Ex Parte Ankisettipalli et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13371579 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017)

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.
13/371,579 02/13/2012 ANIL BABU ANKISETTIPALLI 2011P00493US 5704
62730 7590
SAP SE
3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
EXAMINER
PRINGLE-PARKER, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM
GIPinhouse@sap.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL BABU ANKISETTIPALLI and
ASHOK KUMAR KN
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a visualization of data clusters. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method to graphically display data clusters
using a computer, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of data records;
classifying the plurality of data records into data clusters based on one
or more parameters associated with the plurality of data records; and
displaying a visualization panel on a computer generated graphical
user interface graphically indicating the data clusters and characteristics
defining the data clusters via different data charts, wherein the visualization
panel comprises:
a first portion displaying a first data chart graphically indicating
a number of data records in each data cluster;
a second portion displaying a second data chart comprising:
a plurality of nodes graphically indicating a density of
each data cluster;
connecting lines between the data clusters graphically
indicating proximity between the data clusters; and
a density index graphically comparing densities of the
data clusters;
a third portion displaying a third data chart graphically
indicating the one or more parameters of a data cluster for
2
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
comparing one or more corresponding parameters of the data
clusters; and
a fourth portion displaying a fourth data chart graphically
indicating a distribution of the one or more parameters in each
of the data clusters.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Prinsen et al. US 2008/0109740 A1 May 8, 2008
Robert Tibshirani, Guenther Walther, and Trevor Hastie, “Estimating the
number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic,” 2001 Royal Statistical
Society J. R. Statist. Soc. B (2001) 63, Part2,pp. 411—423.
Frank McCown, “Visualizing data with Protovis”
http://frankmccown.blogspot.com/2010/06/visualizing-data-with-
protovis.html, dated 10/8/2014, pages 1—10.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1—3, 5—9, 11—17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Prinsen in view of McCown. Final Act.
6.
Claims 4, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Prinsen and McCown in view of Tibshirani1. Final Act.
13.
1 The statement of the introductory paragraph of the rejection does not
include the McCown reference, but the body of the rejection relies upon the
3
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 15, Appellants present
arguments to the claims together. (App. Br. 12). As a result, we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
address Appellants’ arguments thereto.
With respect to dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11—14, 16, 17, 19 and
20, Appellants rely on the arguments advanced with respect to independent
claims. (App. Br. 12). Appellants similarly rely on the arguments set forth
with respect to independent claims 1, 7, and 15 for dependent claims 4, 10,
and 18. (App. Br. 12). As a result, all the claims will stand or fall with
representative independent claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—14; Ans. 3—11), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response
to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 11—18). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain ones of
Appellants’ arguments as follows.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
generally discuss the teachings of the Prinsen reference and contend that the
Prinsen reference:
describes displaying data in different formats or charts, where the
type of the chart is selected by a user, but does not teach or
McCown reference. Additionally the introductory paragraph does not
include claim 10, but the body of the rejection discusses claim 10. (Ans.
13).
4
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
suggest "displaying a visualization panel ... graphically
indicating data clusters and characteristics defining the data
clusters via different data charts" in the four portions of the
visualization panel graphically indicating: "a number of data
records in each data cluster", "a density of each data cluster",
"proximity between the data clusters", "a density index
graphically comparing densities of the data clusters", "the one or
more parameters of a data cluster for comparing one or more
corresponding parameters of the data clusters", and "a
distribution of the one or more parameters in each of the data
clusters" as recited in independent claim 1.
Further, McCown's "state line borders" cannot be equated
to "connecting lines between the data clusters" of claim 1
because "state line borders" are used to separate each state in a
country and each state is not connected to every other state in the
country.
(App. Br. 10-11).
The Examiner maintains:
The claim as recited merely requires showing a
distribution. For example, Fig. 9 has a 3D bar graph that spreads
the data out in various bars for each of the clusters. The line
graphs from the same figure may be considered clusters, where
each line is showing the distributions. The 2D bar graphs again
show the various parameters, and thus show the distribution.
Applicant has not clearly defined what visual form the
distribution must take, and as such many graphs may read on the
claims as written.
(Ans. 17). We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner responds to
Appellants’ general argument regarding the connecting lines and the
Examiner maintains:
It is unclear what exactly is the difference between a separating
line and a connecting line. In Fig. 2 of Applicants specification,
there are lines between the nodes. The ends of the lines touch
the two objects, and are thus both separating and connecting.
There appears to be no difference between the two. McCown
depicts states, where there are lines between the states. Without
5
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
further claim clarification, the lines may reasonably be
considered to connect the states, or at least bordering states.
Further, McCowns graph a) forms lines in the form of
borders, which connect one node to another b) they are between
the data clusters and c) they graphically indicate proximity by
creating a 2D map.
(Ans. 17—18). We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner further
maintains that the claim language is broader than Appellants argue where:
The claim does not explicitly require every node to connect to
every other node. However, since the state borders do connect
with one another, lines could be followed between nodes such
that every node is connected to each other. For example if we
were to follow the California border through other states to
Virginia, there is a line along the borders that can be followed
that connects, and it will be longer than a line from California to
Nevada.
(Ans. 18). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate in scope with the language of independent claim 1.
Appellants further contend:
However, McCown does not teach or suggest the
"connecting lines between the data clusters graphically
indicating proximity between the data clusters", as recited in
claim 1 and the "connecting lines" are graphically indicated in
second portion of FIG. 2 of the Appellants' Application, for
instance.
(App. Br. 11).
The Examiner maintains that giving the claims its broadest reasonable
interpretation, the Pinsen reference teaches and suggests “these various
graph forms can relay a wide variety of information. Applicant clearly
intends specific types of graphs to relay the information, however the graphs
shown in Applicants figures are not required by the claims.” (Ans. 14). We
6
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
agree with the Examiner that the specific type of graph in Figure 2 of
Appellants’ Specification is not required by the language of the claims.
Consequently, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s
factual findings or ultimate conclusion of obviousness of representative
independent claim 1.
Additionally, we further disagree with Appellants’ arguments and find
that each of Appellants’ proffered distinctions pertains to the content of the
data in each of the four portions of the display. We find Appellants’ reliance
upon the content of the data does not identify any errors in the Examiner’s
findings of fact or conclusion of obviousness with regard to the claimed
“computer implemented method to graphically display data clusters using a
computer” which sets forth three separate process steps of “receiving . . .,”
“classifying . . .,” and “displaying a visualization panel. . . .” While the
content within each of the portions of the panel would necessarily differ in a
variety of types of fields of endeavor, the underlying method would remain
unchanged.
The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is
not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d
1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information
content of a memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of
information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d
1883, 1887—90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d
1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003)
aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI
2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
As a result, Appellants’ argument to the content of the data in the
separate portions of the display does not show error in the Examiner’s
7
Appeal 2016-004203
Application 13/371,579
factual findings or ultimate conclusion of obviousness of the process set
forth in representative independent claim 1.
Because Appellants have not set forth separate arguments for
patentability of independent claims 7 and 15 and their respective dependent
claims, we group these claims as falling with independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 4, 10, and 18, Appellants do not set
forth separate arguments for patentability and rely upon the arguments
advanced with respect to claims 1, 7, and 15. (App. Br. 12). Because we
found Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive with respect to
representative independent claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claims 4, 10,
and 18 for the same reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—20 based upon
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. §103.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8