Ex Parte Gibson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 1, 201915005344 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 15/005,344 01/25/2016 51871 7590 02/05/2019 Shumaker & Sieffert, P.A. 1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100 Woodbury, MN 55125 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Stephen D. Gibson 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. CA920150102US1/1021-201 6327 EXAMINER GOFMAN,ALEXN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2163 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/05/2019 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): pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN D. GIBSON, MOHAMMED MOST AF A, and GRAHAM A. WATTS Appeal2018-006460 Application 15/005,344 Technology Center 2100 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, BETH Z. SHAW, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-006460 Application 15/005,344 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 20, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. INVENTION The claims are directed to a system and method for visualizing data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: identifying, via a user interface, a dataset having two or more data fields; defining, via the user interface, a data visualization intent specification for the dataset, the data visualization intent specification including one or more data visualization intent specification entries, each data visualization intent specification entry including an intent type and data field identifiers identifying a set of two of more data fields selected from the data fields of the dataset, wherein each data visualization intent specification entry defines, via the intent type, a desired type of data analysis in a data visualization of data from the set of two or more data fields identified in the data visualization intent specification entry, the desired type of data analysis selected from a group of data analysis types including a compare type and trend type; selecting, with one or more processing devices, based on the intent type of the data visualization intent specification entry, Meta templates that meet the intent type of the data visualization intent specification entry and that support the set of two or more data fields; determining, with the one or more processing devices and for each selected Meta template, chart parts to be assigned to each of the selected Meta templates, the combination of each selected Meta template with the chart parts assigned to that selected Meta template forming a chart template associated with that selected Meta template; and 2 Appeal2018-006460 Application 15/005,344 selecting, with the one or more processing devices and based on a set of combination rules and on the data visualization intent specification, one or more of the chart templates associated with the selected Meta templates. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Lai Krinsky Bhatia Rope Fan US 2006/0277476 Al US 2008/0065634 Al US 7,840,600 Bl US 2012/0313949 Al US 2013/0097177 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Dec. 7, 2006 Mar. 13, 2008 Nov. 23, 2010 Dec. 13, 2012 Apr. 18, 2013 Claims 1, 3, 7-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan and Bhatia. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Bhatia, and Rope. Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Bhatia, and Lai. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fan, Bhatia, Lai, and Krinsky. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Appellants argue Fan does not disclose an "intent type" or selecting "Meta templates" as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 18. App. Br. 3 Appeal2018-006460 Application 15/005,344 14. The Examiner finds Fan and Bhatia teach that a user selects a particular chart based on system suggestions, which teaches the claimed intent type. Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds that the "All Charts" of Fan in Figures 2 and 3 teach the "Meta templates" as defined in the Specification (i.e., templates that can support a set of data fields (Spec. ,r 22)). Ans. 5. Appellants argue the cited portions of Fan and Bhatia do not teach "selecting, with one or more processing devices, based on the intent type of the data visualization intent specification entry, Meta templates that meet the intent type of the data visualization intent specification entry and that support the set of two or more data fields," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-14. We agree with the Examiner that Fan describes that a user may select a particular chart that was generated. Ans. 6. Yet the Examiner has not shown sufficiently in this record that Fan teaches selection of "Meta templates" "based on . .. the data visualization intent specification entry," which entry includes an "intent type." The Examiner points to "All Charts" of Fan in Figures 2 and 3 as teaching the claimed Meta templates. Ans. 5. Yet the Examiner does not explain how "All Charts" of Fan are "based on .. . the data visualization intent specification entry," which entry includes an "intent type," as recited in claim 1. Additionally, although Bhatia may teach a user intent type by selecting a chart type (Ans. 4, 6), Bhatia is not relied on to teach the claimed selecting of Meta templates. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 10-13, 17, 18, and 20. In rejecting dependent claims 2, 4--9, 14--16, and 19, the Examiner does not rely on Rope, Lai, or Krinsky to teach the features missing from the Fan-Bhatia combination. See Final Act. 9-14. Thus, for 4 Appeal2018-006460 Application 15/005,344 the same reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2, 4--9, 14--16, and 19. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation