Lukasz Wladyslaw. Pawlowski et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 26, 2019

12910726 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2019)

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.
12/910,726 10/22/2010 Lukasz Wladyslaw Pawlowski 14917.1582USU1/330341.02 8759
27488 7590 09/26/2019
MERCHANT & GOULD (MICROSOFT)
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
SISON, JUNE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2019 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):
USPTO27488@merchantgould.com
usdocket@microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LUKASZ WLADYSLAW PAWLOWSKI,
JOHN EDWARD GALLARDO, and YUNXIN WU
________________

Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,7261
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–17, 21, and 23. Claims 18–20 are canceled. Appeal
Br. 26. The Examiner objects to claim 22 as depending from a rejected
claim, but otherwise concludes it would be allowable if rewritten in

1 Appellants identify Microsoft Technology Licensing, LLC, as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

2

independent form and incorporating the recitations of claim 17, from which
it depends. Final Act. 22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Summary of the disclosure
The Specification discloses “providing a preview feature in a report
designer that allows modifications to report metadata to be made and
previewed accurately.” Abstract. Editable previews are provided for by
allocating a memory location that “allows relative paths and references to
sub-reports or data sources in the original report to be accurately reflected in
a preview on the client.” Id.
Representative claims (key limitations emphasized)
1. A computer implemented method of previewing modifications to
an original report in a reporting service application, the method
comprising:
receiving, at a report publishing server, a request to publish the
original report;
publishing the original report, wherein the original report is stored at a
location at the report publishing server;
receiving, from a first client, a first request at the report publishing
server to create a first in-memory temporary namespace, wherein the
first in-memory temporary namespace is associated with the location
and allows for access to one or more paths used by the original
report;
receiving, from the first client, first modified metadata associated with
the original report;
storing the first modified metadata in the first in-memory temporary
namespace;
generating first preview information from the first in-memory
temporary namespace, wherein the first preview information
comprises the original report modified by the first modified metadata;
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

3

sending, to the first client, the first preview information;
receiving, from a second client, a second request at the report
publishing server to create a second in-memory temporary namespace,
wherein the second in-memory temporary namespace is associated
with the location and allows for access to one or more paths used by
the original report;
receiving, from the second client, second modified metadata
associated with the original report;
storing the second modified metadata in the second in-memory
temporary namespace;
generating second preview information from the second in-memory
temporary namespace, wherein the second preview information
comprises the original report modified by the second modified
metadata; and
sending, to the second client, the second preview information.
9. A computer implemented method of testing a connection between
a report publishing server and a shared data source, the method
comprising:
publishing, at the report publishing server, an original report;
receiving a request at the report publishing server to create an in-
memory temporary namespace for storing modified metadata of the
original report, wherein the modified metadata includes at least one
data source definition representing a reference to the shared data
source, wherein the modified metadata further includes data source
credentials, and the in-memory temporary namespace allows a
connection between the report publishing server and the shared data
source to be tested using the at least one data source definition and the
data source credentials;
receiving, at the report publishing server., the modified metadata from
a client; and
storing the modified metadata in the in-memory temporary
namespace.
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

4

17. A non-transitory computer readable storage media device storing
computer executable instructions that when executed perform a
method of testing connection data referenced in a report, the method
comprising:
at a report publishing server, receiving a request to test a connection
between the report publishing server and a shared data source of the
report, wherein the report publishing server is configured to access
data source location information and data source credentials of the
shared data source, wherein the data source location information and
data source credentials are stored in metadata of the report, wherein
the report is published in a server environment on the report
publishing server;
attempting to establish the connection with the shared data source
using the data source location information and the data source
credentials; and
sending an indication to the client regarding whether the connection to
the data source was established.
Examiner’s rejections and references
The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iremonger et al. (US 7,000,182 B1; issued Feb. 14,
2006) (“Iremonger”) and Deutscher et al. (US 2004/0001106 A1; published
Jan. 1, 2004) (“Deutscher”). Final Act. 3–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iremonger, Deutscher, and Fazal et al. (US
2007/0239508 A1; published Oct. 11, 2007) (“Fazal”). Final Act. 8–9.
The Examiner rejects claims 5–8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iremonger, Deutscher, and Wu et al. (US 2005/0033726
A1; published Feb. 10, 2005) (“Wu”). Final Act. 9–12.
The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, and 12–16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iremonger and Wu. Final
Act. 12–17.
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

5

The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iremonger, Wu, and Fazal. Final Act. 17–18.
The Examiner rejects claims 17 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Griffin et al. (US 6,442,714 B1; issued Aug. 27,
2002) (“Griffin”) and Wu. Final Act. 18–21.
The Examiner rejects claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iremonger, Deutscher, and Griffin. Final Act. 21.
CLAIMS 1–8 AND 21
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Iremonger’s creation of a
temporary file and temporary data structure as part of a layout/report wizard
teaches or suggests receiving, from a first client, a first request at the report
publishing server to create a first in-memory temporary namespace, wherein
the first in-memory temporary namespace is associated with the location
and allows for access to one or more paths used by the original report.
Final Act. 4 (citing Iremonger Fig. 4, col. 4, ll. 1–31); see also Ans. 26.
Appellants argues that because Iremonger stores temporary data in a
temporary folder to create an original report, Iremonger fails to teach or
suggest creating a first in-memory temporary namespace that allows for
access to one or more paths used by an original report. See Appeal Br. 16
(citing Iremonger col. 4, ll. 22–30). That is, Appellant argues that “at best,
Iremonger teaches a report creation wizard that is used to create reports.”
Reply Br. 4 (citing Iremonger Fig. 22).
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because the claim limitations,
given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, do
not exclude report creation. “Unless the steps of a method actually recite an
order, the steps are not ordinarily construed to require one.” Interactive Gift
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

6

Exp., Inc. v. Compuserve Inc., 256 F.3d 1323, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing
Loral Fairchild Corp. v. Sony Corp., 181 F.3d 1313, 1322 (Fed.Cir.1999)).
Even though claim 1 recites receiving a request to publish an original report
and publishing the report at a location before the disputed recitation of
receiving a request to create a first in-memory temporary namespace
associated with the location and allowing for access to paths used by the
original report, we are unable to discern any requirement that the
publication request and publication steps must be performed before the in-
memory temporary namespace creation request step. That is, claim 1 is not
limited to the first request being directed to editing an existing report.
Instead, claim 1 is broader than the process disclosed in Figure 4 (publishing
the report (404) explicitly takes place before receiving a request to establish
a memory location (406)). Claim 1 is also broader than and claim 3 (not
argued separately)—which depends from claim 1 and further defines the
receiving the first request step as comprising receiving a request to establish
an edit session. Because Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of the disputed recitation, Appellants arguments are unpersuasive
of error.
The Examiner relies on Deutscher’s preview tab—which allows for
iteratively changing and previewing changes to a presentation—to teach or
suggest generating first preview information from the first in-memory
temporary namespace, wherein the first preview information comprises the
original report modified by the first modified metadata, and, similarly
generating second preview information from the second in-memory
temporary namespace, wherein the second preview information comprises
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

7

the original report modified by the second modified metadata. Final Act. 6–
7 (citing Deutscher Fig. 22, ¶¶ 15, 174, 190, 219–21); see also Ans. 26–27.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Iremonger discloses
creating a report and even discloses an option to preview the created report,
but fails entirely to disclose or suggest previewing modifications to a
previously created report.” Appeal Br. 15 (emphasis added). Appellants
argue that Deutscher fails to cure the alleged deficiency of Iremonger
because Deutscher merely “discloses a system for creating interactive, multi-
media presentations that integrate video, audio, presentation slides, text, and
other media components into a manageable production environment. . . .
Deutscher is entirely unrelated to the modification of reports, and even more,
unrelated to reports in general.” Appeal Br. 16 (citing Deutscher, Abstract).
The Examiner’s findings, however, persuasively show that it would have
been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to apply Deutscher’s teachings
and suggestions as they relate to making changes to and previewing the
representation of information to enable similar changes in and previews to
the reports of Iremonger. See Ans. 26–27 (citing, e.g., Deutscher ¶¶ 13–14).
In particular, the Examiner correctly notes that Deutscher is not limited to
particular types of presentations, but is instead broadly applicable to
“documents of various kinds, HTML files, animations, and the like.”
Deutscher ¶ 13 (cited in Ans. 27).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2–8
and 21, which Appellants do not argue separately. Appeal Br. 17.
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

8

CLAIMS 9–16
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 9 because
“Iremonger discloses a report creation wizard that is used to create original
reports and does not disclose or even suggest previewing modifications to an
original report” and because “Iremonger discloses the creation of a
temporary file and a temporary data structure that stores information
obtained from the interview process in order to create such an original
report.” Appeal Br. 18 (citing Iremonger, col. 2, ll. 19–25, col. 4, ll. 22–25).
Appellants’ arguments are similar to those discussed above with respect to
the Examiner’s reliance on Iremonger in rejecting claim 1, and thus are
unpersuasive for similar reasons. Appellants’ arguments are also
unpersuasive to the extent they pertain to issues that are unrelated to claim 9
(e.g., claim 9 does not have previewing recitations).
In rejecting claim 9 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Wu’s teaching
that logon credentials can be saved as part of a data connection to teach or
suggest wherein the modified metadata further includes data source
credentials. Final Act. 14 (citing Wu ¶ 84); see also Ans. 29. Appellants
contend the Examiner erred because Wu “merely refers to the use of a
console that users must use to re-enter login information if the underlying
data sources are not saved as part of the data connection,” which Appellants
argue “is entirely unrelated to whether the metadata includes data source
credentials.” Appeal Br. 19.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because Wu teaches that
login information must be re-entered only if logon credentials are not saved
as part of a data connection. Wu ¶ 84. Thus, Wu plainly teaches saving
login credentials as part of a data connection. That is, if it was not possible
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

9

to save login credentials as part of the data connection, then the login re-
entry of Wu would not be conditional in the manner disclosed. See id.
Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the claimed modified metadata
from Wu’s saved data connection information, nor do Appellants
persuasively distinguish the claimed data source credentials from Wu’s
logon credentials. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Wu teaches
or suggests “wherein the modified metadata further includes data source
credentials,” as recited in claim 9. See Final Act. 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 9, and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 10–
16, which Appellants do not argue separately. Appeal Br. 20.
CLAIMS 17 AND 23
In rejecting claim 17 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Griffin’s
web-based test form creation process—which includes both sending a
request to a web server and passing SQL instructions to a database—teaches
or suggests receiving a request to test a connection between a report
publishing server and a shared data source of the report. Final Act. 19
(citing Griffin Fig. 7, col. 5, l. 23–col. 6, l. 35); see also Ans. 30–32.
Appellants argue Griffin is not related to the claimed invention
because “Griffin discloses a central electronic repository for storing test
procedures, test equipment, test data log formats, and report formats.”
Appeal Br. 21. Specifically, Appellants contend “Griffin’s mere recitation
of ‘test data stored in a relational database’ and accessing ‘test report data
from database server 22’ . . . cannot be said to be analogous to the claimed
step of ‘receiving a request to test a connection between the report
publishing server and a shared data source of the report.’” Reply Br. 6.
Appeal 2018-007285
Application 12/910,726

10

Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive because Griffin’s test
application server 20, in accessing test report data from database server 22,
tests the connection between the test application server 20 and database
server 22. See Ans. 31–32 (citing Griffin Figs. 1, 3, 7, col. 3, l. 35–col. 4, l.
29, col. 5, l. 5–col. 6, l. 35). That is, if the connection between test
application server 20 and database server 22 is broken, then any attempt to
access test report data will fail, making all such requests a test of the
connection in the same manner of claim 17. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Griffin teaches or suggests “receiving a request to test a
connection between the report publishing server and a shared data source of
the report,” as recited in claim 17. Final Act. 19.
Furthermore, Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 17, to the extent
they are similar to Appellants’ arguments discussed above with respect to
the Examiner’s reliance on Wu, and to the extent to which they are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 17 and the Examiner’s rejection
thereof, are unpersuasive of error. See Appeal Br. 20–21.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 17, and claim 23, which Appellants do not argue separately.
Appeal Br. 22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–17, 21, and 23.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED