SAP SEDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 3, 20212020002841 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation