Ex Parte Merkel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2013

10335110 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2013)

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.
10/335,110 12/31/2002 Michael Merkel 7781.0060-00 4866
60668 7590 06/13/2013
SAP / FINNEGAN, HENDERSON LLP
901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
EXAMINER
RUTLEDGE, AMELIA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2177
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL MERKEL and MARLIES MEESSEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-002030
Application 10/335,110
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-002030
Application 10/335,110

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1-15 and 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

The claims are directed to methods and computer systems for
displaying time variant tabular data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer executable method for displaying tabular
data at a first computer, the method comprising:

extracting the tabular data from a relational database,
wherein the tabular data includes multiple entries that comprise
first data representing an instance of an entity and second data
comprising a time variant value having multiple parameter
values associated with the entity, the time variant value is
configured to change from a parameter value to a subsequent
parameter value when time changes from an interval of time
associated with the parameter value to a subsequent interval of
time associated with the subsequent parameter value, wherein
the time variant value is associated with a validity time period
representing a period of time during which the time variant
value associated with the first data is valid;

determining an observation period extending from the
start of the earliest validity time period to the end of the latest
validity time period;

at the first computer, automatically identifying multiple
time intervals per entity in the observation period based on the
time variant values of the multiple entries, wherein each of the
identified time intervals represents a period of time during
which the time variant value does not change from the
parameter value to the subsequent parameter value;

Appeal 2011-002030
Application 10/335,110

3
only after identifying the multiple time intervals,
providing a user interface that allows a user the ability to select
one of the multiple identified time intervals using a drop-down
list and to interactively navigate the tabular data along a time
axis; and

displaying a table containing the multiple entries based
on the selected time interval.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Angus
Goldthwaite
US 7,003,504 B1
US 7,146,574 B1
Feb. 21, 2006
Dec. 5, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1-15 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Angus and Goldthwaite.

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants argue Angus in
combination with Goldthwaite does not disclose automatically identifying
multiple time intervals during which a time variant value does not change.
(App. Br. 14; see generally Reply Br. 3). Appellants respond to the portions
of the prior art references relied upon by the Examiner with respect to the
Angus reference and the combination with the Goldthwaite reference to
contend that the combination does not teach or fairly suggest the invention
as recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 22. (Reply Br. 3-8). We agree
with Appellants' contentions and adopt them as our own.
Appeal 2011-002030
Application 10/335,110

4
Because the Examiner paints with a broad brush in making the
obviousness rejection, we are left to speculate as to the precise details of
how each argued claim limitation is described or suggested by the portions
of the Angus and Goldthwaite references identified by the Examiner. In an
ex parte appeal, the Board "is basically a board of review—we review . . .
rejections made by patent examiners." Ex parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d
1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). More specifically, "[i]n rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness." In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citing In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). "The
review authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the
examiner . . . invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve
patentability in the first instance." Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110,
1112 (BPAI 1999). We agree with Appellants the portions of the Angus
reference relied upon by the Examiner have some relevance to time variant
data or to time, but the portions relied upon do not expressly describe or
fairly suggest the claimed:
automatically identifying multiple time intervals per entity in
the observation period based on the time variant values of the
multiple entries, wherein each of the identified time intervals
represents a period of time during which the time variant value
does not change from the parameter value to the subsequent
parameter value;
only after identifying the multiple time intervals,
providing a user interface that allows a user the ability to select
one of the multiple identified time intervals . . .

as recited in claim 1. (Reply Br. 4). Therefore, we cannot sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and its respective dependent claims.
Appeal 2011-002030
Application 10/335,110

5
Independent claims 9 and 22 contain similar claim limitations which the
Examiner has not shown to be obvious over the combination of Angus and
Goldthwaite. Therefore, we cannot sustain the rejection of independent
claims 9 and 22 and claims dependent upon claim 9.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-15 and 22 under 35 U.S.C
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Angus and Goldthwaite.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-15 and 22
is reversed.

REVERSED

llw