Ex Parte Kimchi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

12147815 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
12/147,815 06/27/2008 Gur Kimchi MS1-4307US 7581
22801 7590 03
LEE & HAYES, PLLC
601 W. RIVERSIDE AVENUE
SUITE 1400
SPOKANE, WA 99201
EXAMINER
WANG, JIN CHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
lhptoms @ leehay es .com
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUR KIMCHI, DANYEL AHARON FISHER,
BRAIN L. WELCKER, JASON J. WEBER, SCOTT ROBERT CURRIE,
AHMED K. KAMAL, RICHARD J. McANIFF,
BENJAMIN EDWARD RAMPSON, WILLIAM GUTHRIE MOREIN,
MORTEN HOLM-PETERSON, BONGSHIN LEE,
GEORGE G. ROBERTSON, CHRISTIAN BERND SCHORMANN,
BARRY JAMES GIVENS, JOSHUA W. LEE, B. SCOTT RUBLE,
JAKOB PETER NIELSEN, MICHAEL V. EHRENBERG,
STELLA YICK CHAN, MURALI A. KRISHNAN,
CHRISTIAN OLAF ABELN, and ROLAND L. FERNANDEZ
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOYCE CRAIG
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 21, 23, 25 through 28, and 30 through
41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a system
that permits a user to visually interact with data such that the user can
observe the relationships between data objects. Abstract. Claims 21 and 35
are representative of the invention and reproduced below.
21. A method comprising:
under control of one or more processors configured with
executable instructions:
presenting a dashboard display including multiple objects
on a display of a computing device;
modeling data stored in a database or a spreadsheet by
the multiple objects using one or more graphical controls in the
dashboard, the modeling comprising dynamically adjusting the
data stored in the database or the spreadsheet responsive to
manipulation of the multiple objects using the one or more
graphical controls, the manipulation comprising receiving a
selection of an object of the multiple objects; and
in response to receiving the selection of the object,
providing indications of which one or more other objects of the
multiple objects would be affected in response to a change in
the selected object.
35. One or more storage devices configured with
computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or
more processors, configure the one or more processors to
perform acts comprising:
presenting a dashboard display including multiple
objects;
receiving a selection of an object of the multiple objects;
and
in response to receiving the selection of the object and
prior to changing the selected object, providing indications of
one or more other objects of the multiple objects that, if
changed, would have an impact on the selected object.
2
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1
The Examiner has rejected claims 21, 23, 25, 27, 28, 30 through 38,
40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White (US
2009/0006112 Al, Jan. 1, 2009), Fukuda (US 2009/01281845 Al, Nov. 12,
2009), Hough (US 2002/0118226 Al, Aug. 29, 2002), and Bagchi (US
2008/0195440 Al, Aug. 14, 2008). Answer 2-77.
The Examiner has rejected claims 26 and 39 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over White, Fukuda, Hough, Bagchi, and Hill (US
2007/0250377 Al, Oct. 25, 2007). Answer 77- 78.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 23, and 25 through 27; however,
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 28 and 30 through 41.
Appellants argue that independent claims 21, 28, and 35 recite
presenting multiple objects on a dashboard, receiving a selection of an
object, and in response to the selection of the object, providing indications of
which other objects would be affected by a change to the selected object.
App. Br. 13—25. These arguments address each of the White, Fukuda, and
Hough references and assert that they do not teach this feature. Specifically
1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 20, 2015,
Reply Brief filed February 29, 2016, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed
December 31, 2015.
3
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
Appellants state “White appears to describe scenarios in which data
displayed on a screen may change, but only when underlying data is
changed” and assert that this does not teach in response to receiving a
selection indicating other objects would be affected. App. Br. 16—17.
Further, Appellants assert Fukuda teaches a graph with nodes and an
illustration of relationships between data which does not teach the disputed
limitations. App. Br. 18—19. Further, Appellants state Fukuda teaches that
“a user may explore a ‘what-if scenario by changing a data point (e.g., in
the right portion of the display) and then viewing the re-generated graph
(e.g., in the left portion of the display),” which Appellants assert does not
teach presenting a dashboard with multiple objects, selecting one, and
providing indications of which would be affected. App. Br. 19—20 (which
appears to be in reference to Fig. 5, para. 58). According to Appellants,
Fukuda teaches selection of Key Performance Indicators (KPI) from a pull­
down menu and does not teach selection of an object as recited in claim 21.
App. Br. 25.
The Examiner has provided a lengthy and detailed response to
Appellants’ arguments on pages 89 through 116 of the Answer. In the
response, the Examiner finds Fukuda teaches the disputed feature. We agree
that Fukuda teaches a system for visualization of information, where Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) are measures that reflect success (data or
objects).2 See Fukuda paras. 2—3. Fukuda teaches a user may perform
impact analysis, in which a user may change a KPI, and the KPI network
will be regenerated so that the user will be able to spot patterns originated by
2 Paragraph 33 of Appellants Specification identifies data as a type of object;
thus, the claimed KPI reasonably meets the claimed object.
4
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
the change. See Fukuda paras. 58, 60—63. Thus, we find sufficient evidence
to support the Examiner’s finding that the combination of the references
teaches receiving a selection of an object and in response to the selection of
the object, providing indications of which other objects would be affected by
a change to the selected object.
Appellants further argue the skilled artisan would not combine the
documents. Specifically, Appellants argue that White teaches a “what-if
impact analysis,” and, therefore, there is no suggestion to incorporate
Fukuda’s teaching of a predictive business analysis as White already
includes a similar capability. App. Br. 26—27. Further, Appellants argue
that Fukuda teaches against the combination as “Fukuda is narrowly focused
on KPI analysis, for which, accordingly to Fukuda, a dashboard display is
not appropriate.” App. Br. 28.
We are not persuaded of error by these arguments. Appellants’
arguments directed to White using a what-if analysis and as such not
needing to use Fukuda’s predictive analysis are premised upon a non-
precedential board decision (which as such is limited to its facts). We view
the use of Fukuda’s analysis in combination with White’s system to be
nothing more than the substitution of one analyses method for another.
Further, Appellants’ arguments directed to Fukuda’s teaching against the use
of dashboards are factually incorrect. As identified by the Examiner,
Fukuda teaches the user seeing the KPI on a dashboard. Answer 98 (citing
Fukuda para. 33). Thus, Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21, 23, 25
through 28, and 30 through 41.
5
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
In the Reply Brief, Appellants present several new arguments
asserting that the rejection is in error, as the references do not teach:
(1) graphical controls to adjust the data stored in the database (Reply Br. 7—
8); (2) selection of an object using graphical controls (Reply Br. 8—10); (3) a
change in the selection object (Reply Br. 10—11); (4) indication of which
other objects would be affected (Reply Br. 11—13); and, (5) modeling data
stored in a database or spreadsheet which is dynamically adjusted via
graphical controls (Reply Br. 13—16).
Initially we note that independent claims 21 and 35 do not recite
limitations directed to graphical controls in the dashboard to dynamically
adjust data stored in the database or spreadsheet. Thus, the only arguments
presented in the Reply Brief applicable to these claims are items 3 and 4
above. With respect to item 3, Appellants assert that Fukuda makes no
mention of changing a KPI object in a graphical editor. Reply Br. 11. We
disagree, as paragraph 58 of Fukuda discusses the user using an editor to
change a KPI and observe the changes in the KPI network. Additionally,
claims 28 and 35 do not require a graphical editor.3 Further, with respect to
item 4, Appellants’ arguments focus on the claim 21 limitation of
dynamically adjusting data in the database or spreadsheet, which is not
recited in claims 28 and 35. Thus, Appellants’ arguments in the Reply Brief,
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 28 and 35 and the claims dependent thereupon. Accordingly we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28 and claims 30 through 41.
3 Nonetheless, Fukuda in paragraph 33 discusses use of a dashboard, a
graphical display.
6
Appeal 2016-003742
Application 12/147,815
We reach a different conclusion with respect to independent claim 21
and the claims which depend thereupon. As argued by Appellants, claim 21
recites the limitation “using one or more graphical controls in the dashboard,
the modeling comprising dynamically adjusting the data stored in the
database or the spreadsheet responsive to manipulation of the multiple
objects using the one or more graphical controls.” Reply Br. 8. The
Examiner cites to Fukuda to teach this limitation (Answer 82—83 (citing
Figs. 5, 12)). As discussed above, we concur with the Examiner that Fukuda
teaches selecting an object; however, we do not find sufficient evidence to
support a finding that the selection discussed in Fukuda teaches or suggests
that the selection dynamically adjusts the data stored in a database or
spreadsheet as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 21 or claims 23 and 25 through 27, which
depend thereupon.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21, 23, and 25 through
27. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 28 and 30 through 41.
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-IN-PART
7