Tableau Software Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 2, 2021

2020000852 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 2, 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.
15/436,691 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