Paul Kristoff et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 26, 20212020005616 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 13/075,906 03/30/2011 Paul Richard Kristoff 20684 (2704.124US1) 2594 26890 7590 10/26/2021 Randy Campbell TERADATA US, INC. P.O. Box 190 Englewood, OH 45322 EXAMINER WELCH, JENNIFER N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2143 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/26/2021 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): michelle.boldman@teradata.com randy.campbell@teradata.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte PAUL RICHARD KRISTOFF, HAROLD LEE, JASON STONE, HENRY FU, and MARCUS PHILIP TIDWELL ____________________ Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,9061 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. JURGOVAN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–11, and 13–17. Claims 3, 4, and 12 are cancelled, and claims 18–20 are withdrawn. Appeal Br. 13–16 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.2 1 Appellant refers to “applicant[(s)]” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Teradata US, Incorporated. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed April 9, 2020; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed July 27, 2020; Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed May 27, 2020; Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed October 16, 2019; and original Specification (“Spec.”) filed March 30, 2011. Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to “a method for independent attribute filtering within a database interface.” Spec. ¶ 5. According to Appellant, [a] graphical user interface (GUI) tool[, i.e., an interface, shown in Figure 3, for a user to access a backend database] is presented to a user for interacting with an underlying database. The GUI tool includes a field selection and attribute selections for the field. The user selects a field and an attribute for that field and is presented with a first list of values retrieved from the database for the selected attribute. Next, the user selects a filter for the attribute within the GUI tool and a second reduced list of values is presented to the user within the GUI tool representing the filtered first list of values acquired by applying the filter. Abstract. Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics: 1. A method implemented and programmed within a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium and processed by a processor, the processor configured to execute the method, comprising: presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) tool to a user, the GUI tool acting as an interface for the user to access a database; receiving, from the user, a field selection for a field of the database within the GUI tool in response to the user browsing the GUI for the field; obtaining, from the user, an attribute selection for an attribute assigned to the field within the GUI tool, wherein obtaining includes presenting an attribute list for available attributes within the GUI tool based on the user selection of the field, and inspecting metadata associated with the selected field to determine the attribute list; Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 3 displaying within the GUI tool a first list of attribute values retrieved from the database and assigned to the attribute for the field; acquiring, from the user, an attribute filter, the attribute filter acquired from the user as one or more conditions that reduces a set of information defined by the field; filtering the first list to present a reduced second list of attribute values within the GUI tool by applying the filter against the first list, wherein the reduced second list of attribute values is obtain[ed] from the first list of attributes presented to the user within the GUI tool and the one or more conditions for the attribute filter acquired from the user within the GUI tool and displaying the reduced set of information within the GUI; selecting, by the user, attribute values from said second list of attribute values; and executing a query against said database using said attribute values selected from said second list of attribute values. Appeal Br. 13–14 (Claims App.). REJECTION AND REFERENCES Claims 1, 2, 5–11, and 13–17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Racovolis (US 2006/0248109 A1; published Nov. 2, 2006) and Okogun (US 2011/0265038 A1; published Oct. 27, 2011). Final Act. 3–9. Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 4 ANALYSIS At the outset, we note that claims 1, 2, 4–11, and 13–17 were previously rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the teachings of Racovolis and Okogun, and then appealed to the Board, via Appeal 2018- 004423. The Board affirmed the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4– 11, and 13–17 based on the Examiner’s combination of Racovolis and Okogun. See Decision dated November 15, 2018. In response to the Board’s Decision, Appellant amended claim 1 to add a new limitation: “wherein obtaining includes presenting an attribute list for available attributes within the GUI tool based on the user selection of the field, and inspecting metadata associated with the selected field to determine the attribute list.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Likewise, Appellant amended claim 10 to add a new limitation: “wherein presenting a field selection mechanism includes presenting an attribute list for available attributes within the GUI tool based on a user selection of a field, and inspecting metadata associated with the selected field to determine the attribute list.” Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds Racovolis teaches most aspects of Appellant’s claimed method, including presenting a graphical user interface (“GUI”) tool to a user, shown in Figures 1–5, to allow the user to select a particular field (for example, calendar fields within Microsoft® Outlook®) and attributes (for example, labels and categories, shown in Figures 3–4) and use a filtering module (shown in Figure 2) to Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 5 filter an original list of attribute values and present a reduced list of attribute values. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Racovolis ¶¶ 14, 15, 22, 23, 54, Figs. 1–6). For example, Racovolis’ Figure 2 depicting graphical user interface (GUI) tool 210 is reproduced below: Racovolis’ Figure 2, reproduced above, shows graphical user interface (GUI) tool 210 to enable a user to access database 252 and to browse, select a field and an attribute assigned to the field (shown in Figure 4), and use filter module 224 to filter data (e.g., calendar information) from database 252. Racovolis ¶¶ 5–19, 22, 57, 60–67, Fig. 2. Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 6 Racovolis’ Figure 4 depicting a user’s selection of attributes (e.g., labels and categories) is reproduced below: Racovolis’ Figure 4, as reproduced above, shows a user’s selection of attributes from an attribute list 303, 305 of available attributes within the GUI tool 300. Racovolis ¶¶ 68–69. Racovolis also teaches filtering an original list of attribute values and present a reduced list of attribute values, as shown in steps 608–610 of Figure 6. Racovolis ¶¶ 82–83. To the extent necessary, the Examiner relies on Okogun for expressly teaching (1) “the reduced second list [of attributes] obtained from the first list presented to the user within the GUI tool” and (2) “the one or more conditions for the filter acquired from the user within the GUI tool” to support the conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Okogun Figs. 5–6, 10). Like Racovolis, Okogun also teaches the use of a filter mechanism for a mobile application via a graphical user interface (GUI), shown in Figures 5 and 10, to allow a user to filter data items on data fields so that Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 7 only a subset of data items (data list) may be presented on a display. See Okogun ¶¶ 55–58. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s rationale to combine Racovolis and Okogun. Instead, Appellant argues neither Racovolis nor Okogun, alone or in combination, teaches or suggests the newly added limitations to claims 1 and 10, i.e., “inspecting metadata associated with the selected field to determine the attribute list.” Appeal Br. 6–11; Reply Br. 2– 7. In particular, Appellant argues neither Racovolis’ Figure 4, paragraphs 68–69 nor Racovolis’ Figure 6, paragraphs 79–86 “include any teaching concerning inspecting metadata associated with a selected field to determine an attribute list” recited in claims 1 and 10. Appeal Br. 8–11. For example, Appellant argues elements 303 and 305 of Racovolis’ Figure 4 are only described as “lists of attribute values for selection from the user interface.” Id. at 8 (citing Racovolis ¶¶ 68–69). Similarly, Racovolis’ Figure 6 only shows “an example of a method of creating a filtered view of personal information items based on attribute values that have actually been used by a user” Id. (citing Racovolis ¶¶ 79–86). According to Appellant, “it is not seen that the written [description] or any of the figures of Racovolis include any reference to, or discussion, of metadata. This limitation is also not seen to be taught by Okogun[ as well].” Id. at 11. Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error. Instead, we find the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellant’s arguments, supported by evidence. Ans. 3–4. As such, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and explanations provided therein. Id. For additional emphasis, we note that claim terms, during examination, are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 8 Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under the rule of broadest reasonable interpretation, claim terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art in the context of the entire disclosure. In re Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Here, the term “metadata” is not expressly defined in Appellant’s Specification. However, Appellant’s Specification describes “metadata” as including, for example, “information for identifying attributes available for a given field. Spec. ¶ 17. As correctly recognized by the Examiner, “metadata refers to information that is associated with [a] selected field.” Ans. 4. As such, the limitation “inspecting metadata associated with the selected field” can be broadly, but reasonably interpreted to encompass Racovolis’ “attribute list of available attributes 303 within the GUI tool 300 based on user selection of the field 403,” including, for example, “attribute list 303 and 305 [shown in Figure 4] are available attributes that are based on the user [inspection and] selection of fields 403 and 405” or Racovolis’ selecting values for the attribute related to the personal items, shown in step 602 of Figure 6. Ans. 3. As such, we agree with the Examiner that Racovolis’ “user is able to view and the system further inspects the metadata associated with these selections to determine the attribute list.” Id. (citing Racovolis ¶¶ 68–69). On this record, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error. “[T]he fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO’s definition unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its interpretation.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 9 Moreover, obviousness is the question of law, based upon factual inquiries set forth in the Graham case: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue; (3) the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art; and (4) objective evidence of non- obviousness, if any. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18 (1966). “[H]owever, the 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.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421. As the Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an “expansive and flexible” approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a “predictable variation” of “prior art elements according to their established functions.” Id. at 415, 417. Here, in contrast, Appellant’s arguments rigidly focus on a narrow reading of individual prior art references, including Racovolis, without considering a skilled artisan’s “creativity[] and common sense.” Randall Mfg. v. Rea, 733 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Racovolis does not and need not expressly mention the use of metadata to support a finding of obviousness. Racovolis’ GUI tool 300, shown in Figure 4, is designed to enable a user to select and filter one or more values of different attributes (for example, labels and categories) for software applications (e.g., Microsoft® Outlook® or Lotus Notes). Once a user selects a field 403 or 405 within the attribute list 303 or 305 on Racovolis’ GUI tool 300, shown in Figure 4, filtering module 224, shown in Figure 2, would have to filter information Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 10 items to obtain only information associated with the user’s selected field. The use of metadata to identify data in fields is within the “general knowledge” of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See Koninkjike Phillips N.V. v. Google LLC, 948 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2020). For example, Racovolis teaches the use of HTML and XML, which are widely known as metadata tags to identify data in fields. Racovolis ¶ 101. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that some form of metadata or information associated with the user’s selected field would have to be inspected by the software application in order to compile an attribute list. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, and similarly claim 10, and their respective dependent claims 2, 5–9, 11, and 13–17, which Appellant does not argue separately. DECISION On the record before us, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–11, and 13–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 5–11, 13–17 103(a) Racovolis, Okogun 1, 2, 5–11, 13–17 Appeal 2020-005616 Application 13/075,906 11 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation