Ex Parte Hays et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2017

13550365 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
13/550,365 07/16/2012 Christopher A. Hays 336107.01 1083
69316 7590 07/25/2017
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
HARMON, COURTNEY N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2159
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2017 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER A. HAYS,
JOHN H. VULNER, and ROBERT M. BRUCKNER
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
Technology Center 2100
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, WILLIAM M. FINK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—21, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention relates to a “computer-
implemented method for generating a report from a report definition
specifying a plurality of data scopes for a dataset” that populates a unit of
the report using a “calculation expression comprising a data aggregation
operation . . . comprising an originating reference to a further data scope.”
Abstract.2
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 12 exemplify the subject matter of the
claims under consideration and read as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a report
from a report definition, the report definition comprising
computer-readable instructions, the computer-readable
instructions specifying a plurality of data scopes for a dataset,
the method comprising:
interpreting, with a processor, the computer-readable
instructions of the report definition for the report, the computer-
readable instructions of the report definition comprising a
calculation expression for populating a unit of the report, the
calculation expression specifying a data aggregation operation,
the data aggregation operation comprising an originating
reference to a further data scope, the further data scope being
synthesized in-line within the data aggregation operation;
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed July 16, 2012; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action,
mailed September 29, 2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
February 11, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed September 9,
2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed November 9, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
accessing a memory coupled to the processor to obtain
data from the dataset for respective subsets of the dataset
corresponding with the further data scope;
determining, with the processor, an output value for the
calculation expression in accordance with the obtained data and
the data aggregation operation; and
rendering the report based on the output value;
wherein the further data scope is neither specified nor
created in the report definition outside of the data aggregation
operation.
12. A system for developing a report definition for a report
for presentation of data from a dataset, the system comprising:
a memory in which development tool instructions and
interpreter tool instructions are stored;
a processor coupled to the memory configured to execute
the development tool instructions to:
incorporate, into the report definition, first
computer-readable instructions comprising references to
a plurality of data scopes for the dataset, each data scope
specifying one or more data fields of the dataset to define
a respective subset of the dataset; and
incorporate, into the report definition, second
computer-readable instructions comprising a calculation
expression for populating a unit of the report, the
calculation expression specifying a data aggregation
operation, the data aggregation operation comprising an
embedded function to create a further data scope, the
embedded function being specified as an argument of the
data aggregation operation;
wherein the processor is further configured to execute the
interpreter tool instructions to configure the data aggregation
operation in accordance with the further data scope, and
3
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
wherein the further data scope is neither specified nor
created in the report definition outside of the data aggregation
operation.
App. Br. 12—14 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Thier et al. (“Thier”) US 2004/0064433 A1 Apr. 1, 2004
Apps et al. (“Apps”) US 2007/0094060 Al Apr. 26, 2007
Wayn et al. (“Wayn”) US 2010/0017395 Al Jan. 21, 2010
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1—6, 11—15, and 17—21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Apps and Wayn. Final Act. 5—18.
Claims 7—10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Apps, Wayn, and Thier. Final Act. 19-22.
ANAFYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—21 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we agree with Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the Examiner
as to claims 12—15 and 17—21 but not as to claims 1—11. Except as noted
below, we adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and
Answer.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—6, 11—15, and 17—21
Creating a “Further Data Scope”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
the cited references fail to disclose or suggest “a calculation expression that
4
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
specifies a data aggregation operation that includes an originating reference
to a further data scope” and “a further data scope synthesized in-line within a
data aggregation operation” as required by claim 1. App. Br. 4—9; Reply
Br. 2—3. Appellants admit that Wayn discloses “an aggregate function.”
App. Br. 5 (citing Wayn H 130, 140, 183). Appellants assert, however, that
the aggregate function “does not originate or create a data scope in any way”
and “does not include an originating reference to a further data scope.” Id.
Appellants also assert that because the aggregate function “does not
originate, create, or synthesize a data scope in any way,” it “follows that
Wayn lacks a further data scope synthesized in-line within a data
aggregation operation, as claimed.” Id. at 9.
Appellants’ assertions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Wayn discloses a “Join” operation for combining
data and “synthesis in-line of a further data scope within the data
aggregation operation.” Ans. 5 (citing Wayn H 51, 150, 183). Wayn
explains that the Join operation “specifies a list of left and right” attributes,
e.g., data in database table columns, and the particular mechanism for
combining the data. Wayn H 40, 51. In addition, Wayn discloses
combining various subsets of data, e.g., by computing the sum for the data.
Id. 57, 59; see Final Act. 7 (citing Wayn H 57, 59); Ans. 3^4 (citing
Wayn H 57, 59). For instance, columns containing monthly or quarterly
data are summed to produce yearly data. Appellants provide no explanation
refuting the Examiner’s finding that the Join operation combines data and
creates a further data scope according to claim 1. Reply Br. 2—3; see App.
Br. 4-9.
5
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
Motivation to Modify
Appellants also argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated
to modify Apps by creating further data scopes according to Wayn. See
App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3^4. In particular, Appellants contend that “creating
new data scopes is not necessary” in Apps because the data scope for each
node in Apps’ strategy tree “has already been defined.” App. Br. 8; Reply
Br. 3. In addition, Appellants contend that “modifying Apps to use a
calculation expression as claimed would involve a complete abandonment of
the strategy tree-based approach of Apps.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that the motivation to modify comes from the references
themselves, i.e., from Wayn’s disclosure regarding data processing
occurring “quickly, efficiently, and automatically.” Final Act. 8 (citing
Wayn 1118); Ans. 6—7 (citing Wayn 1118). Apps’ strategy tree does not
display all data used to calculate the values appearing in the tree. See, e.g.,
Apps, Fig. 3. Based on Wayn’s disclosure regarding data processing
occurring “quickly, efficiently, and automatically,” we agree that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Apps by
creating further data scopes according to Wayn, e.g., to avoid instructions to
hide data and provide desired output to a customer. See Final Act. 8;
Ans. 6—7. Moreover, modifying Apps to use a calculation expression as
claimed would not involve a complete abandonment of Apps’ strategy tree.
Just as the claimed calculation expression can populate a unit of a report, it
can also populate a node in Apps’ strategy tree.
6
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Apps and Wayn. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Dependent Claims 2-6 and 11
Claims 2—6 and 11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. App.
Br. 12—13 (Claims App.). Appellants do not make any separate substantive
patentability arguments for claims 2—6 and 11. App. Br. 10-11; Reply
Br. \-A. Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 2—6 and 11 for the same reasons as
claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Independent Claims 12 and 17 and
Dependent Claims 13-15 and 18-21
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 12 and 17 because the cited references fail to disclose or suggest “a
calculation expression specifying a data aggregation operation that includes
an embedded function to create a further data scope, much less an embedded
function being specified as an argument of the data aggregation operation.”
App. Br. 9. Appellants assert that “Apps lacks a data aggregation operation
that includes an embedded function to create a further data scope . . . .” Id.
Appellants also assert that an aggregate function in Wayn “does not
necessarily include or otherwise involve an embedded function, let alone one
as claimed.” Id. at 10. In the Answer, the Examiner does not address
Appellants’ arguments regarding claims 12 and 17.
Based on the record before us, we are unable to ascertain how the
cited portions of Apps and Wayn teach or suggest a “data aggregation
7
Appeal 2017-001567
Application 13/550,365
operation comprising an embedded function to create a further data scope,
the embedded function being specified as an argument of the data
aggregation operation,” as recited in claim 12 and similarly recited in
claim 17. See Final Act. 8—15. Consequently, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 12 and 17 based on Apps and Wayn.
Claims 13—15 and 21 depend from claim 12, and claims 18—20 depend
from claim 17. App. Br. 14—15 (Claims App.). For the reasons discussed
regarding claims 12 and 17, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of
these dependent claims based on Apps and Wayn.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7—10
Claims 7—10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Although
Appellants argue that “Thier . . . fails to cure the deficiencies of’ Apps and
Wayn with respect to claim 1, Appellants do not make any separate
substantive patentability arguments for claims 7—10. App. Br. 10-11.
Because Appellants do not argue the claims separately, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 7—10 for the same reasons as claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—11.
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 12—15 and 17—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)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
8