Ex Parte Feng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

13931559 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/931,559 06/28/2013
58735 7590 12/04/2018
Fountainhead Law Group P.C.
Chad R. Walsh
900 LAFAYETTE STREET
SUITE 301
SANTA CLARA, CA 95050
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Xiaojun Feng
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
000005-034200US 8758
EXAMINER
TSAI, JAMES T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2174
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/04/2018 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):
docketing@fountainheadlaw.com
rbaumann@fountainheadlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIAOJUN FENG, YANG-CHENG FAN,
and HARISH TY AGI 1
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
Technology Center 2100
Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, and 22, which are all the pending
claims (see Final Act. 1 and App. Br. VIII (Claims App'x)). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appeal Brief identifies SAP SE as the real party in interest (i.e., the
Appellant). App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
Introduction
Appellant's invention, the application for which is entitled "Data
Displays in a Tile-Based User Interface," includes claim requirements
directed to "displaying a plurality of tiles" and "presenting, in a first tile ...
[more specific claim limitations]." App. Br. VIII (Claims App'x) (claims 1,
12, 19); see also App. Br. V (Summary of Claims). Claim 1 is illustrative of
the claims on appeal:
1. A computer-implemented method in a computer
device comprising:
displaying a plurality of tiles on a display screen of a
display device of the computer device;
presenting, in a first tile associated with an application of
a plurality of applications operable on a server system, a first
data chart representative of first data comprising first data
values contained in first categories, the first data values
generated from first computations performed on source data
provided by the application, wherein computations performed
on the source data depend on a size of the first tile;
resizing the first tile in response to receiving user input
comprising a gesture in the display screen of the display device;
and presenting, in response to resizing the first tile, a second
data chart different from the first data chart, wherein the second
data chart represents second data comprising second data values
contained in second categories, the second data values
generated from second computations performed on the source
data provided by the application that are different from the first
computations, and wherein the second data values in the second
categories are different from the first data values in the first
categories,
wherein when the first tile is resized from a first size to a
second size greater than the first size, further comprising:
2
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
( 1) determining a greater number of second
categories than the first categories for presentation in the
second data chart;
(2) presenting the second data chart organized in
the greater number of second categories;
(3) determining which of the second data
corresponds to each of the greater number of second
categories; and
( 4) recalculating the second data values
corresponding to the greater number of second
categories; and
wherein when the first tile is resized from the first size to
a third size less than the first size, further comprising:
( 1) determining a lesser number of second
categories than the first categories for presentation in the
second data chart;
(2) presenting the second data chart organized
in the lesser number of second categories;
(3) determining which of the second data
corresponds to each of the lesser number of second
categories; and
( 4) recalculating the second data values
according to the lesser number of second categories.
App. Br. VIII (Claims App'x).
Rejections & References
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14 and 16-19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Walter (US 2009/0031247 Al; Jan. 29,
2009), Kobylinski (US 2010/0269062 Al; Oct. 21, 2010), and Boulton
(US 5,537,618; July 16, 1996). Final Act. 4--22.
3
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
Claim 21 stands rejected under§ 103 as unpatentable over Walter,
Kobylinski, Boulton, Bauer (US 2002/0073146 Al; June 13, 2002), and
Westerman (US 2008/0168403 Al; July 10, 2008). Final Act. 22-24.
Claim 22 stands rejected under § 103 as unpatentable over Walter,
Kobylinski, Boulton, and Leffert (US 8,381,125 B2; Feb. 19, 2013). Final
Act. 24--25.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the patentability of all claims based on independent
claims 1, 12, and 19, which Appellant argues together as a group. See App.
Br. VII (Argument). We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in findings from
Walter, Boulton, and Kobylinski, see App. Br. VII (Argument), and we
address those arguments seriatim, in the order presented.
Walter
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 by
relying on Walter, because "Walter does not disclose the same structure and
relationships among the elements claimed," and "[s]pecifically, Walter does
not disclose that ( 1) the tile presented by a computer device is associated
with an application of a plurality of applications and (2) the plurality of
applications are operable on a server system." App. Br. VII (A).
The Examiner responds that Walter teaches the disputed limitation
because Walter discloses displaying tiles in which different applications run.
See Ans. 24--26. Appellant contends in reply:
"in order to disclose the present limitation, Walter needs
to disclose three elements:
1) a computer/computing device;
2) a server system; and
4
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
3) a plurality of applications.
In addition, Walter needs to show the following interactions
among the three elements:
1) the plurality of applications operable on the server
system;
2) the computer/computing device presents a data chart
in a tile;
3) the tile is associated with one of the applications
operable on the server system; and
4) the data chart comprises data values generated from
computations performed on source data provided by the one
application operable on the server system."
Reply Br., Argument (A) ("Walter does not disclose the present limitation
because Walter fails to show a computer/computing device that presents a
data chart in a tile where the data chart includes data values generated from
source data provided by one of the applications operable on the server
system.").
Appellant's arguments regarding Walter are unpersuasive. The
ordinarily skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,421 (2007). We
agree with the Examiner that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have
understood Walter's disclosure teaches multiple applications associated with
multiple tiles, including an application that displays a data chart, as recited.
See Ans. 24--26.; see also, e.g., Walter ,r,r 20-21, 34--35. Even under
Appellant's interpretation of what aspects "Walter needs to show," an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood Walter to teach all the
aspects identified by Appellant.
For example, Walter discloses multiple "content sources" assigned to
multiple tiles. Walter ,r 20. Disclosing content sources that provide data for
5
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
generating displays in tiles teaches an "application," as recited (i.e., an
application for displaying information in a tile based on the content source).
Walter's disclosure of data source applications that present numeric
information in tables or graphs such as a bar chart teaches "presenting, in a
first tile ... a first data chart," as recited. Walter ,r 20; see also Walter
,r,r 34--35. Thus, in view Walter's disclosure of "different content sources
[(i.e., applications)] ... available for assignment to a tile" and displaying "a
bar chart" that reflects information "updated dynamically" (i-f 20), we agree
with the Examiner that Walter teaches or suggests claim 1 's limitations of
"presenting, in a first tile associated with an application of a plurality of
applications operable on a server system, a first data chart ... , the first data
values generated from first computations performed on source data provided
by the application," as recited.
With respect to Appellant's list of requirements for what Walter must
show, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have understood that Walter's
disclosure teaches "1) a computer/ computing device; 2) a server system;
and 3) a plurality of applications." Reply Br., Argument (A).
With respect to Appellant's list of the four "interactions" requirements
asserted as necessary for Walter to teach, see Reply Brief Argument (A), we
note paragraphs 20 and 21 of Walter teach these interactions as follows-
!) Walter's disclosure of multiple web browser applications (Walter
,r,r 20-21) teaches there are multiple corresponding web server applications,
which teaches "the plurality of applications operable on the server system";
2) Walter's bar chart presented in a tile (Walter ,r 20) teaches "the
computer/computing device presents a data chart in a tile";
6
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
3) Walter's web applications present information in a tile and include
both browser- and server-side operations (Walter ,r,r 20-21), which teaches
"the tile is associated with one of the applications operable on the server
system"; and
4) Walter's disclosure of a web application that provides a bar chart
teaches using source data provided to the web server for that application
(Walter ,r,r 20-21 ), which teaches "the data chart comprises data values
generated from computations performed on source data provided by the one
application operable on the server system."
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error with respect
to Walter.
Boulton
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 by
relying on Boulton, because "Boulton discloses displaying data in a bar
graph in response to selecting a time span or specifying a time period
resolution. Selecting a time span or specifying a time period resolution, as
described in Boulton, is different than resizing a tile, as recited." App. Br.
VII(B) (discussing the Examiner's citations to Boulton Fig. 19, 32:55-67).
As the Examiner responds, however, and we agree, the rejection relies
on Boulton only "to teach that a user is able to toggle a date range and
resolution for the aggregated data that is to be displayed." Ans. 26 ( citing In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) and In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). In other words, contrary to Appellant's argument,
the rejection does not rely on Boulton for teaching "resizing a tile," as
recited. See Final Act. 5-6 (finding Walter teaches "resizing the first tile"
( citing Walter ,r 26) and Kobylinski teaches "the first tile is resized" ( citing
7
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
Kobylinski Abstract, Fig. 4, ,r 51)); see also Ans. 26. Appellant's argument
in reply, that "[t]he 'recalculation of data' disclosed in Boulton is not being
performed in response to a resizing of a tile" (Reply Br. Argument (B)) is
likewise unpersuasive because, as discussed supra, the Examiner does not
rely on Boulton for "in response to a resizing of a tile."
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error with respect
to Boulton.
Kobylinski
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection of claim 1 by
relying on Kobylinski, because "presenting a data chart, as recited" "is not
the same as outputting objects for display in a window, as described in
Kobylinski." App. Br. VII(C) (citing Kobylinski ,r 51, Spec. ,r,r 25---6).
This argument is unpersuasive, because, as discussed supra, Walter
teaches presenting a data chart. See Walter ,r 20 (cited at Final Act. 5); see
also Ans. 27. The Examiner responds by finding, and we agree, that artisans
of ordinary skill would have understood "the combination" (Ans. 27
(emphasis added)) of teachings (i.e., Walter, Boulton, and Kobylinski)
teaches the disputed limitation. Appellant does not address the Examiner's
reliance on the teachings of Walter, and specifically its teaching of
presenting data charts, in combination with Kobylinski.
Appellant does not point to any evidence of record that the
combination would be "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art."
Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir.
2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Nor have Appellants provided
objective evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court
8
Appeal2018-004439
Application 13/931,559
guides "operates as a beneficial check on hindsight." Cheese Sys., Inc. v.
Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
We are persuaded the claimed subject matter exemplifies the principle that
"[ t ]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results."
KSR, 550 U.S. at 416,
Thus, Appellant does not persuade us of Examiner error with respect
to any finding from Kobylinski.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing, having considered all of Appellant's
arguments as set forth in the Appeal and Reply Briefs, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over
Walter, Boulton, and Kobylinski. In doing so, as consistent with our
discussion above, we adopt the findings and reasons of the Examiner as set
forth in the Final Rejection and in the Answer. We also sustain the
rejections of claims 2, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, and 22, for which
Appellant offers no arguments substantively separate from claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 4,
7, 9, 10, 12-14, 16-19, 21, and 22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9