Ex Parte Rasmussen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 20, 2015

12336929 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/336,929 12/17/2008 Glenn D. Rasmussen CA920085192US1 2800 45725 7590 03/20/2015 Walder Intellectual Property Law PC 17304 Preston Road Suite 200 Dallas, TX 75252 EXAMINER UDDIN, MOHAMMED R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2167 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/20/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GLENN D. RASMUSSEN, DAVID DEWAR, and KATHERINE WALLACE ____________ Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–24, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to managing drill-through source metadata. Spec. ¶ 1. A source drill-through metadata handler defines source drill-through metadata in a metadata model for one or more query items that are drill-through source items. Id. at ¶ 9. A source specification processor automatically analyzes data items used in a report definition to locate data items using a query item that is related to a drill-through source item. Id. The related drill-through source data item is then added to a source report definition that is executed to generate a source report. Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A source drill-through metadata manager comprising: a computer; and a computer memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the computer, cause the computer to: define and manage, by the source drill-through metadata handler, source drill-through metadata in a metadata model for one or more query items that are drill-through source items; and automatically analyze, by a source specification processor, data items used in a report definition to locate any data item that uses a query item that is related to a query item defined as a drill-through source item based on the source drill- through metadata so as to identify one or more relevant drill- through source data items for one or more query items located during the analyzing, and automatically add the one or more relevant drill-through source data items to a source report definition. Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 3 References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Vierich et al. US 2004/0139045 A1 July 15, 2004 (hereinafter “Vierich”) Thomson et al. US 2006/0294098 A1 Dec. 28, 2006 (hereinafter “Thomson”) Rejection Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomson and Vierich. Ans. 2. ANALYSIS Claim 1 Dispositive Issue: Does the combination of Thomson and Vierich teach or suggest automatically analyze, by a source specification processor, data items used in a report definition to locate any data item that uses a query item that is related to a query item defined as a drill-through source item based on the source drill-through metadata so as to identify one or more relevant drill-through source data items for one or more query items located during the analyzing, and automatically add the one or more relevant drill-through source data items to a source report definition, as recited in claim 1? Appellants contend the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to claim 1 because the Examiner fails to establish a factual basis, or articulate any reasons, in support of the legal conclusion of obviousness. App. Br. 7–8. Appellants argue the Examiner provides no explanation as to how the applied references are being found to teach or Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 4 suggest the specific limitations recited in claim 1 but, instead, merely presents a list of citations. Id. Appellants further contend the combination of Thomson and Vierich does not teach or suggest the disputed limitations because Thomson merely teaches translating context for an originating data source to allow the originating data source to operate on a target data source (App. Br. 10) and Vierich merely creates drill-through paths between source objects and target objects (id. at 18). Appellants argue Thomson has no need to locate the claimed “data item” because Thomson is directed to translating one report for an originating data source to another report for a target data source and merely uses metadata identifying the context for the translation. App. Br. 12–13. Appellants further argue In Vierich there is no report definition that is analyzed to locate any data item used in a report definition that uses a query item that is related to a query item defined as a drill-through source item in order to identify one or more relevant drill- through source data items for one or more query items based on the source drill-through metadata. Further, Vierich is merely creating drill-though paths and is not creating a source definition report to which one or more relevant drill-through source data items are added that are identified for one or more query items by locating any data item used in a report definition that uses a query item that is related to a query item defined as a drill-through source item based on the source drill- through metadata. In fact, Vierich specifically states that, by creating drill-through paths using the Vierich system, none of the reports involved need be kept informed of changes to the relationships of the underlying data and reports dependent on the underlying data remain valid, resulting in a much reduced maintenance burden. Therefore, Vierich has no need to automatically add the one or more relevant drill-through source data items to a source report definition. Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 5 App. Br. 18. We are unpersuaded by the Appellants’ arguments against the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the Office action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 21–33) in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Thomson describes a table that includes the data items “Food” and “48537.” Thomson ¶ 99. Thomson also teaches that the data items “Food” and “48537” can be selected to drill-through to a respective target report. Thomson ¶ 100. As such, Thomson’s data items “Food” and “48537” are drill-through source items, which is consistent with Appellants’ Specification. See Spec. ¶ 2. Because the data item “48537” is included in Thomson’s table, Thomson at least suggests that the data item “Food” is used in a report definition — e.g., the report definition executed to generate Thomson’s table. Thomson also teaches that when the data item “48537” is selected drilling-through to a target report, the data item is analyzed to determine the context member — e.g., the related data item — “Food.” Thomson ¶ 100. Because, as discussed supra, the related data item “48537” is a source drill- through data item, Thomson at least suggests that the data item “Food” uses a query item that is related to a query item — e.g., the query item used by the source drill-through item “48537” — that is defined as a drill-through source item. See Thomson ¶¶ 99, 100; Fig. 9. With regard to the limitation “automatically add the one or more Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 6 relevant drill-through source data items to a source report definition,” claim 1 does not require that the “one or more relevant drill-through source data items” be added to a source report based on automatically analyzing data items used in a report definition. As such, because the table includes the data item “48537,” Thomson at least suggests that the related source drill- through item “48537” is added to the source report definition that is executed to generate Thomson’s table. Further, Thomson teaches the automatic generation of a target query (see Thomson ¶ 97) and, therefore, at least suggests that the related source drill-through item “48537” is automatically added to the source report definition. As such, Thomson teaches or suggests the disputed limitations. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 12, 23, 24, argued together with claim 1 (see App. Br. 5); and claims 3, 4, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 22, which depend variously from claims 1 and 12, and not argued separately. Claims 2, 5, 7–10, 13, 16, and 18–21 On the record we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s findings and conclusion (Ans. 33–37) that the combined teachings of Thomson and Vierich would have suggested the subject matter of each representative claim. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 7–10, 13, 16, and 18–21 for the reasons set forth in the Answer, which we incorporate herein by reference. Appeal 2013-001610 Application 12/336,929 7 DECISION As such, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24. 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 tj