Ex Parte DelvatDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 18, 201311480415 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/480,415 07/05/2006 Julien Delvat 07781.0288-00 2450 60668 7590 12/19/2013 SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER BUI, THUY T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2155 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JULIEN DELVAT ___________ Appeal 2011-005942 Application 11/480,415 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005942 Application 11/480,415 2 This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-23. Br. 5. Claim 12 is cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE THE INVENTION Appellant’s invention relates to selecting and importing objects. A method is provided for selecting objects for importation. Each object includes data and related processes. A search query is received including an object type. The object type identifies two or more key fields that uniquely identify the object type specified in the search query. A filter selection is received, which includes one or more values of characteristics or key figures of the specified object type. A database is searched and objects of the specified object type that meet the filter selection are identified. A result is returned to a user indicating the identified objects. See generally Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative with a disputed limitation in italics: 1. A computer-implemented method for selecting objects for importation, each object including data and related processes, the method comprising: receiving a search query including an object type, the object type identifying two or more key fields that uniquely identify the object type specified in the search query; receiving a filter selection, including receiving a selection of one or more filtering parameters of the specified object type and receiving values of the selected filtering parameters; Appeal 2011-005942 Application 11/480,415 3 searching a database and identifying objects that have the identified two or more key fields and meet the filter selection, wherein the identified objects comprise data and at least one related process; and returning a result to a user indicating the identified objects. THE REJECTION Claims 1-11 and 13-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Herman (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2005/0021522 A1; published Jan. 27, 2005) and London (Rent Manager User’s Guide Version 2.0.18; London Computer Systems Inc. (2004)). Ans. 3-8. ISSUE 1 Appellant’s arguments present us with the following dispositive issue: Has the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of Herman and London teaches or suggests “receiving a filter selection, including receiving a selection of one or more filtering parameters of the specified object type and receiving values of the selected filtering parameters” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Herman teaches the recited steps but “fails to teach receiving a filter selection.” Ans. 4. The Examiner contends that London discloses this feature and articulates a reason for the combination of Herman and London. Ans. 4-5 (citing London 1 We note that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues. We do not reach these issues, as this contention is dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2011-005942 Application 11/480,415 4 pp. 203-204, selection of “Delimited Fields” option). Appellant argues that “[t]he Delimited Fields or the options in the dropdown list box of London are not filter parameters used to filter available data.” Br. 12. Appellant further argues that London’s Delimited Fields dropdown list provides options that determine how data is formatted for presentation or importation, but does not affect selection of data to be imported. Id. We are persuaded that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner correctly notes that, in prosecution, claim terms are construed in accordance with the broadest reasonable interpretation (consistent with the plain meaning to a skilled artisan) and that embodiments in the Specification are not imported into the claims. Ans. 9-10. However, claim 1 clearly recites in the searching step that the received “filter selection” is used in the searching of a database to identify (i.e., “select”) objects from the database. London’s teaching of a dropdown list to select a parameter for Delimited Field formatting is not involved in the selection of data for presentation or importation. Consistent with the Appellant’s Specification, a “filter” is used in the selection or location of objects—as distinct from the mere formatting of previously selected objects for presentation or importation. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 045, 051, 052, 062. We therefore find that the Examiner’s interpretation of “filter selection” as encompassing the formatting of previously selected data, as disclosed in London, is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the Specification. In view of the above discussion, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Herman and London teaches or suggests “receiving a filter selection, including receiving a selection of one or more filtering parameters of the specified object type and receiving values Appeal 2011-005942 Application 11/480,415 5 of the selected filtering parameters” as recited in independent claim 1. Independent claims 9 and 16 each include a similar recitation relating to the use of a filter to search a database and are rejected for reasons similar to claim 1. Ans. 8. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims for at least the same reasons as claim 1 and for the reasons above, we agree. Dependent claims 2-8, 10, 11, 13-15, and 17-23 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 9, and 16, and thus the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims for the same reasons as claim 1. In view of the above discussion, and on the record before us, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1-11 and 13-23. DECISION For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claims 1-11 and 13-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. REVERSED ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation