Ex Parte Liebl et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2013

11181813 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2013)

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