QlikTech International ABDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 202014035656 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/035,656 09/24/2013 Chris Branch 36339.0015U1 7847 23859 7590 05/20/2020 Ballard Spahr LLP SUITE 1000 999 PEACHTREE STREET ATLANTA, GA 30309-3915 EXAMINER TRAN, LOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/20/2020 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): USpatentmail@ballardspahr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte CHRIS BRANCH and ALISTAIR EAVES ____________________ Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 Technology Center 2100 ____________________ Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1–13 and 22–39. Appellant has canceled claims 14–21. See Appeal Br. 13. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) We affirm in part. 1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies Qlik, International AB as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to obtaining and analyzing information from large databases. See Spec. ¶¶ 1, 3, 8. In a disclosed embodiment, an initial data structure is instantiated for each field (i.e., data element type) of a database. Spec. ¶ 39. This initial data structure is populated with the various data element values associated with the data element type. Spec. ¶ 39. Additionally, each data element value (as well as each data element type) may be assigned a code, such as a binary number, for ease of processing. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 40. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics: 1. A method for analyzing information within a database that comprises one or more database structures which collectively contain a plurality of data records, with each record having at least two data element types, and with at least one of the data element types having a different data element value from the data element value for the corresponding data element type in at least one other record in the database; the method characterized by the steps of: reading the plurality of records; instantiating an initial data structure for each unique data element type within the plurality of records; creating an entry in the initial data structure for each data element type for each unique data element value within that data element type; selecting one or more database structures within the database; instantiating a final data structure for the selected database structures in which the data element value for each data element Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 3 type reflects the entry made in the initial data structures for that data element value; receiving a query for information from the database, wherein the query comprises a first search term and a second search term; determining particular data element types and data element values that are the subject of the query, wherein the first search term is one of a first plurality of unique data element values of a first data element type of the particular data element types and the second search term is one of a second plurality of unique data element values of a second data element type of the particular data element types; instantiating a query data structure indicating the data element types and the data element values that are the subject of the query, wherein the query data structure comprises a first digit representing the one of the first plurality of unique data element values of the first data type and a second digit representing the one of the second plurality of unique data element values of the second data type; identifying records within the database that contain one or more data element types and/or data element values that are included in the query data structure; and instantiating a results data structure comprising information relating to the identified records. The Examiner’s Rejections2 1. Claims 1–3 and 7–13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gestrelius et al. (US 6,236,986 B1; May 22, 2001) (“Gestrelius”). Final Act. 2–9. 2 Subsequent to the Examiner’s Final Rejection (and Answer), the Office published revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 4 2. Claims 22–27, 29, 30, 32–34, and 36–39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gestrelius and Koskas (US 6,711,563 B1; Mar. 23, 2004). Final Act. 9–16. 3. Claims 4–6 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gestrelius, Koskas, and Wolge (US 8,244,741 B2; Aug. 14, 2012). Final Act. 16–19. 4. Claims 28 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gestrelius, Koskas, and Hamada et al. (US 2002/0057272 A1; May 16, 2002) (“Hamada”). Final Act. 19–20. ANALYSIS3 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) Appellant disputes the Examiner’s finding that Gestrelius discloses instantiating a query data structure “wherein the query data structure comprises a first digit representing the one of the first plurality of unique data element values of the first data type and a second digit representing the one of the second plurality of unique data element values of the second data type.” Supp. Appeal Br. 3–4; Reply Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant asserts Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office Guidance”). In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the claims recite patent-eligible subject matter or are instead directed to a judicial exception (e.g., a mental process) without integrating the judicial exception into a practical application. 3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed April 18, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Supplemental Appeal Brief, filed August 9, 2018 (“Supp. Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed January 22, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed November 19, 2018 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed August 17, 2017 (“Final Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken. Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 5 Gestrelius only shows separate tables with values indicating values of a first data element type and values of a second data element type—i.e., not within the same data query structure. Supp. Appeal Br. 4. Similar to Appellant’s claimed invention, Gestrelius also relates to extracting information from a database. Gestrelius, col. 1, ll. 5–9, Abstract. Gestrelius describes the data records of a database are read into primary memory of a computer for additional processing. Gestrelius, col. 1, ll. 54– 56. As part of the processing, Gestrelius describes “each different data element value of each data element type is assigned a binary code and the data records are stored in binary-coded form.” Gestrelius, col. 1, ll. 62–64. In a disclosed embodiment, Gestrelius describes a database containing information about clothes (e.g., types of clothes, colors, sizes, etc.). Gestrelius, col. 2, ll. 50–61. Table 1 of Gestrelius is illustrative and is reproduced below: Table 1 of Gestrelius represents a database containing information about clothes. Gestrelius, col. 2, ll. 50–51. As shown, Table 1 contains data elements “Clothes,” “Color,” “Size,” and “ArtNo.” Gestrelius, col. 2, ll. 51– 53. Gestrelius discloses that “for each data element type, a different binary code is assigned to each different data element value.” Gestrelius, col. 3, ll. 17–19. Table 3 of Gestrelius illustrates the assignment of a binary code Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 6 for the different data element values of the data element type “Clothes,” and is reproduced below: Table 3 of Gestrelius shows the binary codes assigned to the different data element values (i.e., shirts and jeans) of data element type “Clothes.” Gestrelius, col. 3, ll. 20–23. In addition, Gestrelius describes that when it has been determined that a user selected a data element value, a user selection vector is created with a “1” inserted in the position corresponding to the selected data element value and a “0” inserted for the other values. Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 5–13. Table 15 of Gestrelius (relied on by the Examiner, see Final Act. 5) illustrates a selection vector and is reproduced below: Table 15 of Gestrelius illustrates a selection vector for a user selection of the data element value shirt for the data element type “Clothes.” Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 22–26. As shown, the selected data element value (i.e., shirt) is assigned a “1” and the non-selected data element value (i.e., jeans) is assigned a “0.” See Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 5–26. Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 7 Similarly, Gestrelius describes a selection vector related to a user selection for the data element type of “Size,” illustrated in Table 16 below: Table 16 of Gestrelius illustrates a selection vector indicating that no data element values for “Size” has been selected (i.e., no selection of a Size of 32, 35, 39, or 40). See Gestrelius, col. 4, ll. 5–26. The Examiner determines the claimed query data structure “can be reasonably interpreted as a set of inter-related tables.” Ans. 3. Thus, the Examiner explains Gestrelius describes the claimed query data structure because Table 15 of Gestrelius could represent a first column of a data structure with a first digit representing one of a first plurality of unique data element values (e.g., a shirt) and Table 16 of Gestrelius could represent a second column of a data structure indicating a second digit representing one of a plurality of second data element values of a second data element type (e.g., size). Ans. 3–4. “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Additionally, to anticipate, a prior art reference must disclose more than “multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. VeriSign, Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also In re Arkley, Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 8 455 F.2d 586, 587 (CCPA 1972) (“[T]he [prior art] reference must clearly and unequivocally disclose the claimed [invention] or direct those skilled in the art to the [invention] without any need for picking, choosing, and combining various disclosures not directly related to each other by the teachings of the cited reference.”). Here, we disagree with the Examiner that Gestrelius discloses the claimed query data structure. Instead, the Examiner improperly relies on a combination of distinct tables in Gestrelius to allegedly disclose the claimed data structure. See Net MoneyIN, 545 F.3d at 1372. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). For similar reasons, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) of claims 2, 3, and 7–13, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom. Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 Claims 4–6 depend directly or indirectly from independent claim 1. The Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited references (i.e., Koskas or Wolge) to cure the deficiency of Gestrelius with respect to claim 1, discussed above. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–6. With respect to independent claim 22, Appellant asserts Koskas, as relied on by the Examiner, fails to teach or suggest “wherein a number of digits of each of the plurality of values is based on a number of the data element types corresponding to the at least two search terms of the search query.” Supp. Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellant argues Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 9 Koskas discloses a bitmap vector including a number of bits corresponding to a day of the week—i.e., a single data element type, not a plurality of data element types. Supp. Appeal Br. 5. The Examiner responds that in addition to the day of the week data element type, Koskas also discloses a salary range data element type and, therefore, teaches two different data element types (day of the week and salary range) each comprising a number of bits based on a number of the respective data element types. Ans. 4–5 (citing Koskas, col. 1, l. 60–col. 2, l. 7. Appellant does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s additional explanation and findings. See Reply Br. 4. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 22. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 23, 24, 38, and 39, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See Supp. Appeal Br. 5–6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Although Appellant asserts the rejection of independent claims 25 and 32 should be reversed “for similar reasons as are set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 22” (Supp. Appeal Br. 5), we note that neither claim 25 nor claim 32 recites a commensurate limitation to the disputed limitation of claim 1 (i.e., instantiating a query data structure comprising a first digit representing one of a first plurality of unique data element values of a first data type and a second digit representing one of a second plurality of unique data element values of a second data type). Thus, Appellant’s arguments related to claim 1 are not commensurate with the scope of claims 25 and 32 Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 10 and, as such, do not demonstrate error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). In addition, for similar reasons to those discussed above with respect to claim 22, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive with respect to claims 25 and 32. For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 25 and 32. In addition, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 26–31 and 33–37, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See Supp. Appeal Br. 5–6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3 and 7–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1). We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 22–39 under 35 U.S.C. §103. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 7–13 102(a)(1) Gestrelius 1–3, 7–13 22–27, 29, 30, 32–34, 36–39 103 Gestrelius, Koskas 22–27, 29, 30, 32–34, 36–39 Appeal 2019-002417 Application 14/035,656 11 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 4–6, 31 103 Gestrelius, Koskas, Wolge 31 4–6 28, 35 103 Gestrelius, Koskas, Hamada 28, 35 Overall Outcome 22–39 1–13 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED IN PART Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation