Ex Parte ANKISETTIPALLI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2016

12644030 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/644,030 12/22/2009
62730 7590 04/14/2016
SAP SE
3410 HILL VIEW A VENUE
PALO ALTO, CA 94304
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ANIL BABU ANKISETTIPALLI
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.
2009P00206US 5584
EXAMINER
MUELLER, KURT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2157
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2016 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 ANKISETTIP ALLI, PRASHANTH PAI,
AMRITA PRABHAKARAN, and SUMITESH RANJAN SRIVASTAVA
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
Technology Center 2100
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added):
1. An article of manufacture, comprising a non-
transitory computer-accessible medium comprising
instructions that, when executed by a computer, cause the
computer to execute a method for extracting data from a
report document for analysis, the method comprising:
categorizing one or more fields and associated
metadata present in the report document as one or more
corresponding data source parameters;
rendering the data source parameters to receive a
user definition of a scope for analyzing the data present
in the report document;
qualifying one or more data source parameters
associated with the user definition, to render one or
more result objects for each associated data source
parameter;
based upon the data source parameters and the
result objects, generating a query to define the data for
analyzing the report document, the query including the
result objects associated with the user definition; and
based upon a user input to the query, extracting
data present in the report document associated to the
query to generate a multi-dimensional result data.
2
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Daniel Hoffman & Doug Lowe, SmartDraw® For Dummies®
(Wiley Publishing Inc. ed., 2009) (herein "SmartDraw"). i, 2
Appellants ' Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because:
Categorizing the fields and associated metadata include
exploring all the fields present in the report document and
determining a field type based upon each field and the metadata
associated with the field. In contrast to a user "highlight(ing)"
and "press(ing) Ctrl+C", the computer executes the method
comprising "categorizing" the "fields and associated metadata"
as "data source parameters". To "categorize" the fields and the
associated metadata, the fields are explored to determine
corresponding field type. Hash maps with a structure similar to
the structure of data present in the report document is
generated. Based upon a "data definition" of the "report
document", the hash map is "populated" by "supplying the
contents associated with the fields of the report document to the
hash map"; and based upon the contents of the hash map, the
data source parameters are rendered (e.g. please see dependent
Claim 4 and paragraph [0014] of the specification as filed).
SmartDraw fails to disclose or suggest a mechanism
including the above manner of "categorizing" the fields
1 The Final Office Action indicated that claims 1-20 are rejected. Final
Act. 4. However, this appears to be a typographical error, as Appellants
treat the Final Office Action as indicating that claims 1-25 are actually
rejected. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 4 ("[c]laims 1-25 were rejected in the Final
Office Action, mailed on April 11, 2013 ").
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-25. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
present in the report document as "data source parameters".
Rather, SmartDraw merely describes "highlighting the cells"
in Excel, and "copying the cells to the clipboard". In addition,
Final Office Action's interpretation of "importing" tables as
"data source parameters" cannot anticipate "categorizing the
fields".
According to Independent Claim 1 and its Dependent
Claims 3 and 4, based upon the field types identified from the
associated metadata, the fields are categorized into parameter
structures; the parameter structures are converted into name-
value pair structure and rendered as the data source parameter.
This is not a mere "importation of tables" as interpreted by
Final Office Action's. Hence, SmartDraw and Final Office
Action's interpretation of "importing" tables as "data source
parameters" cannot anticipate "categorizing the fields" as recited
in Independent Claim 1.
If a mere "highlighting" and "copying" of cells was to
be performed, as interpreted by Final Office Action, where cells
of the Excel are highlighted and copied on to a clipboard, the
fields, measures and dimensions could not be determined, to
render the name=i'alue pair structure as the data source
parameter. Hence, SmartDraw and Final Office Action's
interpretation of "highlighting" and "copying" data cannot
anticipate "categorizing" the "fields" and "associated metadata"
as "data source parameters" as recited in Independent Claim 1.
Appeal Br. 11-12, Appellants' emphasis omitted, panel's emphasis added.
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) because:
Qualifying the data source parameters associated with the
user definition includes determining fields associated with the
scope for analyzing the report document and determining
measures and dimensions corresponding to the fields.
Qualifying the data source parameters also includes
determining contents of a hash map having an association
with the scope for analysis. Qualifying the fields associated
4
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
with the defined scope includes determining data present in
the hash map associated with the data within the defined
scope. Qualifying the fields may also be associated with a
business dictionary for analyzing the report document. For
instance, if a function field or a formula field is defined in the
scope for analyzing the report document, the function field or
the formula field is qualified by determining a corresponding
formula structure present in the hash map, along with
qualifying the formula field as a measure. The formula field
is mapped with a corresponding formula structure present in
the hash map. In an embodiment, if a corresponding formula
structure present in the hash map is not identified, the user
may be provided with an option of creating a formula
structure in the hash map. Qualifying the fields associated
with the defined scope may be described as a part of a data
source definition (e.g. please see dependent Claims 6-10 and
paragraph [0017] and [0020] of the specification as filed).
SmartDraw fails to disclose or suggest a mechanism
including the above manner of "qualifying" the "data source
parameters" associated with the user definition of the scope
for analyzing the data. Rather, SmartDraw merely describes
"create drawings using one of the chart templates ... Because
you selected a chart template, SmartDraw knows that when
you paste spreadsheet data, you want it converted to a chart.
SmartDraw even remembers the last type of chart you worked
with and creates the same type for the pasted chart".
In addition, Final Office Action's interpretation of
"converting excel data into a desired chart type" with, "the
user definition being the user selections and constraints that
apply as part of the importing process" cannot anticipate
"qualifying the data source parameters".
In contrast to the "importing" and "converting"
processes as interpreted by Final Office Action, "qualifying
the data source parameters" is neither a mere bringing of
data from one location to another, nor a conversion of data
into a chart. Instead, "qualifying" the data source parameters
involves determining the contents (e.g. measures and
5
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
dimensions) of the fields associated with the user defined
scope. The contents of a hash map that is associated with the
scope for analysis is also determined to qualify the data source
parameters. Also, upon qualifying the data source parameters,
result objects associated with the data source parameters are
rendered. Based upon the rendered result objects, and the data
source parameters, a query is generated to define the data for
analysis. Based upon a user input to the query, data present in
the report document associated to the query is extracted to
generate a multi-dimensional result data.
If a mere "importing" and/or "converting" of data was
to be performed, as interpreted by Final Office Action, where
data is brought from one location to another and converted
into a graph, the contents, including measures, dimensions,
and hash map contents could not be determined, to render the
result objects. Furthermore, based upon the rendered result
objects and the data source parameters, a generation of a
query would not be possible, to accept user input and extract
data from the report document to generate the multi-
dimensional result data. Hence, SmartDraw and Final Office
Action's interpretation of "importing" and "converting" tables
as "data source parameters" cannot anticipate "qualifying the
data source parameters" as recited in Independent Claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13-14, Appellants' emphasis omitted, panel's emphasis added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being anticipated?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. Except as noted herein, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which the
6
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-16); and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2---6) in response to the
Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the
Examiner. We highlight the following.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope
of claim 1. More specifically, claim 1 fails to recite any of the following
features that Appellants argue distinguish the claim from SmartDraw:
(a) exploring all the fields present in the report document; (b) determining a
field type based upon each field and the metadata associated with the field;
( c) generating hash maps with a structure similar to the structure of data
present in the report document; ( d) populating the hash map by supplying
the contents associated with the fields of the report document to the hash
map based upon a data definition of the report document; ( e) rendering the
data source parameters based upon the contents of the hash map;
(f) categorizing the fields into parameter structures; (g) converting the
parameter structures into a name-value pair structure; or (h) rendering
the name-value pair structure as the data source parameter. See Appeal Br.
11-12.
Further, assuming arguendo that Appellants' argument was
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, we do not find it persuasive.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner's findings that SmartDraw's analysis of
the data contained in the Excel spreadsheet, as well as the rendering of the
analyzed data into an appropriate format based on the selected chart type,
teaches the aforementioned features as recited in dependent claims 3 and 4.
See Final Act. 5---6.
7
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we are also not persuaded the
Examiner erred. Similar to Appellants' above contention 1, Appellants'
argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, as claim 1 fails to
recite any of the following features that Appellants argue distinguish the
claim from SmartDraw: (a) determining fields associated with the scope for
analyzing the report document; (b) determining measures and dimensions
corresponding to the fields; ( c) determining contents of a hash map having
an association with the scope for analysis; ( d) if a function field is defined
in the scope, determining a corresponding field function present in the hash
map and mapping the function field with a corresponding function present
in the hash map; ( e) if a corresponding function is not present in the hash
map, providing an option for creating a field function in the hash map; or
(t) a business dictionary for analyzing the report document. See Appeal Br.
13-14.
Further, assuming arguendo that Appellants' arguments were
commensurate with the scope of claim 1, we do not find them persuasive.
Instead, we agree with the Examiner's findings that SmartDraw's analysis of
the data contained in the Excel spreadsheet, as well as the rendering of the
analyzed data into an appropriate format based on the selected chart type,
teaches the aforementioned features as recited in dependent claims 6-10.
See Final Act. 7-8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-25 as being
anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a).
(2) Claims 1-25 are not patentable.
8
Appeal2014-003932
Application 12/644,030
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-25 as being anticipated under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a) are affirmed.
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
9