Ex Parte Gibson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 1, 2019

15005344 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 1, 2019)

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