Ex Parte Bhatt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 10, 2013

10648108 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 10, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANKUR BHATT and RAGHUNANDAN SARANGARAJAN
____________________

Appeal 2011-007864
Application 10/648,108
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MEREDITH C. PETRAVICK, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-007864
Application 10/648,108

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-4, 9-13, 15-22, 27-31, and 33-37. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to software applications for designing
business content for reporting tools in electronic computing environments
(Spec. 1, ll. 8-10).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method of providing object-
based content to be reported in an external computer-
implemented general reporting application, the method
comprising:
providing an electronic storage repository of business
database objects from which object instances are able to be
generated, which business database objects each have one or
more attributes for which applicable data are able to be
provided for a generated object instance;
receiving, in a data processing system comprising at least
one computer, a user selection of one of the business database
objects, wherein generated instances of the selected object have
data for attributes of the object;

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Oct. 7, 2010) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 31,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 31, 2011).
Appeal 2011-007864
Application 10/648,108

3
displaying on a display device a view that includes: i) the
selected business database object in a first portion of the view,
ii) at least some of the attributes associated with the selected
business database object in a second portion of the view, iii) a
plurality of business objects each having associated attributes,
wherein each of the business objects has a defined relationship
to the selected business database object in a third portion of the
view, and iv) at least some of the attributes for the plurality of
related business objects in a fourth portion of the view;
receiving in the data processing system a user selection
of at least one of the displayed one or more attributes associated
with the selected business database object, and a user selection
of at least one of the displayed attributes for the plurality of
related business objects, and adding the selected attributes to an
electronic business content structure of selected attributes;
defining a report layout using the electronic business
content structure and the selected attributes, wherein the report
layout defines the structure of one or more reports;
executing a query of records in an electronic database
and retrieving, for each of the records that meet the query,
attribute data for each of the attributes in the electronic business
content structure;
generating, in the data processing system and before
reporting run-time, an output electronic file that the external
computer-implemented reporting application can use to
generate a report, the report to include the electronic business
content structure and the attribute data associated therewith, and
to be structured according to the report layout;
determining, at the reporting run-time, one of a plurality
of external computer-implemented reporting applications for
use in generating the report; and
launching the determined reporting application using the
output electronic file and generating the report in the
determined reporting application according to the previously
defined report layout.

Appeal 2011-007864
Application 10/648,108

4
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1, 3, 4, 9-12, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 27-30, and 33-37 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thompson
(US 6,668,253 B1, iss. Dec. 23, 2003) in view of Kesler (US 7,062,502 B1,
iss. Jun. 13, 2006).
Claims 2 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thompson in view of Kesler and further in view of SAMS
Teach Yourself Microsoft Access 2000, Hour 14: Creating a Database
Using Wizards, 202-12 (May 1999) (hereinafter referred to as “Access”).
Claims 13 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thompson in view of Kesler and further in view of Bata
(US 6,901,403 B1, iss. May 31, 2005).
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thompson.

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 3, 4, 9-12, and 15-17
We are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) by Appellants’ argument that neither Thompson nor
Kesler discloses or suggests “generating, in the data processing system and
before reporting run-time, an output electronic file that the external
computer-implemented reporting application can use to generate a report,”
as recited in the claim (App. Br. 9-10 and Reply Br. 2-3).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper, and cites Figures
12-14 of Thompson as disclosing this feature (Ans. 8 and 19-20). However,
Appeal 2011-007864
Application 10/648,108

5
we agree with Appellants that Figures 12-14 illustrate a process of extracting
data for storage in a data warehouse, wherein information stored in separate
locations is extracted and stored in a centralized database. Thompson does
not disclose or suggest that extracting or storing the information involves
“generating . . . an output electronic file that the external computer-
implemented reporting application can use to generate a report,” as recited in
claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11 and Reply Br. 4).
The Examiner asserts that the claim language “‘an output electronic
file that the external computer-implemented reporting application can use to
generate a report . . .’ makes the use of the file to generate the report
optional, and therefore, little patentable weight should be allocated to this
limitation” (Ans. 20). Yet claim 1 expressly recites that the output
electronic file is used to generate the report, i.e., “launching the determined
reporting application using the output electronic file and generating the
report in the determined reporting application according to the previously
defined report layout.”
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 9-12, and 15-17, which depend from
claim 1.
Independent claims 18 and 19 and dependent claims 21, 22, 27-30, and
33-37

Independent claims 18 and 19 include language substantially similar
to claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above
Appeal 2011-007864
Application 10/648,108

6
with respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 21, 22, 27-30, and 33-37, each of which ultimately depends from
claim 19.
Dependent claims 2, 13, 20, and 31

Each of claims 2, 13, 20, and 31 ultimately depends from one of
claims 1 and 19. The Examiner has not established on this record that the
secondary references relied on rejecting these dependent claims cure the
deficiencies of Thompson as set forth above. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 13, 20, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-4, 9-13, 15-22, 27-31, and 33-
37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

hh