Ex Parte Poelman et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 201310874541 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN SQUIRES POELMAN, GARY ROBINSON, and ALVIN HON LAM SO ____________________ Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-12, and 31-46. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to systems and methods of online analytical processing (OLAP) and, in particular, to systems and methods for “designing aggregates based on access patterns in the dimensions of a dimensional model in an OLAP system.” Spec. ¶ 1. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. In an online analytical processing system, a method of designing aggregates comprising: defining an analysis window for a dimensional model in accordance with at least one window template and a starting point, wherein the at least one window template defines a generalized analysis window which can be moved and applied to specific and related members of a dimension, and wherein the starting point provides a reference for the at least one window template to define the analysis window; producing one or more aggregate definitions based on the analysis window; changing the starting point to a new starting point; repeating the defining using the new starting point to provide a new analysis window; storing the produced aggregate definitions in a computer system; and Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 3 pre-computing an aggregate within each of one or more windows of interest, the windows of interest being frequently accessed analysis windows. Reference Morris US 2005/0038768 A1 Feb. 17, 2005 Rejection Claims 1, 3-12, and 31-46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Morris. Ans. 3-11. ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1, 31, 42 Appellants argue Morris does not disclose (1) “an analysis window” that is defined in accordance with a “window template” and a “starting point”; (2) producing aggregates using an “analysis window”; (3) changing the starting point and redefining an analysis window; (4) storing “aggregate definitions”; and (5) pre-computing aggregates, as recited in independent claims 1, 31, and 42. App. Br. 13-16. Specifically, Appellants assert Morris merely discloses a cross attribute analysis system for data in a multi- dimensional planning application (MDP) and a technique for displaying that data in a spreadsheet so that it can be viewed two-dimensionally and does not mention a window template or a starting point nor does Morris disclose how such features could “be applied to define an analysis window.” App. Br. 14. Appellants further argue, to the extent a spreadsheet has an implicit starting point, that “starting point would not ‘provide a reference for the at least one window template to define the analysis window,’ as recited in the above claim limitation.” Id. Appellants also assert Morris’ discussion of Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 4 multiple views and dimension splitting do not disclose the recited “window template to define a generalized, movable, analysis window.” Id. Similarly, Appellants argue Morris cannot disclose repeating the defining of an analysis window because, as previously asserted, Morris does not disclose defining an analysis window at all. App. Br. 15-16. Appellants acknowledge that Morris discloses aggregation and data storage, but assert that Morris’ dimension splitting does not anticipate the recited “analysis window” and Morris does not disclose storing aggregate definitions that are produced as recited. Id. Appellants’ final argument, with respect to the independent claims, is that Morris’ discussion of dimension splitting and banding in paragraphs 24 and 27 does not disclose pre-computations. App. Br. 16. The Examiner applies the broadest reasonable interpretation to the claim terms and finds Morris’ disclosure of dimension splitting and providing alternate layouts or views meets the recited window template and analysis window. Ans. 12-13. The Examiner further finds the ability of Morris to create new dimensions based on a selected member (dimension splitting), i.e., select a dimension as a starting point, meets Appellants’ recited starting point. Appellants argue that there is no disclosure of the terms “analysis window,” “window template,” and “starting point” in Morris. Appellants also assert a spreadsheet starting point, to the extent disclosed by Morris, is not the same as the recited “starting point.” While Appellants repeatedly assert that nothing in Morris discloses an analysis window, a window template, or a starting point, Appellants do not provide sufficient argument or evidence to persuade us that the Examiner’s construction is unreasonable. Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 5 Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s construction of the disputed terms. Thus, giving the disputed terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Morris does not disclose “an analysis window” that is defined in accordance with a “window template” and a “starting point,” as recited in independent claims 1, 31, and 42, and agree with the Examiner’s findings that Morris discloses the recited limitations. Appellants’ arguments that Morris does not disclose producing aggregates using an analysis window, repeat defining an analysis window, or store aggregate definitions (as produced in the manner recited in Appellants’ claims) are based on the argument that Morris does not disclose an analysis window. See App. Br. 15-16. Because we find no error in the Examiner’s constructions and findings regarding the analysis window, window template, and starting point, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Regarding the argument that Morris does not show pre-computations, the Examiner finds Morris discloses sub-totaling attribute values and having the totals ready for display. Ans. 19 (citing Morris ¶ 10). We agree with this finding and Appellants have not presented argument or evidence to persuade us that the Examiner’s finding regarding the disclosure of paragraph 10 of Morris does not disclose pre-computing aggregates. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 31, and 42 for the reasons discussed above. Dependent Claims 3-8, 10-12, 32-37, 39-41, 43, 44, and 46 With respect to dependent claims 3 and 32, Appellants argue Morris does not teach aggregation definitions or analysis windows and therefore Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 6 Morris cannot teach “adjusting the aggregate definitions based on the new analysis window,” as recited in claims 3 and 32. Appellants argue claims 4, 33, and 43 are not anticipated by Morris because Morris does not mention “window templates, relative members, analysis window, or specific members.” App. Br. 17. Regarding claims 5, 6, 34, 35, and 44, Appellants concede Morris discloses time dimensions but assert that “the time dimensions are not discussed in the context of window template levels.” App. Br. 18. With respect to claims 7 and 36 and claims 8 and 37, Appellants argue the window templates are not specified from a user or derived from queries, respectively. App. Br. 18-19. Appellants also assert the cited portions of Morris “make no mention of a window template, which is the context of claims 10 and 39.” App. Br. 20. Appellants next argue “there is no mention of receiving queries and adjusting a window template” or of “changing a starting point of the window template” in paragraph 32 of Morris. App. Br. 20-21 (emphasis omitted). Therefore, Appellants assert Morris does not disclose “receiving queries; and adjusting the window template based on the queries,” as recited in claims 11 and 40 or “receiving queries; and changing a starting point of the window template,” as recited in claims 12, 41, and 46. Appellants’ arguments are predominantly based on similar arguments asserted with respect to the independent claims; namely, that Morris does not disclose an analysis window, a window template, or a starting point. Because we find no error in the Examiner’s construction, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments directed to a lack of disclosure of an analysis window, window template, and starting point. Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 7 The Examiner also pointed to portions of Morris that disclose relative members and specific members, as recited in claims 4, 33, and 43. Ans. 3- 11 (citing Morris ¶¶ 27-32). Specifically, the disclosure in paragraphs 31 and 32 and the accompanying Figures 3A and 3B disclose dimensions with various levels and members within those levels (e.g., “Week 1,” “Week 2,” and “Month”). Therefore, we similarly are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Morris does not disclose relative and specific members. The Examiner finds “Morris discloses a variety of ways to identify and quickly change members such as drilling up or down or by a relational type query,” and therefore discloses receiving queries. Ans. 23. As discussed, we are not apprised of error in the Examiner’s construction of window template and starting point and agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding adjusting the same based on receiving queries. Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Morris does not disclose receiving queries and adjusting the starting point or window template. Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the rejection of claims 3-8, 10-12, 32-37, 39-41, 43, 44, and 46. Dependent Claims 9, 38, and 45 With respect to dependent claims 9, 38, and 45, Appellants argue Morris does not disclose “wherein the producing also produces the aggregate definitions based on a weighting parameter,” as recited in claims 9, 38, and 45, because “bands are groupings, not weights as . . . used in the context of this application.” App. Br. 20. The Examiner finds bands are a type of weight (Ans. 5), but provides no further clarification on how bands (described in paragraph 27 of Morris as “group[ed] together similar values”) Appeal 2011-004635 Application 10/874,541 8 meet the recited weights. Therefore, given the record before us and the fact that claims 9, 38, and 45 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), we are unable to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 38, and 45. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10- 12, 31-37, 39-44, and 46 is affirmed and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 38, and 45 is reversed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation