Ex Parte Rasmussen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2015

12336929 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

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.
12/336,929 12/17/2008 Glenn D. Rasmussen CA920085192US1 2800
45725 7590 03/20/2015
Walder Intellectual Property Law PC
17304 Preston Road
Suite 200
Dallas, TX 75252
EXAMINER
UDDIN, MOHAMMED R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2015 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 GLENN D. RASMUSSEN, DAVID DEWAR,
and KATHERINE WALLACE
____________

Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CATHERINE SHIANG,
and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.

LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants
1
seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–24, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1
According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to managing drill-through
source metadata. Spec. ¶ 1. A source drill-through metadata handler defines
source drill-through metadata in a metadata model for one or more query
items that are drill-through source items. Id. at ¶ 9. A source specification
processor automatically analyzes data items used in a report definition to
locate data items using a query item that is related to a drill-through source
item. Id. The related drill-through source data item is then added to a
source report definition that is executed to generate a source report. Id.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:

1. A source drill-through metadata manager comprising:
a computer; and
a computer memory storing instructions, wherein the
instructions, when executed by the computer, cause the
computer to:
define and manage, by the source drill-through metadata
handler, source drill-through metadata in a metadata model for
one or more query items that are drill-through source items; and
automatically analyze, by a source specification
processor, data items used in a report definition to locate any
data item that uses a query item that is related to a query item
defined as a drill-through source item based on the source drill-
through metadata so as to identify one or more relevant drill-
through source data items for one or more query items located
during the analyzing, and automatically add the one or more
relevant drill-through source data items to a source report
definition.

Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929

3
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Vierich et al. US 2004/0139045 A1 July 15, 2004
(hereinafter “Vierich”)
Thomson et al. US 2006/0294098 A1 Dec. 28, 2006
(hereinafter “Thomson”)

Rejection
Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Thomson and Vierich. Ans. 2.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
Dispositive Issue: Does the combination of Thomson and Vierich teach or
suggest
automatically analyze, by a source specification processor, data
items used in a report definition to locate any data item that
uses a query item that is related to a query item defined as a
drill-through source item based on the source drill-through
metadata so as to identify one or more relevant drill-through
source data items for one or more query items located during
the analyzing, and automatically add the one or more relevant
drill-through source data items to a source report definition,
as recited in claim 1?
Appellants contend the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to claim 1 because the Examiner fails to establish
a factual basis, or articulate any reasons, in support of the legal conclusion of
obviousness. App. Br. 7–8. Appellants argue the Examiner provides no
explanation as to how the applied references are being found to teach or
Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929

4
suggest the specific limitations recited in claim 1 but, instead, merely
presents a list of citations. Id.
Appellants further contend the combination of Thomson and Vierich
does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Thomson merely
teaches translating context for an originating data source to allow the
originating data source to operate on a target data source (App. Br. 10) and
Vierich merely creates drill-through paths between source objects and target
objects (id. at 18). Appellants argue Thomson has no need to locate the
claimed “data item” because Thomson is directed to translating one report
for an originating data source to another report for a target data source and
merely uses metadata identifying the context for the translation. App. Br.
12–13. Appellants further argue
In Vierich there is no report definition that is analyzed to locate
any data item used in a report definition that uses a query item
that is related to a query item defined as a drill-through
source item in order to identify one or more relevant drill-
through source data items for one or more query items
based on the source drill-through metadata. Further, Vierich is
merely creating drill-though paths and is not creating a source
definition report to which one or more relevant drill-through
source data items are added that are identified for one or more
query items by locating any data item used in a report
definition that uses a query item that is related to a query item
defined as a drill-through source item based on the source drill-
through metadata. In fact, Vierich specifically states that, by
creating drill-through paths using the Vierich system, none of
the reports involved need be kept informed of changes to the
relationships of the underlying data and reports dependent on
the underlying data remain valid, resulting in a much reduced
maintenance burden. Therefore, Vierich has no need to
automatically add the one or more relevant drill-through source
data items to a source report definition.
Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929

5
App. Br. 18.
We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ arguments against the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and
conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Office action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 21–33) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief.
We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Thomson describes a table that includes the data items “Food” and
“48537.” Thomson ¶ 99. Thomson also teaches that the data items “Food”
and “48537” can be selected to drill-through to a respective target report.
Thomson ¶ 100. As such, Thomson’s data items “Food” and “48537” are
drill-through source items, which is consistent with Appellants’
Specification. See Spec. ¶ 2. Because the data item “48537” is included in
Thomson’s table, Thomson at least suggests that the data item “Food” is
used in a report definition — e.g., the report definition executed to generate
Thomson’s table.
Thomson also teaches that when the data item “48537” is selected
drilling-through to a target report, the data item is analyzed to determine the
context member — e.g., the related data item — “Food.” Thomson ¶ 100.
Because, as discussed supra, the related data item “48537” is a source drill-
through data item, Thomson at least suggests that the data item “Food” uses
a query item that is related to a query item — e.g., the query item used by
the source drill-through item “48537” — that is defined as a drill-through
source item. See Thomson ¶¶ 99, 100; Fig. 9.
With regard to the limitation “automatically add the one or more
Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929

6
relevant drill-through source data items to a source report definition,” claim
1 does not require that the “one or more relevant drill-through source data
items” be added to a source report based on automatically analyzing data
items used in a report definition. As such, because the table includes the
data item “48537,” Thomson at least suggests that the related source drill-
through item “48537” is added to the source report definition that is
executed to generate Thomson’s table. Further, Thomson teaches the
automatic generation of a target query (see Thomson ¶ 97) and, therefore, at
least suggests that the related source drill-through item “48537” is
automatically added to the source report definition. As such, Thomson
teaches or suggests the disputed limitations.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 12, 23, 24, argued together with
claim 1 (see App. Br. 5); and claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 22, which
depend variously from claims 1 and 12, and not argued separately.

Claims 2, 5, 7–10, 13, 16, and 18–21
On the record we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports
the Examiner’s findings and conclusion (Ans. 33–37) that the combined
teachings of Thomson and Vierich would have suggested the subject matter
of each representative claim. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 5, 7–10, 13, 16, and 18–21 for the reasons set forth in
the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference.

Appeal 2013-001610
Application 12/336,929

7
DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24.
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
tj