Ex Parte Hao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

12925684 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/925,684 10/27/2010 MingC. Hao
56436 7590 03/01/2016
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.
82264619 8552
EXAMINER
LINDSEY III, JOHNATHAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MING C. HAO, CHRISTIAN ROHRDANTZ,
UMESHW AR DAY AL, DANIEL KEIM,
and LARS-ERIK HAUG
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
Technology Center 3600
Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-23. We affirm.
1 The Appellants identify the Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP,
as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1 ).
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants claim methods for visualization of data. (Spec. para. 9).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a system having a processor, data records
representing a time sequence of events, wherein time gaps
between successive events vary;
generating, by the system, a first visualization having a
sequence of graphical elements representing the corresponding
events, wherein the graphical elements do not overlay each
other, and wherein the graphical elements are arranged in the
first visualization without any spacings that represent the time
gaps between the successive events; and
generating, by the system, a second visualization
comprising a time density track having gap representing
elements, wherein the gap representing elements have different
characteristics to represent different time gaps between
respective successive events.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Santos
Mercuri
US 2006/0106659 Al May 18, 2006
US 2011/0246921 Al Oct. 6, 2011
Daniela Oelke, et. al., "Visual Opinion Analysis of Customer Feedback
Data", IEEE Symposium on Visual Analytics Science and Technology,
Atlantic City, New Jersey, USA, Oct. 12-13, 2009 (hereinafter "Oelke").
REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Mercuri and Santos.
2
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 5, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Mercuri, Santos, and Oelke.
The Examiner rejected claims 8, 16-20, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Mercuri, Santos, and Official Notice.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. Mercuri discloses a graph of events displayed in a horizontally in time
sequence based on when the events took place, at Figure 4, shown
below:
f7G. 4
Figure 4 of Santos showing a horizontal display of events in time sequence
2. Santos discloses a line chart disclosing both a line connecting data
points, as well as a line representing an average value of the data points,
at element 66, shown in a portion of Figure 4, below, where the value of
the data points displays a value representing a time gap between events:
3
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
l\. l ' .
A line chart as shown in Santos Figure 4.
3. Santos discloses that in Figure 4 line 66 represents an average of date
gap analysis data values, and lines 68 and 69 represent upper and lower
control limits, with point 70 falling outside the limits. (Para. 34).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9-13, 21, and 22
Initially, we note that the Appellants argue independent claims 1 and
11 together as a group. (App. Br. 8). Correspondingly, we select
representative claim 1 to decide the appeal of these claims, with remaining
claim 11 standing or falling with claim 1. Appellant does not provide a
substantive argument as to the separate patentability of claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 12,
4
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
13, 21, and 22 that depend from claims 1and11. Thus, claims 2, 6, 9-13,
21, and 22 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Appellants argue the Examiner has set forth no reason to combine
Mercuri with Santos, except impermissible hindsight. (Appeal Br. 5-7,
Reply Br. 2--4).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner found,
and we agree, that "the claimed invention is merely a combination of old
elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were
predictable." (Final Act. 3--4). The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Here the Examiner found in "[p]aragraphs 0005,0025 and 0037-38[,]
[that] Mercuri discloses a system which produces sentiment visualizations
for corresponding content items," and found that in "Figures 3-4;
[p ]aragraphs 0015-16[,] Santos discloses date gap analysis techniques,
wherein a data gap is defined broadly as the amount of time between an
event in question and the previous event." (Final. 2-3). Our review of these
references confirms the Examiner's findings as correct. (FF 1, 2). Mercuri
displays events in time sequence, horizontally, without regard to how much
time takes place between events. Santos uses the same concept of a
sequence of events as in Mercuri, but instead displays data about the time
that takes place between events, i.e., time gaps, on a graph. Mercuri and
Santos, thus, display data about the same underlying event data, but display
5
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
different information inferred from the underlying data, displayed in
different ways.
We find that the combination of these items is a predictable, because
the underlying items themselves show that it would be desirable to compare
two different attributes of the data, namely, data about a sequence of events,
and information inferred about the time gaps between the events, in
juxtaposition, to make it easier to understand the data and time gap
information determined from the data. This is particularly so when the two
visualizations relate to the same underlying data.
Appellants argue that the graphs of Santos and Mercuri would not
perform the same function as before the combination, because the way to
convey time information is different from each other. (Appeal Br. 7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because it does not
demonstrate that either graph, when displayed together, would cease to
convey what it otherwise conveys in the proposed combination. After the
proposed combination, the portion from Mercuri still displays events in
sequence order, and the portion from Santos still displays time gap
information about the same events.
Appellants also argue that because Mercuri displays dates in textual
form, there would be no reason to display date gaps in graphical form.
(Appeal Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 3).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, because displaying
both text date data and graphical date gap data conveys time information in
different ways. Even though a user would be able to calculate date gaps
from the disclosed text date information in Mercuri (FF 1 ), the second graph
showing date gaps visually would eliminate the need to do so, and, thus,
6
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
communicate time gap information clearly, without requiring additional
analysis by the viewing user.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites "calculating the heights of corresponding
ones of the points based on the time gaps between the respective successive
pairs of events and based on an average time gap."
Appellants argue that the display of a centerline in Santos is
"different" from the claimed calculating. (Appeal Br. 8). Appellants also
argue "[b ]eing able to ascertain the height of a point on a curve relative to a
centerline that indicates an average number of days between events, has
nothing to do with calculating a height of a point on a curve based on the
average time gap." (Reply Br. 5). Appellants, thus, argue the Examiner has
"disregarded the entirety of the 'calculating' clause of claim 7." (Reply
Br. 6).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. We find that Santos
discloses a graph with points located in proximity to a line representing the
average value of the displayed points. (FF 2, 3). Santos, thus, calculates an
average. Santos also displays both the data values and the average data
value. (Id.). The data points in Santos' Figure 4 are clearly based on time
gaps, as indicated by the title of the chart and discussion. (Id.).
Whether the value of data point 70, as an example, is calculated based
on an "an average time gap" is a matter of design choice. Mathematically if
a value is x, and an average of values is y, when one graphically displays the
values of x and y, the way x is displayed in relation to y takes in account
where each is on the graph, so both values can be displayed. In Santos, the
7
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
average value is shown at line 66, and one of the data points is shown at
element 70. (FF 2). Element 70 is outside a control limit zone, so to ensure
it is properly displayed in the graph, the height of the point at element 70
above the lowest part of the graph must be calculated relative to, among
other things, the average line 66, so that both are displayed, along with the
other elements. In constructing the graph, then, Santos discloses
"calculating the heights of corresponding ones of the points based on the
time gaps between the respective successive pairs of events and based on an
average time gap," as claimed.
Notwithstanding, we find that the ordinary artisan would understand
that it is a simple subtraction operation to calculate the difference, for
example, between the value of data point 70 and the average, represented by
line 66, if that particular value is needed. See KSR, at 418 (In making the
obviousness determination one "can take account of the inferences and
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.")
Claims 8 and 16
Appellants argue claims 8 and 16 together as a group, so we select
claim 8 as representative. See, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
Dependent claim 8 recites "aligning the gap representing elements
with the graphical elements to depict relative time gaps between successive
events in the time sequence."
The Examiner takes Official Notice that "it is old and well known
with the computer arts to align the two charts to depict relative gaps between
successive events." (Final Act. 10).
8
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
Appellants argue that aligning a sequential graph with a time gap
graph is not well-known. (Appeal Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 6-7).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The data sets in
Mercuri and Santos disclose different derived information (sequence and
time gaps) about the same set of underlying events. Because the different
displayed information in Mercuri and Santos relate to data about the same
underlying events, the ordinary artisan would have recognized the value of
aligning the display of different data, about the same events underlying both
graphs, to improve the comprehension of the information being conveyed, as
a creative step the ordinary artisan would employ. See KSR, at 418.
Claims 3, 5, 14, and 15
Claims 3, 5, 14, and 15 are argued only by reference to the arguments
directed to claim 1. (Appeal Br. 9). We affirm the rejection of the claims
for the same reasons we affirm claim 1, above.
Claims 17-20 and 23
Appellants argue claims 17-20 and 23 only by reference to the
arguments directed to claim 1. (Appeal Br. 10). We affirm the rejection of
the claims for the same reasons we affirm claim 1, above.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
9
Appeal2013-010070
Application 12/925,684
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and
5-23 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10