Ex Parte Pourheidari

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 2010

10447953 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MOHAMMAD POURHEIDARI
____________________

Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,9531
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 Application filed May 30, 2003. The real party in interest is Hewlett-
Packard Development Co., L.P. (Br. 2.)
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32 under
authority of 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). The Board of Patent Appeals and
Interferences (BPAI) has jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant invented a method and system for creating a custom view
of select information from a managed data store, including: receiving a user-
defined query specifying resources and corresponding relationships;
selecting a first set of information in a managed data store which satisfies the
user-defined query; removing a portion of the selected first set of
information using at least one rule to produce a second set of information;
constructing a view of the second set of information; and displaying an
image of the constructed view. (Spec. 1-2, ¶¶ [0004]-[0008].)3
Representative Claim
Independent claims 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for execution by a
computer to create a custom view of select information from a
managed data store, comprising:
receiving a user-defined query, the user-defined query
specifying resources and corresponding relationships to be
displayed in a desired view;
selecting a first set of information in a managed data
store which satisfies the user-defined query;

3 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”) and Substitute Appeal
Brief (“Br.”) filed January 14, 2008. We also refer to the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed March 14, 2008.
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

3
removing a portion of the selected first set of information
using at least one rule to produce a second set of information;
constructing a view of the second set of information; and
displaying an image of the constructed view.

References
The Examiner relies on the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Kaplan US 5,737,591 Apr. 7, 1998

Rochford US 6,633,312 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
(filed Oct. 19, 1999)

Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-26 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Kaplan.
The Examiner rejects claims 27-30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kaplan and Rochford.

ISSUES
Based on our review of the administrative record, Appellant’s
contentions, and the Examiner’s findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue
before us is as follows:
Does the Examiner err in finding the Kaplan reference discloses a
user-defined query specifying resources and corresponding relationships?

Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
Appellant’s Specification
1. Appellant explains that:
Projects, environments, and business enterprises can be
broken down into finite elements such as project steps, business
units, and process components. Often hierarchical relationships,
both logical and physical, exist among these various elements,
such as parent/child, contains/contained in, uses/used by, and
calls/called by. These elements and relationships can be
mapped into images that can be viewed by a user to present a
useful visual representation of the resources and relationships
of the project, environment, and/or business.
(Spec. 1, ¶ [0001]). And, further that:
The term, “resources,” is broadly used herein to represent
various objects, processes, structures, nodes, and domains that
can be represented by their respective components and having
one or more relationships among their respective components.
For example, and not limitation, the nodes and communication
paths of a network can be represented in a hierarchical view to
graphically demonstrate the relative positions and relationships
among the components comprising the network.
Correspondingly, the steps and processes of a business process
can also be represented as a graphical image wherein the
objects displayed in the image can be process steps and/or
resources required for each process step.
(Spec. 4, ¶ [0024]).
Kaplan Reference
2. Kaplan describes a system for database management and
display view generation, in particular, “a system for generating a view of a
result set from a query where the view is a perspective of the result set based
on a predetermined viewpoint.” (Col. 1, ll. 5-7.) Kaplan explains that “FIG.
3 illustrates a database schema 300 in graphic form. The database schema
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

5
300 includes eight record sources 301-308 and seven relationships 311-317
therebetween.” (Col. 5, ll. 36-38; Fig. 3.) Kaplan also describes Figures 11
and 12, explaining that:
[S]electing the Customers field set record source 301 produces
the viewpoint preview 1120 having three levels 1122, 1124, and
1126. The viewpoint preview 1120 does not contain actual data
from a result set. Instead, the viewpoint preview 1120 shows
the hierarchy of field names from the field set 404 in the
assigned level and order within each level where the actual
result set data would occur. However, a viewpoint selection
interface can be used to display all or a sample of actual data
from a result set.
(Col. 7, ll. 29-37; Fig. 11.) And, also explaining that:
With this information, the viewpoint selection interface 1100 is
able to present the viewpoint preview 1120 to the database user.
The view levels 1122, 1124 and 1126 from the view table 1200
can be displayed in the viewpoint preview 1120 by individual
field names within each level. The only step remaining is to
present actual data from the result set according to the view
levels 1122, 1124, and 1126. In the preferred embodiment this
final step is taken at the command of the user who would press
the FINISH command from among the command buttons 1130
in FIG. 11. However, the final view can be displayed
automatically without user intervention.
(Col. 9, ll. 21-33; Figs. 11, 12.)

ANALYSIS
Rejection of Claims 1-26 and 31 under § 102
Appellant contends that “[t]he disclosed features as variously
encompassed by independent claims 1, 14, 26 and 31, are neither taught nor
suggested by the” Kaplan reference. (Br. 6.) Specifically, Appellant
contends that Kaplan does not disclose the feature of a user-defined query
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

6
specifying resources and corresponding relationships to be displayed
because:
The selection of “Customers” 301 is not the same as specifying
resources and the corresponding relationships (e.g., 301, 303-
308). The Kaplan et al. patent would not have taught or
suggested a user specifying 1) resources and 2) corresponding
relationships to be displayed in a desired view. Rather, the
Kaplan et al. patent merely demonstrates that the selection of a
single field set record source 301 triggers a display 1120 of a
hierarchy of field names and order within each level in the
viewpoint preview 1120.
(Br. 7.) The Examiner finds that the Kaplan reference discloses each feature
of Appellant’s claim 1 and provides a detailed explanation as to why
Appellant’s arguments fail to overcome the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection (Ans. 3, 10-11), specifically, that “Kaplan does indeed teach
specifying resources and corresponding relationships to be displayed in a
desired view” (Ans. 11).
Based on these contentions, we decide the question of whether the
Examiner erred in finding the Kaplan reference discloses a user-defined
query specifying resources and corresponding relationships. After reviewing
the record on appeal, we agree with the Examiner that Kaplan discloses the
disputed feature.
The dispute before us hinges on the disagreement of Examiner and
Appellant as to what constitutes a “resource” and a “relationship,” and the
interpretation of these terms is critical to resolving this dispute. Thus, we
begin our analysis by construing Appellant’s disputed claim limitation. We
give claim terminology the “broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the [S]pecification” in accordance with our mandate that “claim
language should be read in light of the [S]pecification as it would be
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

7
interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted).
Appellant explicitly defines a resource as any of a variety of “objects,
processes, structures, nodes, and domains,” such as “the steps and processes
of a business process [which] can also be represented as a graphical image
wherein the objects displayed in the image can be process steps and/or
resources required for each process step.” (FF 1.) Appellant further
explains the “relationship” among resources refers to the association
between/among resources, which may include “hierarchical relationships,
both logical and physical, exist[ing] among these various elements, such as
parent/child, contains/contained in, uses/used by, and calls/called by.” (FF
1.) Accordingly, we broadly but reasonably construe Appellant’s disputed
claim limitation to mean a user-defined query that specifies (states or
includes) sources of information and associations between the information
sources.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section supra, Kaplan discloses
“record sources” and “relationships” among the record sources, including a
Customers field set record source and hierarchically interrelated field names
contained in other field sets (Orders and Order Details) specified by the user
in a viewpoint preview. (FF 2.) The viewpoint preview constitutes a query
to be displayed in that a user may display the data corresponding to the
preview by activating the FINISH command button. (FF2.) Thus, we find
that Kaplan discloses Appellant’s disputed limitation because Kaplan
discloses a viewpoint preview (a user-defined query) that specifies record
sources (sources of information or resources) and relationships between the
record sources.
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

8
We find Appellant’s contrary arguments unpersuasive. Specifically,
Appellant mischaracterizes Kaplan as merely demonstrating selecting “a
single field set record source 301” and displaying “a hierarchy of field
names and order within each level in the viewpoint preview,” which
Appellant alleges “is not the same as specifying resources and the
corresponding relationships.” (Br. 7.) We find (supra) that Kaplan’s
viewpoint preview constitutes a query including resources and relationships.
Appellant does not explain how or why Appellant’s recited limitation “is not
the same” as Kaplan’s disclosed viewpoint preview, and Appellant does not
provide any evidence or persuasive argument on this point. Further,
Appellant failed to file a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and responsive
arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer.
We, therefore, find that Kaplan discloses the disputed feature, and that
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of Appellant’s independent claim 1. Appellant does not separately
argue independent claims 14, 26, and 31, or dependent claims 2-13
(dependent on claim 1) and 15-25 (dependent on claim 14). (Br. 6-7.)
Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of claims 2-13,
15-26, and 31, and we find Kaplan anticipates these claims for the reasons
set forth with respect to representative claim 1. It follows that Appellant
does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
claims 1-26 and 31, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
Rejection of Claims 27-30 and 32 under § 103
Appellant contends that the Kaplan and Rochford references do not
teach or suggest the features of claim 27, in particular, “a map view module
receiving a user-defined query for selecting one or more resources and
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

9
relationships.” (Br. 7.) Specifically, Appellant contends that Kaplan “would
not have taught or suggested a map view module receiving a user-defined
query for selecting one or more resources and relationships, the user-defined
query specifying resources and corresponding relationships to be displayed
in a desired view, as recited in claim 27.” (Br. 7.) Appellant also contends
that Rochford “does not cure the deficiencies of” Kaplan (Br. 8), “does not
hint of a user-defined query specifying 1) resources and 2) corresponding
relationships to be displayed in a desired view” (id.), and “would not have
taught or suggested . . . a map view module receiving a user-defined query
for selecting one or more resources and relationships, the user-defined query
specifying resources and corresponding relationships to be displayed in a
desired view, as recited in claim 27” (id.). Appellant further contends that
“there would have been no motivation or suggestion to have combined the
references in the manner suggested by the Examiner,” because Kaplan “is
directed to a database view generation system for viewing a result set of data
extracted from a database by a query,” and in contrast, Rochford “is directed
to a method and apparatus for selecting network entities.” (Br. 8.)
Appellant merely restates the disputed claim limitation, reiterates the
arguments with respect to claim 1 supra, which we found unpersuasive of
error, and contends that the Rochford reference does not remedy the
deficiencies of the Kaplan reference. “A statement which merely points out
what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate
patentability of the claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii); 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.67(c)(l)(vii). We also note that the Examiner relied on the Rochford
reference to teach the “map view module” portion of the disputed claim
limitation – “a map view module receiving a user-defined query for selecting
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

10
one or more resources and relationships, the user-defined query specifying
resources and corresponding relationships to be displayed in a desired view”
(See Claim App’x. 4, claim 27) – which is otherwise identical to the disputed
limitation of claim 1. (Ans. 7-8, 11.) Appellant, however, does not even
address this aspect of the feature in the discussion of Rochford. (See Br. 8.)
Further, Appellant failed to file a Reply Brief to rebut the findings and
responsive arguments made by the Examiner in the Answer.
We understand Appellant’s argument, that “there would have been no
motivation or suggestion to have combined the references” (Br. 8), to allege
that the Examiner has presented an incorrect or insufficient rationale for
combining the Kaplan and Rochford references. We do not agree. Kaplan
describes a system for generating views of database information (FF 2),
which is analogous to Rochford which describes a graphical user interface
(GUI) system for managing a network utilizing network entity attributes
stored in a database (Rochford, col. 3, ll. 16-27; col. 4, l. 36 to col. 5, l. 5;
Fig. 1). Thus, we conclude, as did the Examiner, that it would have been
obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellant’s invention
to combine the Kaplan and Rochford references because combining
Kaplan’s teaching of a viewpoint preview (query) including resources and
relationships with a query responsive GUI including mapping information as
taught by Rochford (see Ans. 7-8, 11-12) is tantamount to the predictable
use of prior art elements according to their established functions – an
obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417
(2007). It follows that Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 27.
Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

11
Appellant does not separately argue dependent claims 28-30
(dependent on claim 27) and 32 (dependent on claim 31, discussed supra).
(Br. 6-7.) Accordingly, we select claim 27 as representative of claims 28-30
and 32. We find the combination of the Kaplan and Rochford references
collectively renders claims 28-30 and 32 obvious for the reasons set forth
with respect to representative claim 27. It follows that Appellant does not
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 27-30
and 32, and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1-26 and 31, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
27-30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-26 and 31, under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27-30 and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-005073
Application 10/447,953

12
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

rwk

Hewlett Packard Company
PO Box 272400, 3404 E. Harmony Road
Intellectual Property Administration
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400