Ex Parte Han

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

13755968 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
13/755,968 01/31/2013 Qiang Han 2058.772US1 5942
50400 7590 02/23/2017
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/SAP
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
JAMI, HARES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2162
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW @blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIANG HAN1
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
Technology Center 2100
Before, KALYAN K. DESPHANDE, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—20, which constitute all pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Business Objects Software,
LTD., a wholly owned subsidiary of SAP SE. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
Introduction
Appellant describes the disclosed invention as pertaining to displaying
information. Spec. 11. One or more cells may be selected from a “cross
tabulation” or “crosstab” of information displayed in cells, and an effect may
be selected to apply to that displayed subset of cells. Id. 12, Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method for displaying information in a crosstab,
the method comprising:
selecting a subset of cells from a plurality of displayed
cells in the crosstab, wherein the subset of cells has a context
defined at least by one or more rows and one or more columns;
selecting an effect to apply on the subset of cells, wherein
the effect includes an embedded query including parameters
drawn from context of the subset of cells; and
applying an effect on the subset of cells, wherein content
generated by the effect replaces at least a portion of displayed
content of each cell of the subset of cells.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App’x) (disputed requirement emphasized).
References and Rejections
Claims 1—9 and 14—20 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) in view of Lo et al. (US 2010/0318891 Al; Dec. 16, 2010) (“Lo”)
and Seyler (US 5,255,363; Oct. 19, 1993). Final Act. 3—6.
Claims 1—9 and 14—20 also stand rejected as unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) in view of Lo and Weitzman (US 2006/0218483 Al; Sept.
28, 2006) (“Weitzman”). Final Act. 9—10.
Claim 10 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of Lo, Seyler, and Kemp (US 2005/0278633 Al; Dec. 15, 2005) and,
alternatively, in view of Lo, Weitzman, and Kemp. Final Act 6—7, 10.
2
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) in view of Lo, Seyler, and Arayasantiparb et al. (US 2003/ 0220795
Al; Nov. 27, 2003) (“Arayasantiparb”) and, alternatively, in view of Lo,
Weitzman, and Arayasantiparb. Final Act. 7—8, 10.
Claim 13 stands rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in
view of Lo, Seyler, and Dorwart (US 7,870,476 B2; Jan. 11, 2011) and,
alternatively, in view of Lo, Weitzman, and Dorwart. Final Act. 8—9, 10.
ISSUE
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the issue before us is whether the
Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of the combination of
Lo and Seyler and in view of the combination of Lo and Weitzman. App.
Br. 7-10.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the Final Rejection from
which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the Answer. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Lo teaches all limitations
except for the disputed limitation of “wherein content generated by the effect
replaces at least a portion of displayed content of each cell of the subset of
2 Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of claims 2—20 solely
on the basis of the arguments for claim 1. See App. Br. 9— 11. Independent
claims 14 and 18 both include the disputed limitation and stand rejected on
the same basis as claim 1; claims 2—13, 15—17, 19, and 20 depend from
claims 1, 14, or 18. App. Br. 13—15 (Claims App’x). Accordingly, all
claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
cells.” Final Act. 3, 9—10 (citing Lo 28, 36, 38—39, Figs. 1, 5, 6). The
Examiner finds Seyler and Weitzman, independent of each other, both teach
the disputed limitation, and that one of ordinary skill would have been
motivated to combine the teachings of Lo with the teachings of either Seyler
or Weitzman, thus rendering claim 1 obvious. Id. at 4 (citing Seyler 6:20—
58, Figs. 9, 10), 10 (citing Weitzman Figs. 3—4).
In disputing the rejection over Lo and Seyler, Appellant argues that
while Seyler discusses replacing the displayed content of a cell
of a spreadsheet, Lo teaches away from the claimed
embodiment and the embodiment of Seyler by teaching that “it
would be desirable to provide a method that allows viewing
something without navigating away or changing the view.’ '’
Contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, a person of ordinary skill
in the art would not be motivated to modify the teachings of Lo
with Seyler’s cited teaching.
App. Br. 9 (citing Lo 14).
Regarding the undesirability of “changing the view,” Appellant
contends “Lo discloses that ‘[pjeeking is a gesture that allows something to
be viewed without committing to the move and without disrupting the
current two-dimensional view,’” which teaches away from replacing a
portion of displayed content as in claim 1 and as disclosed by Seyler. Id. at
8—9 (quoting Lo 137) (also citing Lo Fig. 6).
Appellant does not persuade us. A teaching away requires a reference
to actually criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the claimed solution.
See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). A reference does
not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative
invention from amongst options available to the ordinarily skilled artisan,
and the reference does not discredit or discourage investigation into the
invention claimed. Id. Describing prior art as “inferior” in some respects
4
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
does not by itself constitute a teaching away from using that prior art. In re
Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Teaching that a result would be
inferior or less desirable is not a teaching away unless the use “would render
the result inoperable.” In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374,
1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Certainly Lo touts the desirability of its improvement over aspects of
the known prior art. See ^ A—5,1. Lo’s statements of preference for
features of its invention, however, do not amount to a criticism that
discredits or discourages from combining the teachings of Lo and Seyler to
achieve the claimed solution. We agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily
skilled artisan would not be discouraged or otherwise deterred from
combining Seyler’s teaching of providing a graphical representation to
replace displayed content with Lo’s teaching of displaying information in a
crosstab to achieve claim 1. See Ans. 12—13. We also note the combination
of Seyler’s teachings with Lo’s teachings that result in claim 1 is consistent
with Lo’s stated desirability of avoiding “[sjpawning more windows and
components” that “can lead to visual clutter.” See Lo 14.
Regarding the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill would
have been motivated based on the combined teachings of Lo and Seyler to
replace numbers in a crosstab with a graphic to enhance visualization (Ans.
12), Appellant replies that replacing displayed content with a graphic is a
type of “navigating away” that Lo specifically teaches away from. Reply 3—
4. This is unpersuasive. In the context of computers, to navigate is “to
make one’s way over or through” or “traverse.” See www.merriam-
webster.com/ dictionary/navi gate (last accessed Feb. 13, 2017) (e.g.,
“navigate the Internet via hypertext links connecting information-rich
5
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
computers around the world”). Replacing displayed cell content is not
navigating away.
Appellant also contends in reply that “the combination proposed by
the Examiner would change a principle of operation of Lo, i.e., to use the
peek function to view content.” Reply Br. 4. We are not persuaded. Lo’s
peek function is not a principle of operation. Rather, the principle of
operation centers on “selecting a tuple associated with a first member of a
first dimension and a second member of a second dimension, selecting a
third dimension and retrieving a data distribution associated with the first
member, the second member and the third dimension” and then “visualizing
the data distribution in a Graphical User Interface (GUI)” as described in
Lo’s “Summary of the Invention” (Lo | 5) and reflected in the independent
claims of Lo.
Appellant also argues Lo teaches away from combining its teachings
with the teachings of Weitzman, further contending Weitzman also teaches
away because its “object of the invention” is “to provide a representation . . .
that does not distract from or hides the existing data with which it is
working.'''’ App. Br. 10 (citing Weitzman 14). Lor the same reasons
discussed supra, we find the argument that Lo teaches away unpersuasive.
Regarding Weitzman teaching away from claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that, by relying solely upon Weitzman for its teaching of what was
in the prior art, Weitzman’s statement about the object of its invention does
not rise to a teaching away of the combination of those teachings with Lo.
See Ans. 15—16.
In reply, Appellant also argues Weitzman does not teach or suggest
claim 1 ’s requirement that “content generated by the effect replaces at least
6
Appeal 2016-003989
Application 13/755,968
a portion of the displayed content” because Weitzman teaches overlaying a
graphic on the spreadsheet. Reply Br. 6 (citing Weitzman Fig. 3). This is
conclusory and unpersuasive. One of ordinary skill would understand
“replacing at least a portion of the displayed content,” to encompass
overlaying a graphic over the displayed content, because the overlying
graphic replaces the content of the spreadsheet on the display.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 over the combination
of Lo and Seyler, and over the combination of Lo and Weitzman.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7