Tableau Software Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 2, 20212020000852 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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. 15/436,691 02/17/2017 Ginger Gloystein 061127-5064-US 7189 159777 7590 07/02/2021 Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Tableau) 1400 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124 EXAMINER HO, RUAY L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2175 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2021 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): padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com vskliba@morganlewis.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GINGER GLOYSTEIN, SEAN BOON, BORA BERAN, JUSTIN TALBOT, and ANDREW BEERS Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 Technology Center 2100 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and CHRISTA P. ZADO, Administrative Patent Judges. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Tableau Software, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a data visualization user interface with a summary popup that includes interactive objects. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of visualizing a dataset, comprising: at a computer having a display, one or more processors, and memory storing one or more programs configured for execution by the one or more processors: displaying a first data visualization in a data visualization user interface according to user placement of data fields in shelves of the user interface, wherein each of the shelves specifies a respective property of the first data visualization, each of the data fields is from the dataset, and the first data visualization includes a plurality of visual data marks corresponding to data values for data fields in the dataset; detecting a first user input to select a subset of the visual data marks; in response to detecting the first user input, displaying a popup summary that includes data value distributions for a plurality of the data fields, wherein each data value distribution indicates distribution of data values for a respective data field based on all visual data marks in the data visualization and also indicates distribution of data values for the respective data field based on the selected subset of the visual data marks; detecting, in the popup summary, a second user input corresponding to a first data field whose data value distribution is displayed in the popup summary; in response to detecting the second user input, displaying an interactive moveable icon corresponding to the first data field; detecting a third user input to place the interactive moveable icon in one of the shelves in the user interface; and in response to the third user input, displaying a second data visualization according to user placement of data fields, including the first data field, in the shelves of the user interface. Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art: Name Reference Date Beauchamp US 2008/0046803 A1 Feb. 21, 2008 Ginsburg US 2017/0116373 A1 Apr. 27, 2017 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 5, 13 112(d) Improper Dependency 1–20 103 Ginsburg, Beauchamp OPINION 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–20 Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “displaying a first data visualization in a data visualization user interface according to user placement of data fields in shelves of the user interface, wherein each of the shelves specifies a respective property of the first data visualization, each of the data fields is from the dataset.” With respect to this limitation, the Examiner finds “Ginsburg Figure 2 depicts various data fields in shelves of a user interface as claimed.” Final Act. 5. Figure 2 of Ginsberg is reproduced below. Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 4 According to Ginsberg, “Fig. 2 illustrates a medical record window of the medical record system[, which] is useful for deploying or launching embodiments of the invention in accordance with the first embodiment.” Ginsberg ¶ 36. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 over Figure 2 of Ginsberg, at least because Figure 2 does not depict “displaying a data visualization according to user placement of data fields in shelves of the user interface.” See Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 9–10. The Examiner responds as follows: With respect to the “user placement of data fields in shelves of the user interface” feature, Ginsburg paragraph [0148] discloses said feature, “the command center visual display system and method can auto-populate various data fields (including information fields, tables, or windows) from a variety of sources. The sources can include electronic, physical (paper records), and human input”. Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 5 Appellant contends as follows: The Examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion in Ginsburg of “a first data visualization in a data visualization user interface according to user placement of data fields in shelves of the user interface,” where the shelves each specify “a respective property of the first data visualization.” The Examiner relies on Ginsburg’s disclosure of a “plurality of display sub-regions or sub-areas depicted in Figure 2” and a “command center visual display system and method [that] can auto-populate various data fields (including information fields, tables, or windows) from a variety of sources,” which “can include electronic, physical (paper records), and human input.” Examiner’s Answer at page 8; see also Ginsburg at ¶ [0148]. This fails to articulate how alleged “data fields” placed by a user into the cited “sub-regions or sub-areas” specify properties of an alleged “data visualization.” Reply Br. 10. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contention. Specifically, we do not find it readily apparent from the Examiner’s explanation of the rejection how Ginsberg teaches or suggests user-placed data fields in shelves of a user interface, the shelves specifying respective properties of a data visualization. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 9 and 17, which recite corresponding subject matter. We also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–8, 10–16, and 18–20. Because our decision with respect to this limitation is dispositive, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s remaining arguments regarding the independent claims. See Appeal Br. 16–25; Reply Br. 10–16. Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 6 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) rejection of claims 5 and 13 We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 13, at least because the Examiner misquotes the claims in rejecting claims 5 and 13 for failure to further limit the scope of the claims from which they depend. Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and reads as follows: “the popup summary is displayed over at least a portion of the first data visualization.” Claim 13 depends from claim 9 and recites corresponding subject matter. The Examiner finds as follows: Apparently, no further technical feature is recited but simply describes the popup summary location with different wordings than those used in claims 5 and 13. Moreover, the location of a popup window is “always overlapping a part of the user interface display”. When a popup window is initiated, the window has to be popped up over the user interface display, that is, either overlapping the entire user interface or partially overlapping. Ans. 13. Appellant contends “claims 5 and 13 do in fact further limit their parent claims, . . . over a portion of the first data visualization that is within the displayed data visualization user interface” and “not merely ‘popped up over the user interface display,’ anywhere in the user interface,” as the Examiner states. Reply Br. 18. We agree with Appellant. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 13 for this additional reason. Appeal 2020-000852 Application 15/436,691 7 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 5, 13 112(d) Improper Dependency 5, 13 1–20 103 Ginsburg, Beauchamp 1–20 Overall Outcome 1–20 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation