Tableau Software Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2020

14628187 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2020)

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.
14/628,187 02/20/2015 Jun Kim 061127-5046-US 4573
159777 7590 10/01/2020
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP (PA)(Tableau)
1400 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1124
EXAMINER
SILVERMAN, SETH ADAM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2145
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2020 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):
padocketingdepartment@morganlewis.com
vskliba@morganlewis.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN KIM, CHRISTOPHER RICHARD STOLTE,
JOCK DOUGLAS MACKINLAY, ROBIN STEWART, BORA BERAN,
JUSTIN TALBOT, and MARC RUETER
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187
Technology Center 2100
BEFORE ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and JAMES B. ARPIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, 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, 2, 4–11, 13–19, 21, and 23–25. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

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 Tableau
Software, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “systems, methods, and user interfaces that
provide analytic functions for interactively exploring and investigating a
data set.” Spec. ¶ 3. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method, comprising:
at an electronic device with a display:
displaying on the display a chart that includes visual
marks representing a set of data, displayed in accordance with
contents of a plurality of displayed shelf regions, wherein each
shelf region determines a respective characteristic of the chart;
detecting selection of a plurality of visual marks of the
displayed visual marks;
in response to detecting selection of the plurality of
visual marks, visually emphasizing the selected plurality of
visual marks;
detecting an input directed to at least one of the selected
visual marks;
in response to detecting the input:
displaying a moveable icon comprising a
representation of the selected visual marks while maintaining
display of the visual marks; and
moving the moveable icon over a first shelf region
of the plurality of shelf regions such that the moveable icon is
over the first shelf region immediately prior to ceasing to detect
the input;
ceasing to detect the input; and
upon ceasing to detect the input:
updating the content of the first shelf region to
include an association with the moveable icon corresponding to
the selected visual marks; and
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

3
updating the chart in accordance with the updated
content of the first shelf region and the respective characteristic
determined by the first shelf region, including applying the
respective characteristic determined by the first shelf region to
the selected visual marks distinct from visual marks that were
not selected.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name Reference Date
Purcell US 5,727,161 Mar. 10, 1998
Cifra US 2005/0039170 A1 Feb. 17, 2005
Beers US 2007/0250523 A1 Oct. 25, 2007
Peebler US 2011/0239165 A1 Sept. 29, 2011
Ruble US 2015/0029194 A1 Jan. 29, 2015
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, 23, and 24 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of Purcell,
Peebler, and Cifra. Final Act. 11–32.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Purcell, Peebler, Cifra, and Beers. Id. at 32–35.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Purcell, Peebler, Cifra, and Ruble. Id. at 35–36.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7–11, 13, 14, 16–19, 21, 23,
and 24 over Purcell, Peebler, and Cifra
The Examiner finds Purcell, Peebler, and Cifra teach all limitations of
claim 1. Final Act. 11–16; see also Ans. 30–31.
In particular, the Examiner finds Purcell teaches “displaying on the
display a chart that includes visual marks representing a set of data,
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

4
displayed in accordance with contents of a plurality of displayed shelf
regions, wherein each shelf region determines a respective characteristic of
the chart,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 11–12 (“Purcell, Fig. 47:
shows a graph with multiple plot lines, have a visual mark, and an excel
window having multiple shelf regions/data fields, that determine chart
characteristics based on presented data. Fig. 40 shows the support for
multiple visual marks.” (emphasis omitted)).
In particular, the Examiner finds Purcell teaches “updating the chart in
accordance with the updated content of the first shelf region and the
respective characteristic determined by the first shelf region, including
applying the respective characteristic determined by the first shelf region to
the selected visual marks distinct from visual marks that were not selected”
as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 13–14 (“[T]he graphic modeling
software develops and delivers graphic analyses centered on the plan point
of the new plan-model, as illustrated in FIG. 48.” (emphasis omitted)).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
Throughout the independent claims, there is an “input”
that is a driver of the activities in the interface, including
“displaying a moveable icon” when the input is detected and
“updating the chart in accordance with the updated content of the
first shelf region” when the input ceases. These features are not
taught by the cited portions of Purcell. Furthermore, the two
distinct cited portions of Purcell identify two completely separate
inputs, so they cannot be combined to allege all of the claimed
activities for a single input.
Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 8–9.
“Purcell does not teach that any updates to the graph itself in FIG. 47
occur upon ceasing to detect either the movement of the graph point or the
selection of the SpredPlan icon-button 4702.” Appeal Br. 14.
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

5
The prioritizer graph analysis shown in FIG. 48 of Purcell
is a different chart from the optimizer graph analysis of FIG. 47,
and Purcell does not teach or suggest that the graph shown in
FIG. 48 is an update of the graph shown in FIG. 47 presented
upon ceasing to detect either the movement of the graph point or
the selection of the SpredPlan icon-button 4702 to generate the
new plan-model as described with respect to FIG. 47.
Appeal Br. 14.
Appellant’s arguments persuade us the Examiner erred.
Purcell’s Figure 47 depicts movement of a graph point from an
original position to a new position 4701. The spreadsheet plan-model 4703
is updated based on the new position 4701. See Purcell, col. 39, ll. 41–57
(describing Figure 47); see also Purcell, col. 8, ll. 55–57 (“FIG. 47 illustrates
a computer display screen having a new spreadsheet plan-model created
from a selected graph point from an optimizer type graphic analysis.”).
According to the Examiner, the graph in Purcell’s Fig. 47 is a “chart”
(claim 1), position 4701 is a “visual mark” (claim 1), and spreadsheet plan-
model 4703 is a “shelf region” (claim 1). See Final Act. 11–12. Purcell’s
Figure 48 depicts a graphic analysis from the updated spreadsheet plan-
model 4703 after movement of the graph point to the new position 4701 in
Figure 47. See Purcell, col. 41, ll. 8–22 (describing Figure 48); see also
Purcell, col. 8, ll. 58–60 (“FIG. 48 illustrates a computer display screen
having prioritizer graphic analysis developed from a new spreadsheet plan-
model.”). We recognize Purcell’s Figure 48 graphic analysis is based on the
updated spreadsheet plan-model 4703 in Purcell’s Figure 47, which was
updated based on the new position 4701 (Purcell, Fig. 47). However, the
claim language requires that “the chart” (claim 1 (emphasis added)) is
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

6
updated. According to the Examiner’s mapping, the graph in Figure 47—not
the graph in Figure 48— is the “chart” recited in claim 1.
Further, the claim language requires that the updating includes
“applying the respective characteristic determined by the first shelf region to
the selected visual marks distinct from visual marks that were not selected”
(claim 1). According to the Examiner’s mapping, the position 4701 is the
“visual mark” recited in claim 1. In Purcell, Figure 47, the spreadsheet plan-
model 4703 is updated based on the new position 4701, and we do not see
the spreadsheet plan-model 4703 being applied to the new position 4701 in
the way recited in claim 1. Thus, even if the Examiner is correct in finding
Purcell teaches “displaying on the display a chart that includes visual marks
representing a set of data, displayed in accordance with contents of a
plurality of displayed shelf regions, wherein each shelf region determines a
respective characteristic of the chart” as recited in claim 1, the Examiner errs
in finding Purcell teaches “updating the chart in accordance with the updated
content of the first shelf region and the respective characteristic determined
by the first shelf region, including applying the respective characteristic
determined by the first shelf region to the selected visual marks distinct from
visual marks that were not selected” as recited in claim 1.
We determine the Examiner erred in finding Purcell teaches “updating
the chart in accordance with the updated content of the first shelf region and
the respective characteristic determined by the first shelf region, including
applying the respective characteristic determined by the first shelf region to
the selected visual marks distinct from visual marks that were not selected”
as recited in claim 1. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

7
rejection of claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 2, 4, 5, 7–9, 21, 23, and 24, which depend from claim 1.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recite similar limitations as claim 1.
We, therefore, also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and
19. We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11, 13, 14, and
16–18, which variously depend from claims 10 and 19.

The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 6 and 15 over Purcell, Peebler, Cifra,
and Beers
The Examiner does not find Beers cures the deficiency of Purcell. See
Final Act. 32–35. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 6 and 15.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 25 over Purcell, Peebler, Cifra, and
Ruble
The Examiner does not find Ruble cures the deficiency of Purcell. See
Final Act. 35–36. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 25.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–11, 13–19, 21, and
23–25 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
11, 13, 14,
16–19, 21,
23, 24
103 Purcell, Peebler,
Cifra
1, 2, 4, 5, 7–
11, 13, 14,
16–19, 21,
23, 24
Appeal 2019-003205
Application 14/628,187

8
6, 15 103 Purcell, Peebler,
Cifra, Beers
6, 15
25 103 Purcell, Peebler,
Cifra, Ruble
25
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–11,
13–19, 21,
23–25

REVERSED