Ex Parte Shih

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 4, 2017

12564814 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 4, 2017)

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.
12/564,814 09/22/2009 Jenngang Shih 2009P00135US 9200
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
04/06/2017 EXAMINER
CHAUDHURI, ANITA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2173
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/06/2017 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JENNGANG SHIH
Appeal 2016-003833
Application 12/564,8141
Technology Center 2100
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN A. EVANS, and CARL L. SILVERMAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3—22, which constitute the only pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to a pattern analysis system to enable a user to
obtain specific analysis from multi-dimensional storage structures. Abstract;
Spec. H1—4. Claim 1 is exemplary of the matter on appeal (disputed
limitations emphasized):
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP AG ("SAP"), a
Corporation of Germany. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-003833
Application 12/564,814
1. A method comprising:
receiving a pattern selection from a user through a guided user
interface that restricts the pattern selection to one of a set of available
patterns in a multi-dimensional data source without requiring specific
user knowledge of the set of available patterns;
receiving a parameter selection from the user through the
guided user interface that restricts the parameter selection to a set of
available parameters in the multi-dimensional data source associated
with the pattern selection; and
executing by a computer system the pattern selection and the
parameter selection on the multi-dimensional data source to obtain a
report with deterministic values.
Br. 17 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3—6, 9-12, 15—19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Ramer et al. (US 2008/0214155 Al;
pub. Sept. 4, 2008) (“Ramer”) and Akaboshi (US 2003/0195874 Al; Oct.
16, 2003) (“Akaboshi”). Final Act. 3-5.
Claims 7, 8, 13—14, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over Ramer, Akaboshi, and Bemacki et al. (US
7,801,874 B2; iss. Sept. 21, 2010) (“Bemacki”). Final Act. 5—6.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding Ramer
teaches the claim 1 term multi-dimensional data source. Br. 9-10 (citing
Specification 117). In particular, Appellant argues this term is defined in
2 The Rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is withdrawn. See
Final Act. 2; Advisory Act. 3.
2
Appeal 2016-003833
Application 12/564,814
the Specification “[a]s used herein a "multi-dimensional storage structure"
refers to a data source with data organized by at least two types of relational
tables, dimensional tables and measure tables (sometimes referred to as fact
tables), where dimensional tables contain categorical data and measure
tables contain numerical data and the two types of tables are correlated via
foreign keys (emphasis added).” Id.
Appellant argues the Examiner errs by ignoring the express
requirement that a "multi-dimensional data source" requires data organized
by tables correlated via foreign keys. Id. at 10. According to Appellant, the
Examiner merely finds Ramer includes tables containing categorical data
and tables containing numerical data but does not identify a foreign key that
correlates with the identified tables of categorical and numerical data. Id.
The Examiner finds Ramer teaches relational database with
categorical data and numerical data. Ans. 7 (citing Ramer || 123, 299, 240,
302, 416, 73, and 304). Regarding Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
errs in ignoring and the two types of tables are correlated via foreign keys,
the Examiner finds:
Ramer never discloses the absence of a foreign key. Secondly, the claim
language does not read a foreign key. Neither Ramer nor the appellant
discloses the programming details on the "keys" of the database tables.
Id.
We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments as the term "multi­
dimensional data source" is expressly defined in the Specification as
comprising "data organized by at least two types of relational tables,"
wherein the two types of tables "are correlated via foreign keys." See
Specification 117. As such, since the claim recites "multi-dimensional data
3
Appeal 2016-003833
Application 12/564,814
source," the claim need not additionally recite "and the two types of tables
are correlated via foreign keys."
Regarding the Examiner’s finding Ramer never discloses the absence
of a foreign key, this is insufficient basis to support a finding that Ramer
does disclose, or suggest, a foreign key. Regarding the Examiner’s finding
neither Ramer nor Appellant discloses programming details of the “keys” of
the database tables, the Examiner’s finding is insufficient to support a
finding that Ramer teaches the claim 1 term multi-dimensional data source
which includes and the two types of tables are correlated via foreign keys.
In view of the above, based on the record before us, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 1, and independent claims 9 and 15 which recite the
disputed term. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 3—8,
10-14, and 16-22. Cf. In reFritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992)
(“[Djependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which
they depend are nonobvious . . . .”). Because our decision with regard to the
disputed limitation is dispositive of the rejection of all pending claims, we
do not address additional arguments raised by Appellant.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3—22.
REVERSED
4