SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 8, 2021

2020005160 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 2021)

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.
14/847,088 09/08/2015 Karen Detken 150558US01 (S17.131) 1032
52025 7590 11/08/2021
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
LIN, ALLEN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2153
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/08/2021 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):
colabella@bmtpatent.com
martin@BMTPATENT.COM
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_______________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_______________

Ex parte KAREN DETKEN and JACKSON MATHAI
_______________

Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088
Technology Center 2100
_______________

Before: ROBERT E. NAPPI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, SAP SE, is the real party-in-interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of displaying the results of a
query. The results of the query are associated with a time period and the
results are presented via a plurality of pictograms depicting a linear
progression and a chronological order of the results. Abstract, Fig 3. Claim
1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by an application server including a processor,
a query relating to a subject to be searched;
querying, by the application server, an information space
based on the query;
receiving, by the application server, results of the query
of the information space determined to be related to the subject;
associating, by the application server, each of the results
with one of a plurality of categories, the plurality of categories
being based on a context of the respective results or a
predetermined list of categories;
determining, by the application server, time periods
associated with the results of the query, the determining of the
time periods being based on a search of data within the
information space, a date and a time associated with each of the
results, semantics of words being searched, and a context
associated with each of the results that describes a particular
result in relation to other results of the query;
associating, by the application server, each of the results
with one of a plurality of groups, each group of the plurality of
groups representing a respective one of the determined time
periods;
generating, by the application server, a set of pictograms
representing each group of the plurality of groups representing
a respective one of the determined time periods, each pictogram
having a size representing a relevance of the results associated
with the respective pictogram, the relevance of each of the
results being based on a reliability of a source of the respective
result; and
Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088

3
displaying, within a query results interface based on the
associated categories, determined time periods, and associated
groups, the plurality of pictograms in a linear progression and
in chronological order with respect to one another, pictograms
associated with a same category being displayed as a set with
the pictograms in each set within a respective category being
presented in a linear progression and in chronological order
with respect to one another, independently of the other
categories.

EXAMINER’S REJECTIONS2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 17 through 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden (US 8,627,195 B1,
issued Jan. 7, 2014), Rosenthal (US 2009/0276724 A1, pub. Nov. 5, 2009)
Allen (US 9,639,524 B2, issued May 2, 2017), and Bastide (US
2016/0034565 A1, pub. Feb. 4, 2016). Final Act. 2–7.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 4, 7, 8, 10 through 16,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hayden,
Rosenthal, Allen, Bastide, and Ownbey (US 2015/0106448 A1, pub. Apr.
16, 2015). Final Act. 7–10.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20.

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 10, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief, filed June 30, 2020 (Reply Br.); Final Office
Action mailed August 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed May 22, 2020 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088

4
Independent claims 1, 9, and 17
Appellant presents several issues with respect to the obviousness
rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 17 based upon the combination of
Hayden, Rosenthal, Allen, and Bastide. Appeal Br. 8–16. The dispositive
issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is did the Examiner err in finding
the combination of the references teaches the limitation directed to
determining time periods associated with the results of the query, where the
determining of the time periods is based on a) a search of data within the
information space, b) a date and a time associated with each of the results,
c) semantics of words being searched, and d) a context associated with each
of the results that describes a particular result in relation to other results of
the query.
The Examiner finds that Hayden teaches determining a time period
based upon a search of the information space, date and time associated with
the results and context associated with the results in relation to other results.
Final Act. 3 (citing Hayden col. 46, ll. 12–47). Further, the Examiner finds
that Allen teaches semantics of words being searched to determine a time
period. Final Act. 5 (citing Allen col. 2, ll. 38– col. 3, ll. 21). The Examiner
finds that Hayden teaches that search results are grouped based upon factors
such as news and time periods, and as such the Examiner finds that Hayden
inherently involves determining time periods. Answer 3 (citing Hayden col.
46 and Fig. 23). The Examiner states:
Hayden’s teachings of grouping based on news and grouping
based on time period teaches determining time period based on
the three factors of search data from information space, date
and time associated with results, and context describing relation
to other results. The first factor is a search of data within
information space is interpreted as data searched on internet
Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088

5
where internet reads on information space. This is taught by
both Hayden's teachings of news and time period as both are
data that is presented from a search of the internet. This search
of data within information space is in turn being used to
determine time period because information that is found in
search results on the internet such as common properties or
time period of news, is used to determine a time period
grouping. The second factor is a date and time associated with
the results which is taught by both news and time period as
news can be daily news which reads on date and time and time
period is by definition a time and determining a time period
group reads on determining time periods based on time. This
date and time associated with the result is in turn being used to
determine time period because a time period is in itself or by
definition a date and time and therefore by determining a time
period for a search result a time and date is determined. The
third factor is context which is also taught by both news and
time period as both news and time period is itself information
about the search results which is interpreted to be context.
Furthermore, the claims define context as relation to other
search results which further suggest that time and news is
context because news and time periods are a way to distinguish
certain results from others which by definition is a relation to
other search results. This context is in turn being used to
determine time period because Hayden uses this context to
determine groupings and a grouping by news or by time period
is determining the time period.
Answer 4.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. Each of independent claims 1, 9, and 17, recites a limitation
directed to determining a time period associated with a search result. We
concur with the Examiner that because Hayden groups results into time
frames, it must inherently determine a time period associated with a result.
However, each of the independent claims also recites that the determination
is based upon four factors a) a search of data within the information space,
Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088

6
b) a date and a time associated with each of the results, c) semantics of
words being searched, and d) a context associated with each of the results
that describes a particular result in relation to other results of the query. We
disagree with the Examiner that Hayden inherently teaches the determination
of time period is performed based upon the four claimed factors. Inherency
cannot be established by probabilities or possibilities. See In re Oelrich, 666
F.2d 578, 581, (CCPA 1981). As stated in In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531,
1534, 1957 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Oelrich, 666 F.2d at 581), “[t]he
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient [to establish inherency].” Further, we do not agree with the
Examiner’s explanation of how Hayden (or Hayden in combination with
Allen) makes the determination of time period associated with the search
results using the four factors discussed above. The Examiner’s discussion of
how Hayden teaches using three of the claimed four factors is based upon
speculation. The Examiner has not identified sufficient evidence in Hayden
to show that the three factors are used to determine the time frame of the
search result. For example, Hayden, in the paragraphs of columns 39 and 40
cited by the Examiner, identifies that the web page may be the type that
contains daily or breaking news, but the cited portions of Hayden do not
discuss that being a factor in determining the time period of the search
results; rather these paragraphs merely identify such web pages as being the
type of web pages that change frequently. Accordingly, Appellant’s
arguments have persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination
of the references teaches or suggests the limitations of independent claims 1,
9, and 17. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1, 5, 6, 9, and 17 through 19.
Appeal 2020-005160
Application 14/847,088

7
The Examiner has not shown that the additional teaching of Ownbey,
used in the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2 through 4, 7, 8, 10
through 16, and 20, remedies the deficiency discussed above in the rejection
of the independent claims. Accordingly we do not sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of claims 2 through 4, 7, 8, 10 through 16, and 20 for
the same reasons as discussed with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and
17.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U. S. C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5, 6, 9,
17–19
103 Hayden, Rosenthal,
Allen, Bastide
1, 5, 6, 9, 17-
–19
2–4, 7, 8,
10–16, 20
103 Hayden, Rosenthal,
Allen, Bastide,
Ownbey
2–4, 7, 8,
10–16, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED