Ex Parte Hao et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 16, 201713592747 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2017) 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. 13/592,747 08/23/2012 Ming C. Hao 83037551 1007 56436 7590 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER LEE, KWANG B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/20/2017 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): hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com chris. mania @ hpe. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MING C. HAO, MANISH MARWAH, SEBASTIAN MITTELSTAEDT, HALLDOR JANETZKO, CULLEN E. BASH, UMESWAR DAYAL, MEICHUN HSU, DANIEL KEIM, and CHANDRAKANT PATEL Appeal 2017-001137 Application 13/592,747 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, BETH Z. SHAW, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—21, which constitute all claims pending in this application. Claims App’x. Claim 3 has been canceled. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).1 We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-001137 Application 13/592,747 Introduction According to Appellants, the claimed subject matter is directed to a method and system for temporally arranging into a plurality of rings (102, 104, 106, 110) data pixels representing time series to thereby generate a pixel-based graphical visualization of enterprise data. Spec. 1, 5—8, Fig. 1. In addition, a peak detection ring (110) is selected from the plurality of rings by identifying visual indicators indicating one or more peaks such that the pixels along the radial axis (112) of the rings are for a same time interval. Id. ]Hf 22—24, 35. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows: 1. A method executed by a system having a processor, comprising: arranging, into a plurality of data rings, pixels representing attributes, wherein each data ring contains pixels representing a time series of attribute values for a respective one of the attributes; providing a peak detection ring, wherein the peak detection ring comprises visual indicators for indicating a location of at least one peak in an attribute in the plurality of data rings, wherein the arranging further comprises temporally aligning the pixels in the plurality of data rings and in the peak detection ring such that pixels along a particular radial axis are for a same time interval in different ones of the plurality of data rings; and generating, by the processor, a graphical visualization including the arranged plurality of data rings and the peak detection ring, wherein the graphical visualization is displayed on a hardware display. 2 Appeal 2017-001137 Application 13/592,747 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1,2, and 4—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lei2 and Hao3. Final Act. 2—15. ANALYSIS We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 6—16.4 We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ contentions. Except as otherwise indicated hereinelow, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the Final Action and the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—21, Ans. 3—9. However, we highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as follows. First, Appellants argue that the combination of Lei and Hao does not teach or suggest a plurality of data rings, each containing pixels representing time series attributes. App. Br. 7—10. According to Appellants, Lei discloses a plurality of data rings, each containing an arc length representing the capital size of a stock, as opposed to time series of attribute values. App. 2 Su Te Lei et al., A Visual Analytics System for Financial Time-Series Data, published in VINCI’10, September 28—29, 2010, Beijing, China, © 2010 ACM 3 M. C. Hao et al., Visual Analytics Approach for Peak-Preserving Prediction of Large Seasonal Time Series, Vol. 30 (2011), No. 3, Eurographics / IEEE Symposium on Visualization 2011 (EuroVis 2011) 4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 01, 2016), and the Answer (mailed June 16, 2016) (“Ans.”) for the respective details. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012). 3 Appeal 2017-001137 Application 13/592,747 Br. 10 (citing Lei, Section 3.4, page 4, col. 2, para 2). This argument is not persuasive. Lei discloses a plurality of rings for visualizing financial time series data. Lei, section 1 (Introduction). As correctly noted by the Examiner, the financial information depicted for a stock on an asset ring represents the performance of the stock in the financial market for a particular point in time. Ans. 3^4. That is, as the market fluctuates throughout the day, so does the position of the stock in the set of financial rings. While we agree with Appellants that in a single ring in Lei, “[a]n arc length that represents the capital size of a stock is not a time series” (App. Br. 10), Appellants do not explain how or why the plain meaning of “each data ring contains pixels representing a time series of attribute values for a respective one of the attributes,” as recited by claim 1, does not encompass a ring as taught by Lei, in which the pixels in the ring represent data specifically disclosed as being part of a time series. We therefore agree with the Examiner that Lei’s disclosure of representing financial data series for each stock on a plurality of rings teaches representing time series attributes on the rings. Second, Appellants argue that the proposed combination of references does not teach or suggest providing a peak detection ring indicating at least a location of a peak in an attribute of the data rings. App. Br. 10—14. In particular, Appellants argue that Lei’s index ring taken in combination with Hao’s peak preserving smoothing algorithm does not teach the peak detection ring because the disclosed index ring merely serves to visually delineate lower performing asset rings from higher performing asset rings. Id. at 12—14. This argument is not persuasive. 4 Appeal 2017-001137 Application 13/592,747 Lei discloses that the outer asset rings depict the rings with the best performing stocks, whereas the inner asset rings depict rings the lowest performing stocks at a particular point in time. Lei, Section 3.4, page 4, col. 2, para 2. As the Examiner finds, the outer rings are stocks that performed better than the main index. Ans. 5. The ordinarily-skilled artisan would readily appreciate that the outermost ring represents the ring with the peak performing stock such that the pixels along the radial axis are for a same time interval for all the asset rings. Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that Lei’s index ring taken in combination with Liao’s peak index identification algorithm teaches or suggests the peak index detection ring. Ans. 5—7. For at least the aforementioned reasons, we are not persuaded or error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejection of claims 2, and 4—21, Appellants have either not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, those claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4—21. 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). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation