Ex Parte Blattner

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 21, 2014

11221960 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DONALD E. BLATTNER
____________________

Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before STANLEY M. WEINBERG, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-24. Claims 5 and 14 are canceled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to automatic report generation. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
generating reports, comprising:
including a reference to a data translation map in a
project defined using a first application;
generating a data file that includes report data in a first
application format of the first application using the first
application, wherein the report data comprises data
corresponding to tasks for the project and scheduling of the
tasks;
mapping the report data into a spreadsheet format distinct
from the first application format, the spreadsheet format
comprising columns and rows, using the data translation map in
response to a request received at the first application to generate
mapped report data, the data translation map being a discrete
object that is separate from the report data and the mapped
report data and providing a mapping from the first application
format to the spreadsheet format, and the mapped report data
defining an entirety of the report data;
generating a set of predefined reports containing the
report data in the spreadsheet format based on dialog input for a
set of options for the reports from a user using a spreadsheet
application and using the mapped report data to determine the
data contained in each of a plurality of predefined reports of the
set of predefined reports without accessing the report data in the
first application format or the first application; and
Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

3
enabling the set of predefined reports to be viewed by all
team members of the project without access to the first
application.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rogers US 6,859,805 B1 Feb. 22, 2005
Curkendall US 2006/0187048 A1 Aug. 24, 2006 (priority at least as
early as Feb. 11, 2003)
Imholte US 7,113,933 B1 Sept. 26, 2006 (filed Nov. 7, 2002)

REJECTIONS1
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Curkendall. Ans. 4-6.
Claims 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 13, 16-18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Curkendall and Rogers. Ans. 6-
9.
Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Curkendall and Imholte. Ans. 9-11.

1 Appellant argues the rejection of claim 1 and asserts that the same
arguments are applicable to the rejection of independent claims 10, 19, and
22. Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2, 3, 6-9, 11-
13, 15-18, 20, 21, 23, and 24. Therefore, based on Appellant’s arguments,
we decide the appeal of claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-24 based on claim 1 alone.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

4
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
1. Curkendall fails to disclose a reference to a data translation map in a
project. App. Br. 9.
2. Curkendall’s data map/translate/normalizes layer within a stack of
layers fails to disclose that a data translation map is a discrete object.
App. Br. 9.
3. Curkendall’s AgInfoChutes, used to populate data into Microsoft
Excel in real-time, uses data in the first application to generate reports
in Excel and therefore fails to disclose generating reports without
accessing the report data in the first application format or the first
application as required by the disputed limitation of claim 1. App. Br.
10.

ISSUES ON APPEAL
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 8-11)
and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2-4), the issues presented on appeal are whether
the Examiner erred in finding Curkendall discloses the disputed limitations
of claim 1 of:
1. “including a reference to a data translation map in a project defined
using a first application . . . the data translation map being a discrete
object that is separate from the report data and the mapped report data
. . . ;” and
2. “generating a set of predefined reports . . . without accessing the
report data in the first application format of the first application or the
first application.”

Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

5
ANALYSIS
Having reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred, we disagree with Appellant’s
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Ans. 4-5) and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (Ans. 11-19) and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.
In connection with contention 1, Appellant argues “there is no
disclosure [in Curkendall] of a reference to a data translation map in a
project.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds Curkendall’s data
map/translate/normalize layer 659 which provides data mapping, data
translation, and normalization of data is used for translation in the
application and thereby discloses the disputed limitation of “including a
reference to a data translation map in a project defined using a first
application.” Ans. 4 (citing Curkendall ¶[0187]), see also id. at 12. Other
than contend the disputed limitation is not disclosed, Appellant provides
insufficient persuasive explanation or evidence in rebuttal to the Examiner’s
findings. Merely citing a claim limitation and asserting it is not present falls
short of identifying an error in the Examiner’s rejection as required on
appeal.2 Because we find the Examiner’s finding to be reasonable and in the

2 See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been
the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in
the examiner’s rejections.”) (citation omitted); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349,
1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[T]he Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”).
Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

6
absence of sufficiently persuasive rebuttal evidence, contention 1 is not
persuasive of Examiner error.
In connection with contention 2 Appellant argues “[t]he service layers
of Curkendall fail to disclose that a data translation map is a discrete object,
rather Curkendall discloses a data map/translate/normalize layer within a
stack of layers.” App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds Curkendall’s “report data is
done in layer 668, where the data translation map exists in separate layer
659.” Ans. 13 (citing Curkendall, Fig. 62B).
We agree with the Examiner that Curkendall discloses the disputed
limitation of the data translation map being a discrete object that is separate
from the report data and the mapped report data. Appellant’s Specification
provides no definition for a “discrete object.” Therefore, in determining the
ordinary and customary meaning of “discrete object” as viewed by a person
of ordinary skill in the art, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary
definition for guidance. Comaper Corp. v. Antec, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2010). An ordinary and customary meaning of “discrete” is “apart
or detached from others; separate; distinct.”3 Because Curkendall’s data map
is separate from the data, it discloses the disputed limitation of a data
translation map being a discrete object that is separate from the report data
and the mapped report data. Therefore, in the absence of sufficient
persuasive evidence or argument in rebuttal, we find contention 2
unpersuasive of Examiner error.
Contention 3 is also unpersuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds Curkendall’s templates created with Microsoft Excel for extracting

3 WEBSTER’S ENCYCLOPEDIC UNABRIDGED DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH
LANGUAGE 563 (1996).
Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

7
information that can be used by charts, graphs, equations, and Excel Visual
Basic for Applications (VBA) functions discloses the disputed limitation of
generating a set of reports “without accessing the report data in the first
application format or the first application.” Ans. 5 (citing Curkendall ¶¶
[0226] and [0261]).
Appellant argues Curkendall’s disclosure of real-time data population
indicates that data in the first application is used to generate reports in Excel
and therefore fails to disclose using the mapped data without accessing the
report data in the first application format of the first application as required
by claim 1. App. Br. 10. We disagree. Curkendall describes a Single-Animal
mode that refreshes the spreadsheet as each animal is processed. Curkendall
¶ [0261]. However, there is no indication in Curkendall that its refreshing is
performed in response to or as part of generating a report. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s finding
that Microsoft Excel and the “mapped data” is used to generate the reports
without accessing the report data in the first application format or the first
application. Accordingly, we find contention 3 unpersuasive of error.
Furthermore, the disputed limitation only requires “using the mapped
report data . . . without accessing the report data in the first application
format or the first application” (claim 1). That is, using the disjunctive “or,”
under a broad but reasonable interpretation of the language, claim 1 does not
exclude both accessing report data in the first application format and the first
application, only one or the other. Therefore, Appellant’s contention that
Curkendall accesses report data in the first application format is
unpersuasive of error in the absence of evidence that Curkendall also
Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

8
accesses the first application and, absent such evidence, Appellant’s
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Therefore, for the reasons supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of independent claim 1 and, for
the same reasons, independent claims 10, 194, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Curkendall5 together with the rejections of
dependent claims 2, 11, 20, and 23 not separately argued. For similar
reasons we further sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 13,
16-18, 21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Curkendall and Rogers and
the rejection of dependent claims 6 and 15 over Curkendall and Imholte,
these dependent claims also not separately argued.

CONCLUSIONS
We find that:
1. The Examiner did not err in finding Curkendall discloses:

4 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider
if computer readable storage medium claims 19 and 20 should also be
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Specification discloses “[the] computer-
readable/usable medium can comprise program code embodied on . . . a data
signal (e.g., a propagated signal) traveling over a network (e.g., during a
wired/wireless electronic distribution of the program code).” Spec. ¶ [0055].
Therefore, the computer readable storage medium of claims 19 and 20 is
broad enough to encompass transitory media. Signals are not patentable
eligible subject matter under § 101. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). See also MPEP § 2106(I) (8th ed. Rev. 9 Aug. 2012) and Ex
parte Mewherter, 2013 WL 3291360 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential).
5 Merely restating with respect to a second claim an argument, previously
presented with respect to a first claim, is not an argument for separate
patentability of the two claims.
Appeal 2011-010904
Application 11/221,960

9
a. “including a reference to a data translation map in a project
defined using a first application . . . the data translation map
being a discrete object that is separate from the report data . . .;”
and
b. “generating a set of predefined reports . . . without accessing the
report data in the first application format of the first application
or the first application,” as recited in claim 1.
2. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 10, 11, 19, 20, 22,
and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Curkendall.
3. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 3, 4, 7-9, 12, 13, 16-18,
21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Curkendall and Rogers.
4. The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 6 and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Curkendall and Imholte.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-24 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)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED
llw