Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2016

12807378 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/807,378 09/03/2010 MingC. Hao
56436 7590 03/30/2016
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
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.
82263626 8509
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, SHAWN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2176
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
mkraft@hpe.com
chris.mania@hpe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
U-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING C. HAO, UMESHW AR DAY AL,
LARS-ERIK HAUG, and CHRISTIAN ROHRDANTZ
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-21, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, LP. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to a visual representation of a cell-
based calendar transparently overlaid with event visual indicators for mining
data records. (Title.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method for mining data records comprising:
causing, by a system having a processor, display of a
visual representation of a cell-based calendar having cells
representing the data records, wherein the cells have
corresponding visual indicators corresponding to values of the
respective data records;
arranging the cells in plural blocks corresponding to time
intervals of the cell-based calendar; and
providing event visual indicators that transparently
overlay cells in at least some of the plural blocks, wherein the
event visual indicators represent events that occurred in time
intervals corresponding to the at least some blocks, wherein the
events are separate from activities represented by the data
records, and wherein providing the event visual indicators
transparently overlaid over the cells in the at least some blocks
depict a relationship and relative impact between the data
records and the events.
Rejections
Claims 1-8 and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 4--5.)2
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hao,3 Padilla,4 and Hutchison.5 (Final Act. 2-9.)6
2 The rejection of claims 9-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
withdrawn in the Answer. (Ans. 4.)
3 Hao et al., Intelligent Visual Analytics Queries (2007).
4 Padilla, iPhone iCal syncing is eph 'd up, Wirelessinfo.com (July 13, 2007),
http://www. wirelessinfo. com/ content/iPhone-i Cal-syncing-is-eph--d-up .htm.
2
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 5-14; Reply Br. 2-13). We concur
with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2-5) that the Examiner
has not shown claims 1-8 and 18-20 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph. We also concur with Appellants' argument (App. Br. 9)
that the Examiner has not shown the combination of Hao, Padilla, and
Hutchison teaches providing event visual indicators that transparently
overlay cells in at least some of the plural blocks, as recited in claim 1.
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
The Examiner concludes claim 1 is unclear because the claim recites
events that are separate from activities represented by the data records and
also claims event visual indicators that depict a relationship between the
events and the data records. (Final Act. 3.) The Examiner interprets
"separate" as "isolated" "detached" or "distinct" which the Examiner
' ' '
concludes would lead one to believe there is no relationship between two
separate items. (Final Act. 10; Ans. 11.) The Examiner also relies on a
Google-dictionary result listing "unrelated" as a synonym of "separate."
(Ans. 12.)
5 Hutchison, Lab Journal: Group Collaboration, macresearch.org (Nov. 14,
2007), http://www.macresearch.org/lab-j oumal-group-collaboration.
6 The Final Action omits claim 21 from the summary of the rejection under
§ 103 (Final Act. 3), but indicates elsewhere the claim is newly rejected
under § 103 (id. at 2) and includes a substantive rejection of the claim (id. at
9).
3
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
Appellants' Specification describes an "external event" as "any event
that is separate from the activities represented by data collected or
maintained by the enterprise." (Spec. i-f 5.) As an example, a promotional
sales event is described as an event that is separate from customer surveys
but may nonetheless affect characteristics of the surveys. (Id.; App. Br. 5-
6.) The Specification also indicates a relationship can include occurring in
the same time interval. (Spec. i-f 10.) The Examiner finds this description is
only an example, is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of "separate,"
and does not define the scope of the term. (Ans. 12.) We agree with
Appellants (App. Br. 5---6), however, that the example illustrates that there is
not necessarily any inconsistency in stating two items are separate but
related.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand from the
Specification example described above that the promotional sales event is
separate because it does not directly overlap the customer surveys
represented by the data records. The event is thus isolated, detached, and
distinct from the customer surveys in that sense. On the other hand, as
Appellants suggest (Reply Br. 4 ), a promotional sales event included in the
customer surveys would not be separate. A promotional sales event that is
not a direct subject of the surveys, however, may still be related to the
customer surveys because it may affect the results of the surveys or occur
during the same time.
We are persuaded one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to use
the examples from the Specification to discern whether an event is separate
but related to activities represented by data records. Although not
dispositive, we note the Examiner has not provided a concrete example
4
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
illustrating a particular ambiguity created by the disputed terms. We also
find the usage of the terms "separate" and "relationship" in the Specification
and in claim 1 would override the indication in the extrinsic source cited by
the Examiner that "unrelated" may be used as a synonym for "separate."
Accordingly, we agree with Appellants the Examiner has not shown claim 1
is unclear by reciting the events are separate from activities represented by
the data records, but also have a relationship with the data records.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 18, which was rejected on the
same basis (Final Act. 2-3), and we do not sustain the rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112 of dependent claims 2-8, 19, and 20.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Padilla illustrates a transparent overlay
corresponding to a holiday can be used on a cell-based calendar. (Final Act.
4.) According to the Examiner, "Padilla illustrates the calendar item with
the 'Test' scheduled during a 'Holiday' by providing the red tint, or red
'transparent overlay,' to the cell in precisely the same manner as described
(and depicted) in the current application." (Ans. 16.)
We agree with Appellants that "what is shown in Figure 1 of Padilla is
the inclusion of ... the test appointment in the US Holidays calendar."
(Reply Br. 7; see also App. Br. 8-9; Padilla 1 ("As you can see the test
appointment has been assigned to the US Holidays calendar even though we
told iTunes to create the appointments in our Business calendar.").)
Accordingly, Padilla does not provide a visual indication of an overlap
5
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
between an appointment and a holiday using red tint, as the Examiner finds,
because the "test" appointment is not scheduled during a holiday, but rather
is scheduled as a holiday. Padilla's red tint indicating a holiday does
overlay a section of the calendar and, as the Examiner notes, the tint is
transparent to some degree because the word "test" is visible through it
(Ans. 16). We interpret transparently overlay cells as recited in claim 1,
however, to require that the event indicators overlay some other data in the
calendar, not merely the name of the event or a time block in the calendar,
because the cells in claim 1 represent data records. Because the Examiner's
rejection relies upon Padilla to show event visual indicators that
transparently overlay cells in at least some of the plural blocks, as recited in
claim 1, and does not provide sufficient reasoning for using Padilla's event
tint to overlay other data in Hao' s calendar, we find the Examiner has not
shown the combination of references teaches the disputed limitation.
The Examiner alternatively finds:
[I]t was common knowledge at the time of invention that a
colored and transparent overlay could be used in contexts such
as calendar applications such as "iCal" wherein the colored
overlay represents an external event such as a holiday or sports
event. The colored overlay is transparent wherein the user can
still visualize manually scheduled events at the corresponding
date and time in the calendar. Since any of such calendars can
be reasonably considered a "cell-based calendar" as it is
described in the Specification [0007]-[0008], the known
functionality meets the current standing claim.
(Final Act. 5---6.) As noted by Appellants (see App. Br. 10), however, the
Examiner has not shown sufficient evidence to support this finding, such as
evidence to support that it was known at the time of invention to depict an
6
Appeal2014-004922
Application 12/807,378
all-day event on a calendar with a fill color that surrounds another event
during that day.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hao, Padilla, and Hutchison.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims
9 and 18, which recite limitations commensurate in scope with the
limitations of claim 1 discussed supra, and we do not sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of dependent claims 2-8, 10-17, and 19-21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21.
REVERSED
7