Ex Parte Martins

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 21, 2016

12350768 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/350,768 01/08/2009
51871 7590 07/25/2016
Shumaker & Sieffert, P,A,
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Joao Sousa Martins
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.
CA920085 l 75US2
1021-045US
CONFIRMATION NO.
7492
EXAMINER
OBISESAN, AUGUSTINE KUNLE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2156
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/25/2016 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):
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOAO SOUSA MAR TINS
Appeal2015-002652
Application 12/350,768
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-5, 9-12, 14--20, 23, and 30-35, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. Claims 6-8, 13, 21-22, and 24--29
have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is International Business
Machines Corporation, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2015-002652
Application 12/350,768
STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates generally to data retrieval in an
enterprise system through use of a graphical selection tree. Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a selection of a
first sub-branch of a parent branch of a graphical selection
tree, wherein:
the parent branch of the graphical selection
tree is associated with a data dimension, the first
sub-branch is associated with a generic data
attribute associated with the parent branch of the
graphical selection tree,
a second sub-branch is added as a sub-branch
of the parent branch of the graphical selection tree
after the selection of the first sub-branch, and
the second sub-branch is a specific instance
of the generic data attribute associated with the
parent branch of the graphical selection tree;
responsive to the selection of the first sub-branch of
the parent branch of the graphical selection tree,
automatically selecting, by the computing device and
without receiving user input to select the second sub-
branch of the parent branch of the graphical selection tree,
the second sub-branch of the parent branch of the
graphical selection tree; and
generating, by the computing device, a query to
request, from a data storage system, data for each selected
data metric that matches the specific instance of the
generic data attribute corresponding to one of a plurality
of selected sub-branches, wherein the plurality of selected
sub-branches includes the automatically selected second
sub-branch.
2
Appeal2015-002652
Application 12/350,768
Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.).
References
Tagger WO 2001/024049 Al
Wagner WO 2006/048046 Al
Seemann US 2007 /0234237 Al
J agannathan US 2008/0071769 Al
West et al. ("West") US 7,774,249 Bl
Rejections on Appeal
Apr. 5, 2001
May 11, 2006
Oct. 4, 2007
Mar. 20, 2008
Aug. 10, 2010
1. Claims 1-5, 11, 14--20, and 30-35 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seamann,
in view of Jagannathan, and further in view of Wagner.
2. Claims 9, 12, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seamann,
in view of Jagannathan, in view of Wagner, and further
in view of West.
3. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Seamann, in view of
Jagannathan, in view of Wagner, and further in view of
Tagger.
3
Appeal2015-002652
Application 12/350,768
Issue on Appeal
Appellant's arguments in the Appeal Brief2 present us with the
following dispositive issue: does the combination of Seamann, Jagannathan,
and Wagner teach or suggest "responsive to the selection of the first sub-
branch of the parent branch of the graphical selection tree, automatically
select, without receiving user input to select the second sub-branch of the
parent branch of the graphical selection tree, the second sub-branch of the
parent branch of the graphical selection tree," as recited in independent
claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 17 and 18?3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the combination of Seemann and Jagannathan, at
most, results in a system that automatically executes a saved query in
response to receiving a user input. Appeal Br. 10. As argued by Appellant,
re-executing a saved query does not disclose or suggest a selection of a sub-
branch in a graphical selection tree, and thus, the combination of Seemann
and Jagannathan does not teach or suggest automatically selecting, and
without receiving user input, an added second sub-branch in response to the
selection of a first sub-branch. Appeal Br. 10---11. Appellant further argues
Wagner, West, and Tagger do not cure the deficiencies of Seemann and
Jagannathan. Appeal Br. 12.
2 Our Decision refers to the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 3, 2014, "Final
Act."), Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed Sept. 3, 2014, "Appeal Br."), the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 4, 2014, "Ans."), and the original
Specification (filed Jan. 8, 2009, "Spec.").
3 Appellant's arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issues are dispositive of the appeal.
4
Appeal2015-002652
Application 12/350,768
The Examiner finds Seemann discloses a display of information in a
graphical tree structure, where the tree starts at a root and includes sub-
portions (interpreted as the claimed "first sub-branch" and "second sub-
branch"), and where the sub-portions represents functional relationships and
internal behaviors of objects, attributes, operations, and associations.
Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds Seemann also discloses a user can select
a specific sub-portion to be modified, the selected sub-portion can be
modified by scaling, collapsing, and expanding, and the modified sub-
portion can be dynamically displayed "on the fly." Id. The Examiner
further finds Jagannathan discloses a system including a database, where the
system saves an input query of the database in storage, and where, in
response to a new record being added to the database, the saved query is
automatically executed against the database and updated information is sent
to a user interface. Id. Thus, as found by the Examiner, Jagannathan
discloses newly added data can be automatically selected without receiving
input from a user. Ans. 3--4. Based on the above findings, the Examiner
finds the combined teachings of Seemann, Jagannathan, and Wagner teach
or suggest all the claimed features of independent claims 1, 17, and 18.
Ans. 4.
We are persuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with Appellant
that Jagannathan's teaching of an automatic re-execution of a saved query
against a database in response to newly added data does not teach an
automatic selection of an added sub-branch in a graphical selection tree that
is responsive to a selection of another sub-branch of the graphical selection
tree without receiving a user input to select the added sub-branch of the
graphical selection tree. See Appeal Br. 10-11. Thus, we agree that
5
Appeal2015-002652
Application 12/350,768
Seemann and J agannathan, even if combined, do not teach or suggest
automatically selecting, and without receiving user input, an added second
sub-branch in response to the selection of a first sub-branch. We further
agree that the Examiner has not established that Wagner, West, and Tagger
cure the deficiencies of Seemann and Jagannathan. See Appeal Br. 12.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the
combination of Seemann, Jagannathan, and Wagner. We also do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-5, 9-12, 14--16, 19-20, 23, and 30-35,
which depend variously from independent claims 1, 17, and 18.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 9-12, 14--
20, 23, and 30-35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6