Keith Sholes et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 12, 2020

2018008557 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2020)

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.
13/754,871 01/30/2013 Keith SHOLES ORA120614-US-NP 2499
55498 7590 05/12/2020
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
GOLDBERG, IVAN R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2020 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEITH SHOLES, JEFF ERICKSON,
QIU ZHONG, and NA LI
____________

Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25, i.e., all pending
claims. Because the claims have been twice rejected, we have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134(a). See Ex parte Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d
1420, 1423 (BPAI 1994) (precedential).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies the real party in interest
as Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, “[e]nterprise resource planning (ERP)
systems integrate management information from the multiple different
portions of an organization,” and “[a] very common requirement for a user
of an ERP system is the need to create reports over data from the ERP
system.” Spec. ¶ 2.2 The Specification explains that ERP systems typically
have reporting capabilities that (1) “are very limited as compared to
traditional reporting tools (and are normally limited to a data table)” and
(2) do not permit users to create “on-demand, highly personalized reports.”
Id. ¶¶ 3, 6. The Specification also explains that “reporting tools have
sophisticated design features for layout and many choices for output format
that users desire.” Id. ¶ 4.
Hence, the invention combines an ERP application and a reporting
tool. See Spec. ¶ 39, Fig. 2A; see also id. ¶ 35. In particular, the invention
employs “dynamic field selection at an ERP application, where [a] user may
make selections specifying a plurality of report parameters,” and “[u]sing an
ERP query tool, queries are automatically generated based on the user’s
inputs.” Id. ¶ 8; see id. at 35 (Abstract). Then, “[a]n engine queries the data
based on the user defined query criteria, packages the user selected fields
with[] the data and generate[s] the report output on the fly.” Id. ¶ 32; see
id. ¶ 8.

2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed January 30, 2013; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed December 11, 2017; “Appeal Br.” for the Appeal
Brief, filed May 14, 2018; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed
June 27, 2018; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed August 27, 2018.
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

3
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads
as follows:
1. A computer-implemented method for generating a report
for an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, comprising:
identifying a plurality of data fields within a database
operatively coupled to the ERP system;
receiving, by an application server at a query setup path,
a plurality of user inputs at a query tool interface portion of a
resource management application, the plurality of user inputs
including a plurality of report parameters selected from the
query tool interface portion, the query tool interface portion
having a first set of one or more interface control elements for
selecting data fields from among the plurality of data fields
within the database and a second set of one or more interface
control elements for defining query criteria for the data fields
selected;
creating, by the application server at a reporting setup
path, a new report data model for a new report, the new report
data model comprising a set of database tables and fields
selected from the plurality of data fields within the database to
meet requirements of the new report, the new report data model
being stored in the database;
automatically generating, at the query setup path, one
or more queries for the plurality of report parameters using
predicates extracted from the query criteria for the data fields
selected using the resource management application;
executing the one or more queries against the database
and storing raw data returned in response to executing the one
or more queries;
loading, at the reporting setup path, the new report data
model into a layout tool portion of the resource management
application;
designing, at the reporting setup path, a layout definition
using a layout tool interface portion of the resource
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

4
management application, the layout tool interface portion
having interface control elements for selecting visualization
elements and interface control elements for associating one or
more of the data fields from the new report data model with
selected visualization elements;
storing, at the reporting setup path, the layout definition
comprising at least automatically generated instructions
corresponding to user selected visualization elements associated
to the data fields from the new report data model; and
creating the report, by a rendering engine portion of the
resource management application, using both the layout
definition and the raw data stored by the resource management
application, the resource management application integrating
creation of the new report data model and creation of the layout
definition to create the new report by providing users the query
tool interface portion and the layout tool interface portion
within the resource management application.
Appeal Br. 41–42 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the
Examiner relies on the following prior art:
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Non-Final Act. 3–11.
Kaplan et al. (“Kaplan”) US 5,630,122 May 13, 1997
Devine et al. (“Devine”) US 6,385,644 B1 May 7, 2002
Meyers et al. (“Meyers”) US 2005/0039033 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Fazal et al. (“Fazal”) US 2007/0239508 A1 Oct. 11, 2007
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

5
Claims 1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23, and 24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Fazal and Meyers. Non-Final
Act. 11–34.
Claims 2, 11, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Fazal, Meyers, and Kaplan. Non-Final Act. 35–36.
Claims 3, 7, 12, 16, 21, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Fazal, Meyers, and Devine. Non-Final
Act. 37–43.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments
that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we agree with the
Examiner’s conclusions concerning unpatentability under § 103(a) but
disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion concerning ineligibility under
§ 101. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning for the § 103(a)
rejections in the Non-Final Office Action and Answer. See Non-Final
Act. 11–43; Ans. 18–23. We add the following to address and emphasize
specific findings and arguments.
The § 101 Rejection of Claims
1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21, and 23–25
INTRODUCTION
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly:
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Mayo and Alice, the
Supreme Court explained that § 101 “contains an important implicit
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

6
exception” for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012);
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014); see Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a
two-step analytical framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter.
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–80; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18.
Under Mayo/Alice step one, we “determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to” a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of
nature, or a natural phenomenon. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Step one involves
looking at the “focus” of the claims at issue and their “character as a whole.”
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
In January 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance for determining
whether claims are directed to a judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019
Guidance”). The 2019 Guidance applies to the Board. Id. at 50–51, 57 n.42;
see 35 U.S.C. § 3(a)(2)(A) (investing the Director with responsibility “for
providing policy direction” for the PTO). Neither the Examiner nor
Appellant had the benefit of the 2019 Guidance when presenting their
respective positions concerning subject-matter eligibility.
The 2019 Guidance specifies two prongs for the analysis under
Mayo/Alice step one (PTO step 2A). 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Prong one
requires evaluating “whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon.” Id. at 54. “If the
claim does not recite a judicial exception, it is not directed to a judicial
exception,” and it satisfies § 101. Id. “If the claim does recite a judicial
exception, then it requires further analysis” under prong two. Id. Prong two
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

7
requires evaluating “whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited
judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.” Id. “When
the exception is so integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial
exception,” and it satisfies § 101. Id. “If the additional elements do not
integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed
to the judicial exception,” and it “requires further analysis” under
Mayo/Alice step two (PTO step 2B). Id.
Under Mayo/Alice step two, we “consider the elements of each claim
both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
additional elements” add enough to transform the “nature of the claim” into
“significantly more” than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18,
221–22 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78–79). Step two involves the search for
an “inventive concept.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18, 221; Univ. of Fla.
Research Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed.
Cir. 2019). “[A]n inventive concept must be evident in the claims.”
RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
MAYO/ALICE STEP ONE: PTO STEP 2A PRONG ONE
In Alice, the Supreme Court “did not establish any ‘precise contours’
for defining whether claims are directed to ‘abstract ideas’ or something
else.” Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 221). Further, for Mayo/Alice step one, the
Federal Circuit has noted that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described
at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d
1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, the Examiner determines that the claims are directed to “a
combination of abstract ideas, specifically collecting information, analyzing
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

8
it, and displaying the results and/or collecting, displaying, and manipulating
data.” Non-Final Act. 3 (citations omitted) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Appellant disputes that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. See
Appeal Br. 21–27; Reply Br. 3–6. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the
claims “are rooted in computer technology, and would not exist outside the
paradigm of computer technologies (e.g., automatically generating queries
using the query tool . . . and a layout tool using a data model created from
the resource management application for designing a layout to present the
data).” Appeal Br. 21 (alteration in original).
Under the 2019 Guidance, we determine that the claims recite abstract
ideas falling within one of the three groupings of abstract ideas specified in
the 2019 Guidance, i.e., “mental processes.” See 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52.
The 2019 Guidance describes “mental processes” as “concepts performed in
the human mind,” such as “an observation, evaluation, judgment, [or]
opinion.” Id. at 52 (footnote omitted).
Here, independent claims 1, 10, and 19 each recite “identifying a
plurality of data fields within a database operatively coupled to the ERP
system.” Appeal Br. 41, 44, 47. The “identifying” limitation in each claim
encompasses an evaluation performed by a human mentally or with pen and
paper. In particular, a database schema provides a diagram or blueprint
identifying the data in the database and how the database arranges the data.
See, e.g., Meyers ¶¶ 36, 108, Fig. 2. Hence, someone could mentally
evaluate a database schema and mentally identify a plurality of data fields,
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

9
e.g., customer name, customer address, and order number, for data retrieval
and further processing.
For these reasons, the “identifying” limitation in each independent
claim encompasses an evaluation performed by a human mentally or with
pen and paper. The 2019 Guidance identifies an evaluation performed by a
human mentally or with pen and paper as a mental process, and thus an
abstract idea. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 & nn.14–15; see also Intellectual Ventures
I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the
exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.”).
MAYO/ALICE STEP ONE: PTO STEP 2A PRONG TWO
Because we determine that each independent claim recites an abstract
idea, we consider whether each claim as a whole integrates the recited
abstract idea into a practical application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. “Only
when a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception
into a practical application, is the claim ‘directed to’ a judicial exception
. . . .” Id. at 51.
Appellant contends that “the claims are directed toward the
technological innovation of tightly integrating” two features: (1) “a resource
management application” having “a query tool interface for extracting data
from a database” and (2) “a reporting tool” having “a particular layout tool
interface for designing layout definitions for creating customized user
reports.” Appeal Br. 21. According to Appellant, “legacy approaches of
using reporting tools that are not integrated with the database applications
require[d] database experts to figure out how to extract the data directly
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

10
from the database or via a database middleware.” Id. at 24 (citing Spec.
¶ 4).
Appellant contends that the claimed invention improves upon legacy
approaches. Appeal Br. 24. In particular, Appellant argues that the claimed
invention provides (1) “a query tool interface that allows end users to define
queries to retrieve the raw data that they wish to generate a report on” and
(2) “a query builder that automatically creates queries in response to user
selections of data input fields and query criteria defined by the user within
the query tool interface without the user needing to have a deep
understanding of the underlying database schema.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶ 43).
We determine that each independent claim as a whole integrates the
recited abstract idea into a practical application. Each claim does so because
the limitations following the “identifying” limitation in each claim use the
recited abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to
a particular technological environment to provide an improvement over prior
systems. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
In particular, the Specification explains that “[t]raditional report
creation tools require deep knowledge of the database schema and table
relationships” and that users “typically do not have the database schema and
table relationship knowledge required to build reports using traditional
reporting tools.” Spec. ¶ 84; see id. ¶ 4. The Specification also explains that
“[t]his often leads to a reliance on IT to build these reports” and “makes
the process costly and inefficient.” Id. ¶ 84. In contrast to prior systems, the
claimed invention “does not require the user to have a deep understanding
of the schema of the underlying database.” Id. ¶ 40; see id. ¶¶ 43, 49, 89.
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

11
In Core Wireless, the claims were “directed to a particular manner
of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices” that
“improve[d] the efficiency of using” the devices. Core Wireless Licensing
S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The
Federal Circuit decided that the claims satisfied § 101 under Mayo/Alice
step one because they “recite[d] a specific improvement over prior systems.”
Id. at 1363.
Here, similar to the claims in Core Wireless, claims 1, 10, and 19 are
directed to a particular manner of selecting, retrieving, organizing, and
presenting information in an ERP system. According to the Specification,
those operations provide an improvement over prior systems. See Spec.
¶¶ 4, 40, 43, 49, 84, 89. Hence, we conclude that each claim is not directed
to a judicial exception and, therefore, satisfies § 101 under Mayo/Alice
step one.
SUMMARY FOR PATENT ELIGIBILITY
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the § 101 rejection
of claims 1, 10, and 19. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the § 101
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 11, 12, 14–16, 20, 21, and 23–25.
Since our determination under PTO step 2A prong two resolves the
eligibility issue for all pending claims, we need not address eligibility under
PTO step 2B (Mayo/Alice step two). See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy,
742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative
agency may render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”); 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

12
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims
1, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 23, and 24
CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19: THE “CREATING . . .
A NEW REPORT DATA MODEL” LIMITATION
As noted above, the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19 rests
on Fazal and Meyers. See Non-Final Act. 12–33. Appellant argues that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19 because Fazal and Meyers
fail to teach or suggest the following limitation in each claim:
creating, by the application server at a reporting setup path,
a new report data model for a new report, the new report data
model comprising a set of database tables and fields selected
from the plurality of data fields within the database to meet
requirements of the new report, the new report data model
being stored in the database.
See Appeal Br. 32–34; Reply Br. 19–20.
Specifically, Appellant asserts that Fazal “does not disclose allowing
end users to create new custom reports.” Appeal Br. 33. Appellant also
asserts that Fazal “discloses that it is desirable to provide a mechanism that
provides predefined reports that can be easily configured to meet the diverse
requirements of various users.” Id. (emphasis by Appellant). Further,
Appellant urges that “in sharp contrast to the current claims which recites
[sic] storing data models in the storage system, the cited portions of Fazal
instead discloses [sic] storing of generated reports.” Reply Br. 19 (emphasis
by Appellant).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error for two
reasons. First, the “creating . . . a new report data model” limitation does not
require “creat[ing] new custom reports.” See Appeal Br. 41. Appellant
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

13
cannot rely on unclaimed features for patentability. See In re Self, 671 F.2d
1344, 1348, 1350 (CCPA 1982).
Second, Fazal discloses creating a new report and a new report data
model for the new report. See Fazal ¶¶ 352–355, 365–373, 376–377,
Fig. 50; see Non-Final Act. 20–21; Ans. 18–19. The Specification describes
a “data model” as a set of data fields. See Spec. ¶¶ 32, 41, 45, 65; see
Ans. 18. Fazal’s system creates a new set of data fields for a new report, and
thus “creat[es] . . . a new report data model for a new report.”
Specifically, Fazal’s system assembles report content based on “user
role” in an organization, such as account representative, sales manager, or
senior vice president. Fazal ¶¶ 352–354, 370–372, Figs. 51–52; see id.
¶¶ 9–10, 73. Fazal describes “measures” as a set of data fields, such as
“current sales, current receivables, expenses, margin, net income, and
productivities.” Id. ¶ 355; see id. ¶¶ 359, 372. Fazal explains that each
“user role” has “one or more relevant measures,” i.e., specific data fields,
associated with it. Id. ¶ 355. For instance, “a sales manager is interested in
current sales, and account department members may need information of
current receivables.” Id.
With Fazal’s system, a user may create (1) a new user role for an
individual in an organization and (2) a new report for the new user role.
Fazal ¶¶ 354, 367–373, 376, Fig. 50. The new user role “has one or more
relevant measures,” i.e., specific data fields, associated with it. Id. ¶ 355.
For example, “to assign measures to the new role, the user selects the
Measures tab in the user role pane” of an interface and then selects
appropriate measures for the new user role, such as “Margin, Revenue,
Expenses, Current sales, Revenue and Profitability.” Id. ¶ 372.
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

14
Fazal’s system uses the specific data fields associated with a new user
role to generate a new report for the new user role. Fazal ¶¶ 370–373,
Fig. 53. Thus, when a user creates a new user role and a new report for the
new user role, Fazal’s system “creat[es] . . . a new report data model for
a new report” according to claims 1, 10, and 19.
Further, with Fazal’s system, a user may change measures for a user
role, i.e., change the set of data fields associated with a user role. Fazal
¶ 365; see id. ¶ 356. Changing measures for a user role “results in creating
new reports for the user role.” Id. ¶ 365. Thus, when a user changes
measures for a user role, Fazal’s system “creat[es] . . . a new report data
model for a new report” according to claims 1, 10, and 19. As the Examiner
properly reasons, reconfiguring a report for a new or different user role just
changes the “data fields to those that are appropriate for that role.” Ans. 19.
In addition, Fazal’s system stores “[a] metadata description of the user
roles, the measures important to the role, [and] members of the role.” Fazal
¶ 365; see id. ¶ 366; Non-Final Act. 21, 24–25. By storing that information,
Fazal’s system stores “the new report data model . . . in the database”
according to claims 1, 10, and 19. See Non-Final Act. 20–21.
Although Fazal discloses configuring predefined reports, as Appellant
asserts, Fazal also discloses creating a new report and a new report data
model for the new report. See Fazal ¶¶ 352–355, 365–373, 376–377,
Fig. 50. Appellant overlooks Fazal’s disclosure about creating a new report
and a new report data model for the new report. See Appeal Br. 32–34;
Reply Br. 19–20.
Appellant contends that Fazal “explicitly teaches away from having
users create custom written reports because it is time consuming and
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

15
requires special knowledge of business intelligence tools and underlying
data stores.” Appeal Br. 33 (citing Fazal ¶¶ 2, 377). That contention lacks
merit. See Ans. 19.
The “mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute
a teaching away from any of [the] alternatives because such disclosure does
not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed.” In re
Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant fails to explain
how Fazal “criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s]” creating a
new report. See Appeal Br. 33. To the contrary, Fazal states that the system
allows “easy creation of new reports tailored for user roles that are used in
the organization,” thus permitting “easy retrieval and delivery of the right
information to the right people at the right time.” Fazal ¶ 376.
For the reasons discussed above, Fazal teaches or suggests the
“creating . . . a new report data model” limitation.
CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19:
THE “LOADING” LIMITATION
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10,
and 19 because Fazal and Meyers fail to teach or suggest the following
limitation in each claim: “loading, at the reporting setup path, the new report
data model into a layout tool portion of the resource management
application.” See Appeal Br. 34–36; Reply Br. 21–23. Appellant notes that
the Examiner cites Fazal paragraph 362 as teaching or suggesting the
“loading” limitation. Appeal Br. 34; see Non-Final Act. 23. Appellant
quotes paragraph 362 as follows: “The layout handler 2026 allows the user
to define layout templates.” Appeal Br. 35; see Fazal ¶ 362. Appellant then
contends that paragraph 362 “does not disclose loading anything into a
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

16
layout tool portion of an application.” Appeal Br. 35. Appellant also
contends that “[n]owhere else in Fazal clarifies or further defines” layout
handler 2026. Id.; see Reply Br. 21.
We disagree that Fazal fails to clarify layout handler 2026. See
Non-Final Act. 23; Ans. 20–21. Fazal discloses data warehouse solution
system 10 including (1) user interface 30 that allows users to customize
reports and (2) engine 40 that generates “business intelligence content that
satisfies [user] information needs.” Fazal ¶¶ 71, 79–82, Figs. 2, 4; see id.
¶¶ 351, 353, 356, 359, 374, 378; Non-Final Act. 15–16, 30. In particular,
user interface 30 includes report management system 2000. Fazal ¶ 349; see
id. ¶ 68. Report management system 2000 includes report assembler 2006,
report refiner 2008, interactive modeling user interface 2010, and interactive
consumer user interface 2012. Id. ¶ 350, Fig. 48.
Report assembler 2006 “assembles a report for a user role based on
the information of the measures assigned to the report” and outputs to report
refiner 2008. Fazal ¶ 357. Report refiner 2008 “handles various refinement
of reports assembled by” report assembler 2006. Id. ¶ 358. Report refiner
2008 includes layout handler 2026 that “allows the user to define layout
templates” for reports. Id. ¶¶ 358, 362, Fig. 49; see id. ¶ 369; Non-Final
Act. 29. Further, a user may refine reports by “modifying layout templates.”
Fazal ¶ 375.
The Specification describes a “layout tool” as an “interface” that
“allows the user to create a layout for the report.” Spec. ¶ 46; see Ans. 20
(citing Spec. ¶ 46). Fazal discloses an “interface” that “allows the user to
create a layout for the report.” In particular, user interface 30 includes report
management system 2000 having report assembler 2006 and report refiner
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

17
2008 with layout handler 2026. See Fazal ¶¶ 349–350, 357–358,
Figs. 48–49; see id. ¶¶ 79–80, 82, Figs. 2, 4. When report assembler 2006
“assembles a report for a user role” and outputs to report refiner 2008 with
layout handler 2026, Fazal’s system “load[s] . . . the new report data model
into a layout tool portion of the resource management application” according
to claims 1, 10, and 19.
For the reasons discussed above, Fazal teaches or suggests the
“loading” limitation.
CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19:
THE “CREATING THE REPORT” LIMITATION
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10,
and 19 because Fazal and Meyers fail to teach or suggest the following
limitation in each claim: “creating the report, by a rendering engine portion
of the resource management application, using both the layout definition and
the raw data stored by the resource management application.” See Appeal
Br. 36–38; Reply Br. 23–24. Appellant notes that the Examiner cites Fazal
paragraphs 284, 362, 363, and 374 as teaching or suggesting the “creating
the report” limitation. Appeal Br. 36; see Non-Final Act. 26–27. Appellant
then contends that “nowhere in the cited portions” does Fazal disclose the
“creating the report” limitation. Appeal Br. 37.
We disagree. See Non-Final Act. 26–27; Ans. 22–23. As the
Examiner properly reasons, the “creating the report” limitation “covers
creating/generating any kind of report” using “any layout definition” and
“any raw data retrieved from the databases based on the queries.” Ans. 22.
Fazal paragraph 374 explains that a user may define or further refine a report
through a user interface and then generate the report for review. Fazal
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

18
¶ 374; see id. ¶¶ 368–369; Non-Final Act. 27. Paragraph 374 references
Figure 55, and Figure 55 depicts a report with, among other things, bar
charts, pie charts, and tabular data. Fazal ¶ 374, Fig. 55; see id. ¶ 191.
Fazal’s system created the report depicted in Figure 55. See id. ¶¶ 366–374.
Fazal explains in more detail that “[w]hen a user requests generation
of a report,” engine 40 in “data warehouse solution system 10 checks the
role of the user and locates reports created and stored” for that user role.
Fazal ¶ 366; see Non-Final Act. 15. Then, engine 40 “executes the selected
report, and generates an instance of the report with the information retrieved
from the data warehouse 110.” Fazal ¶ 366; see Non-Final Act. 40. Further,
Fazal’s system “may produce multiple outputs” for various electronic
devices and various media, such as “[c]ustom visualizations” for electronic
displays and spreadsheets. Fazal ¶ 378; see Non-Final Act. 17, 25.
For the reasons discussed above, Fazal teaches or suggests the
“creating the report” limitation.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Fazal does not disclose the
“creating the report” limitation because (1) Fazal “must disclose each of the
preceding claim elements” for Fazal to “disclose this claimed limitation” and
(2) “Fazal does not disclose at least” the “automatically generating”
limitation. Reply Br. 23–24. That argument does not, however, respond to
any arguments in the Answer. See Ans. 22–23; see also Non-Final Act.
26–27. Appellant advances that argument for the first time in the Reply
Brief. Such arguments “will not be considered by the Board” unless an
appellant shows good cause. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); see also Ex parte
Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1475 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (discussing
procedural difficulties with belated arguments).
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

19
Here, Appellant has not shown good cause for the belated argument.
Hence, we decline to consider it. “Considering an argument advanced for
the first time in a reply brief . . . is not only unfair to an appellee, but also
entails the risk of an improvident or ill-advised opinion on the legal issues
tendered.” McBride v. Merrell Dow & Pharm., Inc., 800 F.2d 1208, 1211
(D.C. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted).
SUMMARY FOR CLAIMS 1, 10, AND 19
For the reasons discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, and 19 for
obviousness based on Fazal and Meyers. In our view, the claimed subject
matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 10, and 19.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 5, 6, 14, 15, 23, AND 24
Claims 5 and 6 depend from claim 1; claims 14 and 15 depend from
claim 10; and claims 23 and 24 depend from claim 19. Appellant does not
argue patentability separately for these dependent claims. See Appeal
Br. 32–38; Reply Br. 19–24. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these
dependent claims for the same reasons as claims 1, 10, and 19. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims
2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, and 25
Claims 2, 3, and 7 depend from claim 1; claims 11, 12, and 16 depend
from claim 10; and claims 20, 21, and 25 depend from claim 19. Appellant
does not argue patentability separately for these dependent claims. See
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

20
Appeal Br. 32–39; Reply Br. 19–24. Thus, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons as claims 1,
10, and 19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21,
and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We affirm the rejections of claims 1–3, 5–7, 10–12, 14–16, 19–21,
and 23–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Because we affirm at least one ground of rejection for each claim on
appeal, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject all of the claims on
appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–7,
10–12,
14–16,
19–21,
23–25
101 Eligibility
1–3, 5–7,
10–12,
14–16,
19–21,
23–25
1, 5, 6, 10,
14, 15, 19,
23, 24
103(a) Fazal, Meyers
1, 5, 6, 10,
14, 15, 19,
23, 24

2, 11, 20 103(a) Fazal, Meyers, Kaplan 2, 11, 20
3, 7, 12,
16, 21, 25 103(a)
Fazal, Meyers,
Devine
3, 7, 12,
16, 21, 25
Appeal 2018-008557
Application 13/754,871

21
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
Overall
Outcome
1–3, 5–7,
10–12,
14–16,
19–21,
23–25

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED