QlikTech International AB

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 20, 2020

14035656 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 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.
14/035,656 09/24/2013 Chris Branch 36339.0015U1 7847
23859 7590 05/20/2020
Ballard Spahr LLP
SUITE 1000
999 PEACHTREE STREET
ATLANTA, GA 30309-3915
EXAMINER
TRAN, LOC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/20/2020 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):
USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHRIS BRANCH and ALISTAIR EAVES
____________________

Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–13 and 22–39. Appellant has canceled claims 14–21. See Appeal
Br. 13. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
We affirm in part.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies Qlik,
International AB as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
obtaining and analyzing information from large databases. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3,
8. In a disclosed embodiment, an initial data structure is instantiated for
each field (i.e., data element type) of a database. Spec. ¶ 39. This initial
data structure is populated with the various data element values associated
with the data element type. Spec. ¶ 39. Additionally, each data element
value (as well as each data element type) may be assigned a code, such as a
binary number, for ease of processing. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 40.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for analyzing information within a database that
comprises one or more database structures which collectively
contain a plurality of data records, with each record having at
least two data element types, and with at least one of the data
element types having a different data element value from the data
element value for the corresponding data element type in at least
one other record in the database; the method characterized by the
steps of:
reading the plurality of records;
instantiating an initial data structure for each unique data
element type within the plurality of records;
creating an entry in the initial data structure for each data
element type for each unique data element value within that data
element type;
selecting one or more database structures within the
database;
instantiating a final data structure for the selected database
structures in which the data element value for each data element
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

3
type reflects the entry made in the initial data structures for that
data element value;
receiving a query for information from the database,
wherein the query comprises a first search term and a second
search term;
determining particular data element types and data
element values that are the subject of the query, wherein the first
search term is one of a first plurality of unique data element
values of a first data element type of the particular data element
types and the second search term is one of a second plurality of
unique data element values of a second data element type of the
particular data element types;
instantiating a query data structure indicating the data
element types and the data element values that are the subject of
the query, wherein the query data structure comprises a first
digit representing the one of the first plurality of unique data
element values of the first data type and a second digit
representing the one of the second plurality of unique data
element values of the second data type;
identifying records within the database that contain one or
more data element types and/or data element values that are
included in the query data structure; and
instantiating a results data structure comprising
information relating to the identified records.

The Examiner’s Rejections2
1. Claims 1–3 and 7–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gestrelius et al. (US 6,236,986 B1;
May 22, 2001) (“Gestrelius”). Final Act. 2–9.

2 Subsequent to the Examiner’s Final Rejection (and Answer), the Office
published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under
35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework.
USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

4
2. Claims 22–27, 29, 30, 32–34, and 36–39 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gestrelius and Koskas (US
6,711,563 B1; Mar. 23, 2004). Final Act. 9–16.
3. Claims 4–6 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Gestrelius, Koskas, and Wolge (US 8,244,741 B2;
Aug. 14, 2012). Final Act. 16–19.
4. Claims 28 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gestrelius, Koskas, and Hamada et al. (US 2002/0057272
A1; May 16, 2002) (“Hamada”). Final Act. 19–20.

ANALYSIS3
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Gestrelius discloses
instantiating a query data structure “wherein the query data structure
comprises a first digit representing the one of the first plurality of unique
data element values of the first data type and a second digit representing the
one of the second plurality of unique data element values of the second data
type.” Supp. Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant asserts

Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office Guidance”). In the event of further
prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claims
recite patent-eligible subject matter or are instead directed to a judicial
exception (e.g., a mental process) without integrating the judicial exception
into a practical application.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
April 18, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed
August 9, 2018 (“Supp. Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed January 22,
2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 19, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed August 17, 2017 (“Final
Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

5
Gestrelius only shows separate tables with values indicating values of a first
data element type and values of a second data element type—i.e., not within
the same data query structure. Supp. Appeal Br. 4.
Similar to Appellant’s claimed invention, Gestrelius also relates to
extracting information from a database. Gestrelius, col. 1, ll. 5–9, Abstract.
Gestrelius describes the data records of a database are read into primary
memory of a computer for additional processing. Gestrelius, col. 1, ll. 54–
56. As part of the processing, Gestrelius describes “each different data
element value of each data element type is assigned a binary code and the
data records are stored in binary-coded form.” Gestrelius, col. 1, ll. 62–64.
In a disclosed embodiment, Gestrelius describes a database containing
information about clothes (e.g., types of clothes, colors, sizes, etc.).
Gestrelius, col. 2, ll. 50–61. Table 1 of Gestrelius is illustrative and is
reproduced below:

Table 1 of Gestrelius represents a database containing information about
clothes. Gestrelius, col. 2, ll. 50–51. As shown, Table 1 contains data
elements “Clothes,” “Color,” “Size,” and “ArtNo.” Gestrelius, col. 2, ll. 51–
53. Gestrelius discloses that “for each data element type, a different binary
code is assigned to each different data element value.” Gestrelius, col. 3,
ll. 17–19. Table 3 of Gestrelius illustrates the assignment of a binary code
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

6
for the different data element values of the data element type “Clothes,” and
is reproduced below:

Table 3 of Gestrelius shows the binary codes assigned to the different data
element values (i.e., shirts and jeans) of data element type “Clothes.”
Gestrelius, col. 3, ll. 20–23.
In addition, Gestrelius describes that when it has been determined that
a user selected a data element value, a user selection vector is created with a
“1” inserted in the position corresponding to the selected data element value
and a “0” inserted for the other values. Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 5–13. Table 15
of Gestrelius (relied on by the Examiner, see Final Act. 5) illustrates a
selection vector and is reproduced below:

Table 15 of Gestrelius illustrates a selection vector for a user selection of the
data element value shirt for the data element type “Clothes.” Gestrelius,
col. 4, ll. 22–26. As shown, the selected data element value (i.e., shirt) is
assigned a “1” and the non-selected data element value (i.e., jeans) is
assigned a “0.” See Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 5–26.
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

7
Similarly, Gestrelius describes a selection vector related to a user
selection for the data element type of “Size,” illustrated in Table 16 below:

Table 16 of Gestrelius illustrates a selection vector indicating that no data
element values for “Size” has been selected (i.e., no selection of a Size of
32, 35, 39, or 40). See Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 5–26.
The Examiner determines the claimed query data structure “can be
reasonably interpreted as a set of inter-related tables.” Ans. 3. Thus, the
Examiner explains Gestrelius describes the claimed query data structure
because Table 15 of Gestrelius could represent a first column of a data
structure with a first digit representing one of a first plurality of unique data
element values (e.g., a shirt) and Table 16 of Gestrelius could represent a
second column of a data structure indicating a second digit representing one
of a plurality of second data element values of a second data element type
(e.g., size). Ans. 3–4.
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Additionally, to anticipate, a prior art reference must
disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might
somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v.
VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also In re Arkley,
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

8
455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly
and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in
the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and
combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the
teachings of the cited reference.”).
Here, we disagree with the Examiner that Gestrelius discloses the
claimed query data structure. Instead, the Examiner improperly relies on a
combination of distinct tables in Gestrelius to allegedly disclose the claimed
data structure. See Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1372.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of claims 2, 3, and 7–13,
which depend directly or indirectly therefrom.

Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Claims 4–6 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1.
The Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited references (i.e., Koskas
or Wolge) to cure the deficiency of Gestrelius with respect to claim 1,
discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 4–6.
With respect to independent claim 22, Appellant asserts Koskas, as
relied on by the Examiner, fails to teach or suggest “wherein a number of
digits of each of the plurality of values is based on a number of the data
element types corresponding to the at least two search terms of the search
query.” Supp. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellant argues
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

9
Koskas discloses a bitmap vector including a number of bits corresponding
to a day of the week—i.e., a single data element type, not a plurality of data
element types. Supp. Appeal Br. 5.
The Examiner responds that in addition to the day of the week data
element type, Koskas also discloses a salary range data element type and,
therefore, teaches two different data element types (day of the week and
salary range) each comprising a number of bits based on a number of the
respective data element types. Ans. 4–5 (citing Koskas, col. 1, l. 60–col. 2,
l. 7.
Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s additional
explanation and findings. See Reply Br. 4.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claim 22. For similar reasons, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 24, 38, and 39, which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See Supp. Appeal
Br. 5–6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Although Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claims 25 and
32 should be reversed “for similar reasons as are set forth above with respect
to claims 1 and 22” (Supp. Appeal Br. 5), we note that neither claim 25 nor
claim 32 recites a commensurate limitation to the disputed limitation of
claim 1 (i.e., instantiating a query data structure comprising a first digit
representing one of a first plurality of unique data element values of a first
data type and a second digit representing one of a second plurality of unique
data element values of a second data type). Thus, Appellant’s arguments
related to claim 1 are not commensurate with the scope of claims 25 and 32
Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

10
and, as such, do not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of those
claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). In addition,
for similar reasons to those discussed above with respect to claim 22, we do
not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive with respect to claims 25 and 32.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 25 and 32. In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 26–31 and 33–37, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and
were not argued separately. See Supp. Appeal Br. 5–6; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 and 7–13
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1).
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4–6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22–39 under
35 U.S.C. §103.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7–13 102(a)(1) Gestrelius 1–3, 7–13
22–27, 29,
30, 32–34,
36–39
103 Gestrelius, Koskas 22–27, 29,
30, 32–34,
36–39

Appeal 2019-002417
Application 14/035,656

11
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
4–6, 31 103 Gestrelius, Koskas,
Wolge
31 4–6
28, 35 103 Gestrelius, Koskas,
Hamada
28, 35
Overall
Outcome
22–39 1–13

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 IN PART