Ex Parte Liebl et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 14, 201311181813 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte HERBERT LIEBL, INBARAJAN SELVARAJAN, and LEE C. HAROLD ____________________ Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 2 I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 20-43. Claims 1-19 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was conducted on January 7, 2013. We affirm. A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to presenting reports generated by an on-line analytical processing (OLAP) system using a spreadsheet application within a network user interface (Spec. 1, ll. 8-10) B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM Claim 20 is exemplary: 20. A system for presenting reports over a network, comprising: an on-line analytical processing (OLAP) system, wherein the OLAP system includes a first physical computing device that processes a report in response to a request received from a user system through a network user interface; a server cache that includes a computer usable storage medium, wherein the server cache stores the report processed by the OLAP system in the computer usable storage medium; a server system communicatively connected to the server cache, wherein the server system includes a second physical computing device that formats the report for presentation at the user system using a spreadsheet application displayed within the network user interface; and Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 3 a network server communicatively connected to the server system, wherein the network server includes a third physical computing device that transmits the formatted report within a page over the network to the user system, wherein the spreadsheet application displayed within the network user interface presents the report at the user system. C. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Comer US 5,819,293 Oct. 06, 1998 Beller US 5,852,819 Dec. 22, 1998 Wong US 6,199,058 Bl Mar. 06, 2001 Siow US 6,301,590 Bl Oct. 09, 2001 Yost US 6,567,796 B1 May 20, 2003 Rogers US 6,604,135 Bl Aug. 05, 2003 Combar US 2006/0129499 Al Jun. 15, 2006 (provisionally filed Sep. 26, 1997) D. REJECTION Claims 20-23, 27-30, 34 and 38-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Yost. Claims 20, 22, 27, 29, 34, and 38-43 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Combar, Beller, and Wong. Claims 21 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Combar, Beller, Wong and Rogers. Claims 23 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Combar, Beller, Wong, Rogers and Siow. Claims 24, 26, 31, 33, 35, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Combar, Beller, Wong, and Comer. Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 4 Claims 25, 32 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Combar, Beller, Wong, Comer and Rogers. II. ISSUES The issues before us are whether 1) the Examiner has erred in finding that Yost discloses and/or 2) the Examiner has erred in concluding that Combar in view of Beller and Wong would have suggested: an on-line analytical processing (OLAP) system having a computing device that processes a report in response to “a request received from a user system through a network user interface” and a server system that includes a computing device that formats the report “using a spreadsheet application displayed within the network user interface” (Claim 20). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Yost 1. Yost discloses processing scheduled services in an on-line analytical processing (OLAP) system and output from the system is then forwarded to one or more subscriber output devices specified for that service, wherein the user system 26 includes a user interface module 38 that enables the user system to interface with the network output module 22 over network (col. 15, ll. 11-15; Fig. 4) and the user system 26 also includes a spreadsheet module 34 that enables reports and analyses generated from Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 5 agent module 28 to be presented in a traditional spreadsheet program format to enable users to view results (col. 14, l. 51 to col. 15, l. 6). 2. The user selects the type for the service and then specifies a report or template/filter combination upon which the alert is based (col. 12, ll. 19-28). 3. The user dynamically changes the level of detail in a report to a lower level attribute so that the result report displays data with a greater level of detail (col. 13, ll. 60-63). Combar 4. Combar discloses a web-based reporting tool that comprises a layer functioning to enable customers to request reporting functionality across the Internet, wherein the report request functionality includes routing requests to appropriate databases and provides customers with the ability to format report request result sets (p. 1, ¶ [0012]). IV. ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. 102(e) Appellants contend that “the claimed invention relates to a particular manner in which to have a user system present a report, namely, with a spreadsheet application ‘displayed within [a] network user interface’ such as a browser window that was previously used to request the report” (App. Br. 9). Although Appellants acknowledge that Yost discloses “a spreadsheet module 34 used to view the report,” Appellants argue that the user views the report “distinctly from a user interface module 38 used to request the report” (App. Br. 10). That is, Appellants contend that “Yost appears to indicate Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 6 that the spreadsheet application exists separately from the ‘network user interface’ used to request the report” (App. Br. 11). However, the Examiner points out that “Appellants never explicitly define a network user interface” (Ans. 38), wherein the Examiner interprets that “a network user interface is any user interface that is able to receive data over a network” (Ans. 39). The Examiner then finds that “Yost clearly teaches manipulating, viewing, or otherwise interacting with a network user interface,” wherein “Yost discloses broadcasting services to user devices over a network,” “the service can include the manipulation of a spreadsheet report by allowing for such a report to be created” and “the spreadsheet module may comprise Microsoft Excel” which “constitutes a network user interface” (id.). We give “network user interface” its broadest reasonable interpretation, consistent with the Specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005). By arguing that Yost’s spreadsheet module 34 is distinct from Yost’s user interface module 38 used to request the report (App. Br. 10), Appellants appear to be arguing that claim 20 requires that the network user interface cannot comprise two separate modules. However, such argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 20. Since claim 20 does not provide any definition for the term and the Specification provides no explicit definition, we find no error in the Examiner’s interpretation that “a network user interface is any user interface that is able to receive data over a network” (Ans. 39). That is, we find claim 20 merely requires an interface from which a request for a report is sent and a spreadsheet application is displayed. Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 7 Yost’s user system enables the user system to interface with the network and enables reports and analyses to be presented to enable users to view results (FF 1). In Yost, the user selects the type for the service over the network (FF 2) and changes the level of detail in a report to alter the display of the result report (FF 3). We find that Yost’s user system comprises an interface from which a request for a report is sent and a spreadsheet application is displayed. Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Yost. Appellants do no provide arguments for 21-23, 27-30, 34 and 38-43 separate from those of claim 20 (App. Br. 11-12), thus claims 21-23, 27-30, 34 and 38-43 fall with claim 20. 35 U.S.C. 103(a) Appellants similarly argue that “Combar employs distinct interfaces for requesting reports and present reports” by pointing to Combar’s Report Requester application 212 and Report Viewer application 215 (App. Br. 14). However, Appellants appear to be arguing that claim 20 requires that the network user interface cannot comprise two separate applications, which is not commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 20. Combar discloses a report request functionality that includes routing requests to appropriate databases and provides customers with the ability to format report request result sets (FF 4). We find that Combar at least suggests an interface from which a request for a report is sent and a spreadsheet application is displayed. Appeal 2011-006835 Application 11/181,813 8 Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 20 over Combar in view of Beller and Wong. Appellants do not provide arguments for claims 21-43 separate from those of claim 20 (App. Br. 16), thus we also find no error in the rejection of 1) claims 22, 27, 29, 34, and 38- 43 over Combar, Beller and Wong; 2) claims 21 and 28 over Combar, Beller, and Wong in further view of Rogers; 3) claims 23 and 30 over Combar, Beller, and Wong in further view of Rogers and Siow; 4) claims 24, 26, 31, 33, 35, and 37 over Combar, Beller, and Wong in further view of Comer; and 5) claims 25, 32 and 36 over Combar, Beller andWong in further view of Comer and Rogers. V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 20-23, 27-30, 34 and 38-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and of claims 20-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation