SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 3, 2021

2020002841 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 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.
15/200,189 07/01/2016 Peter Snowdon 151429US01 (S23.113) 8212
52025 7590 06/03/2021
SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
ANDERSEN, KRISTOPHER E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2158
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/03/2021 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 PETER SNOWDON and EMMANUEL ZARPAS
____________________

Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189
Technology Center 2100

____________________

Before JAMESON LEE, JONI Y. CHANG, and MICHAEL R. ZECHER,
Administrative Patent Judges.

ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–15. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
We affirm.
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s purported invention generally relates to “[e]nterprise
software systems [that] receive, generate, and store data related to many
aspects of a business enterprise,” including data related to “sales, customer
relationships, marketing, supplier relationships, inventory, human resources,
and/or finances.” Spec. ¶ 1. “Users operate reporting tools to access such
data and display the data in useful formats, such as graphic visualizations.”
Id. According to Appellant, “[s]ome conventional reporting tools receive
user-submitted queries including dimensions and measures (e.g., Sales by
Country), and, in response, present one or more visualizations (e.g., bar
graph, pie chart, geo-chart) of values which respond to the query, with each
value being presented in conjunction with facet values to which the value
corresponds.” Id. ¶ 2. Appellant, however, explains that, when a reporting
tool receives a query that includes a dimension that appears in one or more
data sources, “[i]mproved systems for managing semantically-similar
dimensions are desired.” Id. ¶ 3.
Figure 6, reproduced below, illustrates a flow diagram of process
steps executed by the disclosed invention. Spec. ¶¶ 9, 40.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SAP
SE. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

3

Figure 6, reproduced above, illustrates process 600 that begins with
receiving a query that includes at least one meta-facet at step S610. Id. ¶ 41.
The meta-facet identifies “a meta-dimension compris[ing] a union of two or
more dimensions which share a common semantic.” Id. ¶ 24. At step S620,
the process continues by determining the one or more dimensions associated
with the meta-facet. Id. ¶ 43. At step S630, based on the received query, the
process determines a “dimension” query for each of the one or more
dimensions associated with the meta-facet. Id. ¶ 44. At step S640, the
process executes a query for each of the determined “dimension” queries and
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

4
then, at step S650, the process ends by displaying a visualization of the
result set for each executed “dimension” query. Id. ¶ 45.
Illustrative Claim
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent claims. Independent claim 1 is
directed to “[a] system,” independent claim 6 is directed “[a] computer-
implemented method,” and independent claim 11 is directed to “[a] non-
transitory computer-readable medium storing program code, the program
code executable by a processor of a computing system.” Appeal Br. 10–13
(Claims Appendix). Claims 2–5 directly or indirectly depend from
independent claim 1, claims 7–10 directly or indirectly depend from
independent claim 6, and claims 12–15 directly or indirectly depend from
independent claim 11. Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the disclosed
invention and this claim is reproduced below:
1. A system comprising:
a memory storing processor-executable process steps; and
a processor to execute the processor-executable process
steps to cause the system to:
receive a first query, the first query comprising a
meta-facet, the meta-facet identifying a first meta-dimension
comprising a union of two or more dimensions that share a
common semantic, the meta-facet and the first meta-dimension
defined by system metadata;
determine the two or more dimensions associated with the
first meta-dimension;
determine a dimension query for each of the two or more
dimensions based on the first query;
execute each of the determined dimension queries to
generate a respective result set for each of the determined
dimension queries; and
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

5
present a respective visualization of each of the respective
result sets.
Id. at 10 (Claims Appendix).
Prior Art Relied Upon
Inventor2 Publication No. Relevant Dates
Fagin U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2006/0282411
A1
published Dec. 14, 2006;
filed June 13, 2005
Jakubiak U.S. Patent Application
Publication No. 2016/0092530
A1
published Mar. 31, 2016;
filed Sept. 25, 2015
Rejection on Appeal
References 35 U.S.C. § Claims Rejected
Jakubiak, Fagin 103 1–15
Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions
The Examiner finds that Jakubiak’s process that allows a user to
specify one or more dimensions for desired visualization on a graphical user
interface (“GUI”) of a client device teaches all of the limitations of
independent claim 1, except the following three limitations: “the meta-facet
and the first meta-dimension defined by system metadata”; “determine a
dimension query for each of the two or more dimensions based on the first
query”; and “execute each of the determined dimension queries to generate a
respective result set for each of the determined dimension queries.” Final
Act. 3–4 (citing Jakubiak ¶¶ 70, 71, 85). The Examiner turns to Fagin’s
process of using text processing to extract metadata, together with its
disclosure of selecting an initial dimension for processing followed by

2 For clarity and ease of reference, we only list the first named inventor.
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

6
selecting the next dimension for processing, to teach these remaining
limitations. Id. at 4–5 (citing Fagin ¶¶ 53, 187).
According to the Examiner, it would have been obvious to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to combine Fagin’s disclosure of determining and
executing each of the dimension queries with Jakubiak’s customizable
visualization process because “[w]hat is needed is a search technology that
allows a user to focus on discovery and exploration of data, allowing a user
to formulate higher-level, less structured queries to search for trends or
discover previously unknown correlations in data.” Final Act. 5 (quoting
Fagin ¶ 23). The Examiner further argues that the proposed combination
“teaches to present a respective visualization of each of the respective result
sets, where the ‘visualization’ taught by Jakubiak is presented for the ‘results
of these recursive applications’ taught by Fagin.” Id. (internal citations
omitted).
The Examiner relies on essentially the same findings and conclusion
to support the obviousness rejection of independent claims 6 and 11 based
on the combined teachings of Jakubiak and Fagin. Compare Final Act. 5–7,
9–11, with id. at 3–5.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant contends that neither Jakubiak nor Fagin teach “receiv[ing]
a first query, the first query comprising a meta-facet, the meta-facet
identifying a first meta-dimension comprising a union of two or more
dimensions that share a common semantic,” as recited in each of
independent claims 1 and 11, and similarly recited in independent claim 6.
Appeal Br. 4–5. More specifically, Appellant disagrees with the Examiner’s
reliance on Jakubiak to teach a union of two or more dimensions that share a
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

7
common semantic because, according to Appellant, “Jakubiak is clear—the
dimension is ‘product type’; and its members are ‘cell phones, fixed, and
LCD [Liquid Crystal Display]’.” Id. at 6; see also id. at 7 (arguing that
Jakubiak “merely describes that a product type dimension includes
members: cell phones, fixed, and LCD” and “these enumerated dimension
members (i.e., ‘cell phones, fixed, and LCD’) are [not] a union of two or
more dimensions”). In its Reply Brief, Appellant presents essentially the
same arguments presented and developed in the Appeal Brief. Compare
Reply Br. 2–3, with Appeal Br. 4–7.
II. ISSUES
Based on the record before us, the issue is whether the Examiner
presents sufficient evidence to support a finding that Jakubiak teaches
“receiv[ing] a first query, the first query comprising a meta-facet, the meta-
facet identifying a first meta-dimension comprising a union of two or more
dimensions that share a common semantic,” as recited in each of
independent claims 1 and 11, and similarly recited in independent claim 6?
III. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 6, and 11
Based on the record before us, we discern no error in the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, which recites, in relevant part,
“receiv[ing] a first query, the first query comprising a meta-facet, the meta-
facet identifying a first meta-dimension comprising a union of two or more
dimensions that share a common semantic.” Independent claim 6 recites a
similar limitation and independent claim 11 recites the same limitation.
The parties’ dispute appears to center on the scope and meaning of the
claim term “meta-dimension,” which must be given its broadest reasonable
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

8
interpretation consistent with the Appellant’s disclosure. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319,
321 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (stating that, during examination, “claims must be
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”). Under the broadest
reasonable interpretation standard, and absent any special definitions, claim
terms are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as would be
understood by a person 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).
Similar to the Examiner in the Answer, we begin our analysis by first
looking to the specification, which includes certain disclosures that are
helpful in ascertaining the scope and meaning of the claim term
“meta-dimension.” See Ans. 3–4. For instance, the specification states that
“a meta-dimension comprises a union of two or more dimensions which
share a common semantic.” Spec. ¶ 24. This statement, however, simply
mirrors the plain language of independent claims 1, 6, and 11, and provides
little, if any, additional insight regarding the actual meaning of the claim
term “meta-dimension,” much less what constitutes a “dimension.”
The specification goes on to further state that “[t]he list of values of
the meta-dimension comprises the distinct union of the lists of values of its
constituent dimensions.” Spec. ¶ 41. In a similar vein, the specification also
states that “a meta-dimension is a set of dimensions and the values of the
meta-dimension comprise a union of distinct values of its constituent
dimensions.” Id. ¶ 50. Taking into account the plain language of
independent claims 1, 6, and 11, together with these two disclosures in the
specification, we agree with the Examiner that the claim term
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

9
“meta-dimension” should be construed as at least two or more distinct values
sharing a common semantic. See Ans. 4. With this claim construction in
mind, we turn to the merits of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection.
Consistent with this claim construction, the Examiner finds—and we
agree—that Jakubiak’s disclosure of adding a “product type” dimension with
three dimension members (i.e., “cell phones, fixed and LCD”) teaches the
claimed “meta-dimension” because it amounts to a distinct union of a list of
dimension values sharing the common “product type” semantic. See Final
Act. 4 (citing Jakubiak ¶ 85); Ans. 5 (citing the same). Each of “cell
phone,” “fixed,” and “LCD” is a constituent dimension to the “product type”
dimension, and these constituent dimensions have their own distinct values.
As a result, the value of the “product type” dimension is the union of the
distinct values of all of its constituent dimensions. This qualifies as a union
because the constituent dimensions that include “cell phone,” “fixed,” and
“LCD” are collected as a group in the “product type” dimension.
We do not agree with Appellant’s argument that the three dimension
members (i.e., “cell phones, fixed and LCD”) that make up the newly added
“product type” dimension are not a union of two or more dimensions. See
Appeal Br. 6–7. In our view, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood that any two of Jakubiak’s dimension members (i.e., “cell
phones, fixed and LCD”) that make up the newly added “product type”
dimension would qualify as a union of values sharing a common “product
type” semantic. Jakubiak ¶ 85, Fig. 10A. Appellant also asserts that
“identifying a first meta-dimension comprising a union of two or more
dimensions” cannot be achieved from a union of dimension members of a
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

10
single dimension, but does not explain adequately why this cannot be the
case. Reply Br. 3.
Consequently, we are persuaded that the Examiner presents sufficient
evidence to support a finding that Jakubiak’s customizable visualization
process that allows a user to add a query of a “product type” dimension with
three dimension members (i.e., “cell phones, fixed and LCD”) teaches
“receiv[ing] a first query, the first query comprising a meta-facet, the meta-
facet identifying a first meta-dimension comprising a union of two or more
dimensions that share a common semantic,” as recited in each of
independent claims 1 and 11, and similarly recited in independent claim 6.
It follows that the Examiner has not erred in determining that the combined
teachings of Jakubiak and Fagin render the subject matter of independent
claims 1, 6, and 11 obvious.
Claims 2–5, 7–10, and 12–15
Appellant does not address separately the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions with respect to dependent claims 2–5, 7–10, and 12–15. See
Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4. We, therefore, group these dependent claims
with their underlying base claim. Consequently, dependent claims 2–5 fall
with independent claim 1, dependent claims 7–10 fall with independent
claim 6, and dependent claims 12–15 falls with independent claim 11.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting
claims 1–15 as unpatentable under § 103 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Jakubiak and Fagin. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s
decision to reject these claims.
Appeal 2020-002841
Application 15/200,189

11
V. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–15 103 Jakubiak, Fagin 1–15
Overall Outcome 1–15
VI. 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).

AFFIRMED