Ex Parte Rope et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 22, 2016

13550985 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2016)

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.
13/550,985 07/17/2012 Daniel J. Rope SVL920110009US2 8861
46157 7590 12/27/2016
EDELL, SHAPIRO, & FINNAN, LLC
9801 Washingtonian Blvd.
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
LE, SARAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2619
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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL J. ROPE and GRAHAM J. WILLS
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
Technology Center 2600
Before MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to the organization of data for
visualization, such as visualization of data in the form of charts. Spec. 11.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
generating a plurality of charts that visually represent
data from a multivariate data set;
mapping variables within the multivariate data set to
components of each chart;
calculating a score value for each chart based on a
plurality of factors; and
presenting one or more of the plurality of charts based on
corresponding score value for display, wherein the presenting
further comprises facilitating navigation from a visual display
of a first selected chart from the plurality of charts to a visual
display of a second selected chart of the plurality of charts,
wherein each variable associated with the first selected chart
differs from each variable associated with the second selected
chart.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Chronister (US 2009/0287673 Al; issued Nov. 19,
2009) and Jou (US 2003/0071814 Al; Apr. 17, 2003).
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over the combination of Chronister, Alain Morineau Visual Data
Mining: the Case of VITAMIN System and Other Software, Revue
MODULAD 100 (2004) (“Morineau”), and Adam Perer and Ben
Shneiderman, Balancing Systematic and Flexible Exploration of Social
2
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
Networks, Vol. 12, No. 5 IEEE Transactions on Visualization and
Computer Graphics Vol. 12, No. 5 (Sept./Oct. 2006) (“Perer”).
Claims 9-15 stand rejected as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over the combination of Chronister, Jou, Morineau, and Jastrebski
(US 2010/0169137 Al; July 1, 2010).
ISSUES
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chronister and
Jou teaches or suggests generating a plurality of charts that visually
represent data from a multivariate data set (“generating” limitation”),
facilitating navigation from a visual display of a first selected chart from the
plurality of charts to a visual display of a second selected chart of the
plurality of charts (“facilitating navigation” limitation), and wherein each
variable associated with the first selected chart differs from each variable
associated with the second selected chart (“each variable differs”
limitation), as recited in independent claim 1?
B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chronister,
Morineau, and Perer teaches or suggests presenting a visual display
comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes represent variables of the
multivariate data set and line connections between nodes are displayed
differently based upon a bivariate relationship between the nodes connected
by each line connection (“presenting” limitation); and facilitating navigation
from the visual display comprising the plurality of nodes to a visual display
of one or more charts associated with a variable of the multivariate data set
in response to selection of a node corresponding with the variable
3
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
(“facilitating navigation from nodes” limitation), as recited in independent
claim 7?
C) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Chronister,
Jou, Morineau, and Jastrebski teaches or suggests generating a plurality of
charts includes reducing a search space of potential candidates to be
considered for presentation based on corresponding score value by
analyzing metadata associated with the multivariate data set in combination
with statistical analysis of the data to determine relationships between
variables of the multivariate data set, the determination of relationships . . .
including a bivariate analysis . . . and a random forest model analysis
(“reducing search space” limitation), as recited in independent claim 9?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in consideration of
Appellants’ contentions and the evidence of record. For the reasons that
follow, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions that the Examiner’s
rejections of the claims are in error.
Issue A: Claims 1—6
Appellants contend the combination of Chronister and Jou does not
teach or suggest the “generating,” “facilitating navigation,” and “each
variable differs” limitations recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 11—14; Reply
Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants argue Chronister does not teach applying
data of the data set to two or more visualization types and thus fails to teach
or suggest the “generating” limitation. App. Br. 13. Appellants further
argue Chronister does not teach the “facilitating navigation” limitation
because there is no indication a user can choose to navigate from one
selection to another visualization type. App. Br. 12. Additionally,
4
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
Appellants argue Jou does not teach the “each variable differs” limitation
because it appears that at least one variable is the same for at least some of
the charts displayed on both sheets 1 and 21. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2. We
are not persuaded of error by Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the combination of Chronister,
Jou, and Morineau teaches or suggests the “generating” limitation. See Ans
3; Final Act. 11—12, 15. In particular, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that: (i) Chronister generates a chart that visually represents data
from a data set; (ii) Jou teaches generating a plurality of charts that visually
represent data from a data set, and (iii) Morineau teaches generating a
plurality of charts that visually represent data from a multivariate data set.
Ans. 3; see Chronister 120; Jou 136; Morineau 101, 114—115. Even
assuming that Chronister does not teach the disputed limitation, Appellants’
argument is still unpersuasive because it does not address the Examiner’s
reliance upon Jou and Morineau for teaching the disputed limitation. Final
Act. 12, 15; see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as
here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”).
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Chronister
does not teach the “facilitating navigation” limitation. As acknowledged by
Appellants (App. Br. 13), the Examiner relies on Jou, not Chronister, to
teach this limitation. See Ans. 2, Final Act. 13. Moreover, we agree with
the Examiner that Jou describes how a user can switch from sheet 1 to sheet
21 to view different charts contained on each sheet, and, therefore teaches
the “facilitating navigation” limitation. See Ans. 4 (citing Jou Figs 2A, 2B,
in 36-37).
5
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
Finally, we are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments that Jou does
not teach the “each variable differs” limitation. The Examiner finds Jou
teaches or suggests this limitation by its description of different charts
contained on sheet 1 (charts 9, 10, 11, 12) and sheet 21 (charts 21, 26, 27,
28). Ans. 4 (citing Jou Figs 2A, 2B, || 36—37). We agree. Appellants’
argument (Reply Br. 2) that it appears one variable (Revenue) is the same
for at least some of the charts is not persuasive. For example, chart 14 on
sheet 1 illustrates “Profit Margin,” which does not appear to include
“Revenue,” and appears to have variables that each differ from the variables
associated with chart 23 (“Revenue vs. Plan) on sheet 21. See Jou Figs. 2A,
2B. Even though not explicitly stated, we determine a person of ordinary
skill would understand the cited sections to teach or suggest the variables for
a chart on sheet 1 can differ from each variable associated with a chart on
sheet 21.1 See KSR Inti Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (An
obviousness analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account
of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art
would employ).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
1 Furthermore, we observe the cited sections of Jou further describe how a
user can select the data items, the grouping of data items, and requested data
visualization elements (charts) that appear on the sheets. See Jou 147 (cited
by the Examiner in the rejection of claim 1); see also id. 1130-33
(describing charts, panels, scenes, and sheets). A person of ordinary skill
would implicitly understand a user can select to setup the requested
visualization elements so that the variables associated with one chart on a
sheet differs from each variable associated with a chart on a second sheet.
6
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2—6, for which Appellants do
not present separate arguments patentability.
Issue B: Claims 7 and 8
Appellants contend the combination of Chronister, Morineau and Jou
does not teach or suggest the “presenting,” and “facilitating navigation from
nodes” limitations recited in independent claim 7. App. Br. 14—16; Reply
Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants argue the references do not teach the
“presenting” limitation because: (i) Morineau does not teach line
connections between nodes are displayed differently based upon a bivariate
relationship (App. Br. 15); and (ii) Perer’s description of a visualization of
social networks as nodes with certain links of different thicknesses is not
based upon a bivariate relationship between the nodes and is not the same as
the “presenting” limitation (App. Br. 15—16; Reply Br. 3). With regard to
“facilitating navigation from nodes,” Appellants argue that Morineau does
not teach this limitation, but rather instead describes how a user can select a
node to navigate to other maps, which are presumably other node maps.
App. Br. 15. We are not persuaded of error by these arguments.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Morineau teaches presenting a
visual display comprising a plurality of nodes, wherein the nodes represent
variables of the multivariate data set. Final Act. 21; see Morineau 115
(illustrating and describing Fig. Word Mapper as a graphic visualization
with links between nodes to represent the connections among variables).
We further agree with the Examiner that Perer teaches displaying the line
connections between the nodes differently based upon a bivariate
relationship between the nodes. Ans. 5; see Perer 697, Fig. 4b. In contrast
to Appellants’ assertion that the line thickness described in Perer is not
7
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
based on a bivariate relationship, Perer explicitly discloses that the thickness
of each line is proportional to the number of links (relationship) that exist
between the two groups (nodes) that are linked (i.e., a bivariate relationship
between the connected nodes). See id. Appellants’ remaining arguments for
this limitation are not persuasive because they attack Morineau and Perer
individually, when the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the
references. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument that Morineau does
not teach the “facilitating navigation from nodes” limitation. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, that both Morineau and Perer teach or suggest this
limitation. See Final Act. 21—22; Ans. 5. The cited section of Morineau
describes how a user can navigate between levels of maps by selecting
nodes, thereby opening a new level of a network map (chart) that represents
connections among categorical variables. Morineau 115. The cited section
of Perer describes how users can select a community (node) to examine it
more closely, thereby displaying a graph (chart) of smaller subgroups
(variables) of the community. Perer 697.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 7. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 7 and its dependent claim 8, not argued separately.
Issue C: Claims 9—15
Appellants contend the combination of Chronister, Jou, Morineau, and
Jastrebski does not teach the “reducing search space” limitation recited in
independent claim 9. App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 3^4. In support of this
contention, Appellants argue Jastrebski’s description of a score generated for
a graph based upon one or more modules (including a random forest
8
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
module) does not teach the “reducing search space” limitation because the
score described is based upon a graph that has already been presented and
not upon initially reducing a search space for potential graphs to be
presented. App. Br. 17—18; Reply Br. 4. Appellants further argue
Jastrebski does not teach the score is based upon a determination of
relationships that includes both a random forest model analysis and a
bivariate analysis. App. Br. 18.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that a single
reference (Jastrebski) does not teach the “reducing search space” limitation,
because the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Jou, Morineau,
and Jastrebski to teach this limitation. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. For
example, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not dispute, that Jou teaches
initially reducing a search space of potential chart candidates to be
considered for presentation based on a corresponding score value by
analyzing metadata associated with the data set in combination with
statistical analysis to determine relationships between variables of the data
set. Final Act. 27 (citing Jou 147). The Examiner further finds, and
Appellants do not dispute, that Morineau teaches determination of
relationships between variables of a multivariate data set including a
bivariate analysis that determines strengths for combinations of pairs of
variables. Final Act. 28 (citing Morineau 106—107, 114—115). Appellants
do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that Jastrebski teaches a random forest
model analysis that determines relationships between more than two
variables. Final Act. 30 (citing Jastrebski Fig. 7B, 173).
9
Appeal 2015-004597
Application 13/550,985
Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 9 and its
dependent claims 10-15, not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15.2
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
2 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we invite the
Examiner to consider whether the claims comply with 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
“2014 Interim Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility,” 79 Fed. Reg.
74618 (Dec. 16, 2014); “July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility,” 80
Fed. Reg. 45429 (July 30, 2015); “May 2016 Subject Matter Eligibility
Update,” 81 Fed. Reg. 27381 (May 6, 2016).
10