Ex Parte Soderstrom et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 2013

11553771 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte RICK SODERSTROM, BOB SPARKS, GUILLAUME SENNEVILLE and PHIL ARCHDEACON ____________ Appeal 2011-004136 Application 11/553,771 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARL W.WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-8, and 12-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 3, and 9-11 have been canceled. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for naming members of a dimension in a data analyzing system by generating names Appeal 2011-004136 Application 11/553,771 2 based upon a sequence within a pattern. See Specification 36, Abstract of the Disclosure. Claim 1 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method comprising: in a programmable processor, receiving a pattern having a sequence of pattern components, and receiving a dimension member of a dimension, the dimension having a dimension hierarchy, the dimension member occurring in a level of the dimension hierarchy, and the dimension member having a context that includes an identifier, a parent of the dimension member, an ordered set of siblings having the same parent as the dimension member, and the level of the dimension hierarchy; interpreting the received sequence of pattern components within the context of the dimension member, wherein the sequence of pattern components represents the level of the dimension hierarchy in which the dimension member occurs, and wherein the sequence of pattern components further represents a relative position of the dimension member with respect to the ordered set of siblings; and generating, by the processor, a dimension member name as the identifier of the dimension member based on the interpretation of the received sequence of pattern components within the context of the dimension member in the level of the dimension hierarchy. The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability: Kan US 7,051,025 B2 May 23, 2006 Greenfield US 7,366,730 B2 Apr. 29, 2008 (filed May 23, 2003) Appeal 2011-004136 Application 11/553,771 3 THE REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4-8 and 12-20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Kan and Greenfield. Ans. 4-19.1 ISSUE Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by Appellants and the findings of the Examiner, we find the following issue to be dispositive of the claims on appeal: Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Kan and Greenfield, collectively, show or suggest “generating, by the processor a dimension member name as the identifier of the dimension member based on the interpretation of the received sequence of pattern components within the context of the dimension member in the level of the dimension hierarchy” as set forth in independent claim 1 and as generally set forth within independent claims 8 and 18? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 9-13) that the Examiner has erred. Specifically, Appellants argue that Kan and Greenfield, collectively, fail to show or suggest “generating, by the processor, a dimension member name” based on the “received sequence of pattern components” as set forth 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 23, 2010; and, the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 1, 2010. Appeal 2011-004136 Application 11/553,771 4 in claim 1 and generally set forth within independent claims 8 and 18. App. Br. 9. The Examiner finds that Kan discloses “generating” at column 6, lines 46-53. The cited portion of Kan discloses the relation of a plurality of aggregate patterns; however, we find no suggestion therein for “generating” dimension member names as required by Appellants’ claims. Consequently, we find Appellants’ argument that Kan and Greenfield fail to show generation of a dimension member name to be persuasive.2 We therefore find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-8 and 12-20 as unpatentable under § 103 over Kan and Greenfield. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 4-8 and 12-20 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4-8 and 12-20 is reversed. REVERSED pgc 2 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments present additional issues. Some of the arguments presented by the additional issues are not persuasive; nonetheless we were persuaded of error by the issue stated above and as such we do not reach the additional issues as the issue stated above is dispositive of the appeal.