Ex Parte McCormack et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201613594881 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016) 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. 13/594,881 08/27/2012 Michael McCormack 336643.01 5034 69316 7590 12/27/2016 MICROSOFT CORPORATION ONE MICROSOFT WAY REDMOND, WA 98052 EXAMINER CALDERON IV, ALVARO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2173 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/27/2016 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): 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 MICHAEL MCCORMACK, RON MONDRI, TED CYREK, ANASTASIA PAUSHKINA, NAVEEN KUMAR SETHIA, CHRISTIAN HEYDEMANN, and RICHARD LEE DICKINSON Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 Technology Center 2100 Before JON M. JURGOVAN, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—5 and 7—21, which are the only pending claims.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.3 1 Appellants identify Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.) 2 Claim 6 has been canceled. 3 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Aug. 27, 2012 (“Spec.”), the Final Office Action mailed Nov. 14, 2014 (“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed May 18, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed Sept. 8, 2015 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Nov. 6, 2015 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 CLAIMED INVENTION The claims are directed to a user interface display of first and second pluralities of entities having associations to an entity selected on the user interface. (Spec. 1 5.) The entities and their associations are stored in a data store. (Spec. 120.) Links allow navigation to one of the first and second pluralities of entities. (Spec. 20, 21, App. Br. 17 — claim 1.) Data from the data store is aggregated for display, and includes the navigable links. (App. Br. 17 — claim 1.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method of displaying information represented by entities, comprising: receiving a user selection input selecting an entity; accessing a data store of entities to identify at least a first plurality of related entities based on an association defined in the data store between the first plurality of related entities and the selected entity, and to identify a second plurality of related entities that are related to the selected entity based on an association defined in the data store between the second plurality of related entities and the selected entity; obtaining first aggregated data by aggregating data from the first plurality of related entities; obtaining second aggregated data by aggregating data from the second plurality of related entities; displaying first and second display elements, in a display layout, the first display element displaying the first aggregated data from the first plurality of related entities and the second display element displaying the second aggregated data from the second plurality of related entities, the first display element including a first navigable link which, when actuated by the user, navigates the user to one of the first plurality of related entities, and the second display element including a second navigable link which, when actuated by the user, navigates the user to one of the second plurality of related entities. (App. Br. 17 — Claims App’x.) 2 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 REJECTIONS Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. (Final Act. 2.) Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) based on Gvelesiani (US 2008/0270458 Al, Oct. 30, 2008). (Final Act. 3-5.) Claims 2-4, 7—11, 13—18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gvelesiani and Flynt (US 2007/0082707 Al, Apr. 12, 2007). (Final Act. 6-19.) Claims 5, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Gvelesiani, Flynt, and Costache (US 2007/0203816 Al, Aug. 30, 2007). (Final Act. 20—21.) ANAFYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph Claims 18 and 19 Claim 18 recites “wherein associations between the business data entities are defined by an object model.” (App. Br. 20—21.) The Examiner finds that the Specification does not disclose any object-oriented programming operability, nor does it mention an object model. (Final Act. 2.) To the contrary, Appellants argue a person of ordinary skill in the art understands what object-oriented programming is, and that an object model is a common construct in object-oriented programming that utilizes such objects. Appellants cite the Specification to illustrate objects that are associated in a variety of different ways. (App. Br. 6—7 citing Spec. Fig. 2, 1122-24.) 3 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 We agree with Appellants that object-oriented programming and object models were well-known at the time of the invention. Further, we find that Figure 2 and paragraphs 22 to 24 of the Specification provide enabling disclosure for the claimed object model. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Claim 1 Argument concerning the meaning of entity Appellants argue that Gvelesiani does not teach or suggest that an “entity” is an entity or object that has, itself, functionality within the computing environment as claimed, but instead teaches an “entity” is an individual person, corporation, partnership, club, governmental body, or learning institution. (App. Br. 9 citing Gvelesiani 112.) We give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). After reviewing the Specification, we do not agree with Appellants that there is any significant difference between the meaning of “entity” as used in Appellants’ Specification and claims as compared to the usage of the term in Gvelesiani. As the Examiner notes, Gvelesiani teaches computer-based techniques for graphically presenting information about relationships between business entities. (Ans. 4—7 citing Gvelesiani 112, Figs. 1 and 2.) This graphical display includes relationship maps with nodes representing business entities interconnected via links. (Id.) Accordingly, Gvelesiani uses “entity” in the context of objects in a computer environment, just as Appellants use the term. (E.g., compare Spec. Fig. 2, || 20-24 with Gvelesiani Fig. 1,112.) Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. 4 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 Argument concerning display element displaying information from a plurality of entities or that the display element includes a navigable link to one of the plurality of entities Appellants contend Gvelesiani does not teach or suggest that a display element displays information “from a plurality of related entities,” or that the element includes a link which, when actuated, navigates the user to one entity of the plurality of entities. (App. Br. 9.) The Examiner contends these features are disclosed in Gvelesiani. (Ans. 7—8 citing Gvelesiani Fig. 3D.) We agree with the Examiner. Gvelesiani states: FIG. 3D illustrates a relationship popup that provides information to a user about one or more relationships between two entities. In particular, FIG. 3D depicts the relationship map 306 described with reference to FIG. 3B, along with a relationship summary popup 315. The relationship summary popup 315 may be presented in response to a user selection (e.g., using a mouse or other pointing device to hover, click, double click, etc.) of one or more links connecting two entities. (Gvelesiani |34.) Accordingly, Gvelesiani displays multiple entities with links actuated to navigate to a display of a relationship summary concerning the entities connected by the link. Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Gvelesiani fails to teach or suggest the claimed features Argument concerning identifying entities based on an association defined in the data store Appellants argue Gvelesiani does not teach identifying entities “based on an association defined in the data store [being accessed.]” (App. Br. 9— 10.) The Examiner maps the data store to the Gvelesiani’s Business Knowledge Mapping System (BKMS) data repository 416. (Final Act. 3^4 citing || 12—16, 47—52, 54, 55.) We agree with the Examiner Gvelesiani teaches the claimed feature. For example, Gvelesiani states “[generating a 5 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 new relationship map may include accessing the BKMS data repository 416 to obtain information about various entities and relationships between those entities, as previously obtained, processed, and stored by the business data gathering engine 413 and/or the analysis engine 412.” (Gvelesiani 166.) Thus, we agree with the Examiner the claimed feature is taught by Gvelesiani. Argument concerning data aggregations from different entities Appellants argue Gvelesiani does not teach the data gathering engine 413 aggregates data from different entities. (App. Br. 10-11 citing Gvelesiani 148.) Appellants acknowledge Gvelesiani’s data gathering engine 413 “obtains (e.g., harvests, gathers, downloads, receives) data from various data sources 460 via a network 450 for storage in BKMS data repository 416” but deny the “various data sources” are different entities. (App. Br. 10.) Notwithstanding Appellants’ argument, Gvelesiani teaches the data gathered is information about various entities and relationships between those entities, as previously noted. (Gvelesiani 1 66.) Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. Claim 12 Appellants argue “Gvelesiani says nothing about metadata in a data store, let alone accessing stored in a data store of entities that defines an association between the entities.” (App. Br. 11—12.) We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. As the Examiner notes, metadata is merely data about data, and Gvelesiani Figure 2 shows “the links 210-215 are lines having various attributes that represent information about the relationships corresponding to those links.” (Final Act. 5 citing Gvelesiani 120, see also 12—15, 18—25, 47—52, Ans. 12—14 citing Gvelesiani Fig. 2.) As noted, 6 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 Gvelesiani teaches the entities and their relationships, i.e., metadata, are stored in a data store. (Gvelesiani | 66.) Claim 3 Appellants argue that Gvelesiani does not show an info-graphic display tile showing business information from a business data entity. (App. Br. 13.) For reasons discussed, we agree with the Examiner Gvelesiani teaches nodes representing business entities. (Gvelesiani 112, Figs. 1 and 2.) As for the tile, the Examiner relies on Flynt, not Gvelesiani, to teach this feature. (Ans. 15.) Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Claim 4 Appellants argue Gvelesiani does not teach or suggest that its nodes (the alleged display tiles) have a graph display portion that graphs business information, let alone graphing information from a plurality of entities. (App. Br. 13.) The Examiner finds this feature is taught by Gvelesiani. (Final Act. 9 citing Gvelesiani 113, Figs. 1—3, Ans. 15—16 citing Gvelesiani Fig. 3K.) As there is no definition for what is meant by “graph” in the Specification, we refer to a dictionary for its plain meaning. One definition is “a diagram representing a system of connections or interrelations among two or more things by a number of distinctive dots, lines, bars, etc.” (Dictionary.com, def. 1, last viewed 12/9/2016.) Gvelesiani Figure 3K fits this definition as it shows various entities connected by links that represent interrelations between the entities. Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in the rejection. Claim 7 Appellants note claim 7 recites an action display tile showing business information and having a link that navigates the user to a user interface display to perform an action relative to the selected entity. (App. Br. 14.) 7 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 Appellants argue Gvelesiani does not teach or suggest an action performed related to such an entity. (Id.) The Examiner notes Gvelesiani teaches: the elements of the relationship map 100 may be responsive to user inputs (e.g., generated by operation of an input device, such as a mouse, keyboard, etc.) to perform various actions, such as to display additional information about a node and/or link, modify a node (e.g., to expand, collapse, and/or delete a node), etc. (Ans. 16—17 citing Gvelesiani 116.) We agree with the Examiner that Gvelesiani teaches the claimed feature. Claims 18 and 19 Appellants repeat the arguments that Gvelesiani does not teach or suggest entities that are objects with rich functionality, or an object model that defines associations between object-oriented entities. (App. Br. 14.) For the reasons explained, we do not find these arguments persuasive. Claims 20 and 21 Appellants repeat the arguments that Gvelesiani does not teach the claimed entities, the display element that displays business data from business data records represented by a plurality of related business data entities, or metadata that defines associations between entities in its data store or an info-graphic display tile. (App. Br. 15.) Appellants also argue Gvelesiani does not teach or suggest that any of its nodes displays aggregated data from a plurality of entities, or display the aggregated data in a graph. (Id.) For the stated reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. DECISION We reverse the rejection of claims 18 and 19 under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. 8 Appeal 2016-001309 Application 13/594,881 We affirm the rejections of claims 1—5 and 7—21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation