
we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 6, and 11, as well as
4
Appeal2014-000903
Application 11/385,585
claims 2--4, 7-9, 12-14, 16, and 17, which depend therefrom and are not
separately argued.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6-9, 11-14, 16, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barg and Borghesi 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
ACP
5