SAP SE

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 2022

2021000395 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2022)

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. 15/724,947 10/04/2017 Eran Bergman 000005-063801US 1095 58735 7590 03/29/2022 Fountainhead Law Group P.C. Chad R. Walsh 900 LAFAYETTE STREET SUITE 301 SANTA CLARA, CA 95050 EXAMINER NGUYEN, CINDY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2022 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): docketing@fountainheadlaw.com klhussain@fountainheadlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ERAN BERGMAN and SAEED JAHANKHANI Appeal 2021-000395 Application 15/724,947 Technology Center 2100 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAP SE. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-000395 Application 15/724,947 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to statistical computing for cloud analytics. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A non-transitory machine-readable medium storing a program executable by at least one processing unit of a computing device, the program comprising sets of instructions for: receiving from a client device a request to execute a set of scripts on a set of data in a data model; identifying an available virtual machine (VM) in a plurality of VMs; loading a runtime instance configured to execute the set of scripts onto the identified VM; instructing the runtime instance to execute the set of scripts in order to generate a visualization of the set of data; and sending the generated visualization of the set of data to the client device. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Rankov US 8,386,608 B1 Feb. 26, 2013 Chijiiwa US 2009/0063619 A1 Mar. 5, 2009 Pogrebinsky US 2017/0006119 A1 Jan. 5, 2017 Aftab US 2017/0357488 A1 Dec. 14, 2017 REJECTIONS Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis 1, 5-8, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 102(a) Pogrebinsky 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17 103(a) Pogrebinsky, Chijiiwa 4, 11, 18 103(a) Pogrebinsky, Rankov 7, 14 103(a) Pogrebinsky, Aftab Appeal 2021-000395 Application 15/724,947 3 OPINION We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellant argues that Pogrebinsky fails to anticipate independent claims 1, 8, and 15 because Pogrebinsky does not show a single device/system that performs all the limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Appeal Br. 13. Instead, different devices/systems (i.e., a client device and a cloud computing system) are relied upon in Pogrebinsky to reject different limitations recited in independent claims 1, 8, and 15. Id. We do not agree with Appellant’s argument. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that claims 1, 8, and 15 do not require a single device or system to perform every limitation of claims 1, 8, and 15. See Ans. 15. Independent claim 1 recites “receiving from a client device a request to execute a set of scripts” and “identifying an available virtual machine . . . to execute the set of scripts.” See claim 1. Accordingly, claim 1 and similarly claims 8 and 15, describe at least “a client device” and “an available virtual machine” to perform different limitations, and thus, there is no single device that performs all the limitations being claimed. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Pogrebinsky discloses receiving a request from a client device for extension script can include instructions that specify both a view model as well as content sources related to the VM and a processor can execute a script. Ans. 15 (citing para. 61). The Examiner finds that Pogrebinsky discloses receiving from a client device a request to execute a set of scripts on a set of data in a data model, a processor on the client device can determine a list of services or resources available to a user and the various resources such as virtual machines (see paras. 54, 28), and a processor that can load a webpage on the client device Appeal 2021-000395 Application 15/724,947 4 and also execute a script related to the webpage (see paras. 57, 61 and 65). Id. The Examiner finds that Pogrebinsky discloses identifying an available virtual machine (VM) in a plurality of VMs and loading a runtime instance configured to execute the set of scripts onto the identified VM as recited in the independent claims. Id. The Examiner further finds that Pogrebinsky discloses a processor that can include instructions that specify both a view model as well as content sources related to a VM and how a processor can execute the script to provide an extension, which can include a view model and the view model 526 can specify how data related to the VM 509 is to be outputted in the webpage 521 (see paras. 61, 62) and displayed on the client device 501 (see para. 56). Id. The Examiner concludes that Pogrebinsky discloses instructing the runtime instance to execute the set of scripts in order to generate a visualization of the set of data and sending the generated visualization of the set of data to the client device as recited in the independent claims. Id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Pogrebinsky teaches all the limitations of the independent claims. Furthermore, the Examiner’s rejection is consistent with Appellant’s own Specification as shown in Figures 1 and 2A which has multiple devices executing the functions and not a single device. See Spec. Figs. 1 and 2A. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 8, and 15, and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-20 are affirmed. Appeal 2021-000395 Application 15/724,947 5 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 5-8, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 102(a) Pogrebinsky 1, 5-8, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17 103(a) Pogrebinsky, Chijiiwa 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17 4, 11, 18 103(a) Pogrebinsky, Rankov 4, 11, 18 7, 14 103(a) Pogrebinsky, Aftab 7, 14 Overall Outcome 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED