SAP SEDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardNov 8, 20212020005160 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 8, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation