Ex Parte Ankisettipalli et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 201713371579 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation