Ex Parte Vogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 31, 2017

13118607 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2017)

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. 13/118,607 05/31/2011 Andreas Vogel 2010P00480US 9905 62730 7590 SAP SE 3410 HILLVIEW AVENUE PALO ALTO, CA 94304 EXAMINER FIELDS, BENJAMIN S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/02/2017 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): APRIL.MENG@SAP.COM GIPinhouse@sap.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREAS VOGEL, ZHE PU, SAN FRANCISCO, and HARIHARAN VIJAYARAGHAVAN Appeal 2014-008470 Application 13/118,6071 Technology Center 3600 Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’ decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 SAP AG is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2014-008470 Application 13/118,607 ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM 1. A system to calculate and present marketing scenarios based on a plurality of market characteristics comprising: a processor; and a memory having instructions stored thereon which when executed by said processor cause said system to render a graphical user interface (GUI) to display a main coordinate system formed by a first axis associated with a series of values of a first market characteristic and a second axis associated with a series of values of a second market characteristic, a graphical object corresponding to a marketing scenario, wherein said graphical object is positioned in said main coordinate system to present a correlation between said first market characteristic and said second market characteristic, and an additional component of said graphical object to indicate a value of an additional parameter of said marketing scenario, wherein said additional parameter is different from said first market characteristic and said second market characteristic. REJECTION Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kiefer et al. (US 2006/0047562 Al, pub. Mar. 2, 2006) (“Kiefer”) and Ram et al. (US 2003/0009411 Al, pub. Jan. 9, 2003) (“Ram”). FINDINGS OF FACT The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis. ANALYSIS The Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 because, among other reasons, the cited Ram reference 2 Appeal 2014-008470 Application 13/118,607 lacks the recited “second axis associated with a series of values of a second market characteristic.” Appeal Br. 8. As used in claim 1 and the Specification, “values” are numerical quantities. See Spec. Tflf 37, 43, 45, 48, 78. The portions of Ram identified by the Examiner (Answer 4; see also Final Action 4) disclose a security-trading system having a matrix of rows and columns representing “price increments along one axis and one or more markets or market participants along a second axis, for any specific security” (Ram 11; see also id. at Abstract, || 16—26, claims 1—3). Yet, Ram’s “one or more markets or market participants” are not numerical quantities; therefore, they do not constitute the claimed “series of values of a second market characteristic.” The Examiner identifies additional portions of Ram as teaching a grid display (Answer 5—6 (citing Ram || 512, 516, 529)), but does not identify any grid in Ram that has two different values of market characteristics that are represented on different coordinate axes, as claimed. Instead, Ram’s displays represent one quantity only, lacking “a series of values of a second market characteristic,” as claimed. Accordingly, the Appellants’ argument is persuasive of error in the rejection of claim 1. For the same or similar reasons, Appellants’ argument is persuasive of error in the rejection of independent claims 5 and 14, which contain limitations similar to those discussed above, as well as the dependent claims on appeal — the Examiner having identified no reason for overcoming the noted deficiencies of Ram. 3 Appeal 2014-008470 Application 13/118,607 Therefore, the rejection of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is not sustained. DECISION We REVERSE the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—20. REVERSED 4