Veeva Systems Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 31, 2022

2021000333 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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. 15/672,287 08/08/2017 Arno Sosna V0038 1012 125563 7590 01/31/2022 Veeva Systems Inc. 4280 Hacienda Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 EXAMINER AMIN, MUSTAFA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2144 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/31/2022 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): donald.wilson@veeva.com ip.mail@veeva.com lin.deng@veeva.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARNO SOSNA, CINDY CHIANG, EDWARD GEE, ADAM BRAGG, XUAN WANG, and MARK FLEISCHMANN Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 Technology Center 2100 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. CRAIG, 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 rejecting claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies VEEVA SYSTEMS INC. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER According to Appellant, the claims relate to “visualizing data from a data storage system.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1 is reproduced below and illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method for displaying data from a data storage system, the method comprising: enabling generation of a data visualization interface for rendering a first custom report according to user configuration previously received on a template of the data visualization interface, wherein the user configuration comprises a first type of data to be displayed at a first location on the first custom report and a second type of data to be displayed at a second location on the first custom report; wherein the first type of data and the second type of data are obtained from the data storage system; wherein the data visualization interface comprises instructions in a markup language for specifying the first type of data, the first location, the second type of data, and the second location, and instructions in a second programing language for obtaining the first type of data and the second type of data from the data storage system; and wherein the data visualization interface does not display the first type of data, or the second type of data; receiving the instructions in the second programing language from the data visualization interface at an application programming interface (“API”); sending an API call, in response to the instructions in the second programing language from the data visualization interface, to the data storage system to obtain the first type of data and the second type of data; receiving the first type of data and the second type of data at the data visualization interface; rendering the first custom report, wherein the first custom report is based on the first type of data, the first location, the second type of data and the second location in the user configuration; and Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 3 displaying the first custom report on a user interface separate from the data visualization interface. Response to Notification of Non-Compliant Appeal Br. 3-4 (Claims App.). REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Feinberg US 2006/0155720 A1 July 13, 2006 Bayyapu et al. (“Bayyapu”) US 2008/0040371 A1 Feb. 14, 2008 Isaacson et al. (“Isaacson”) US 2016/0379213 A1 Dec. 29, 2016 REJECTIONS2 Claims 1-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bayyapu and Isaacson. Final Act. 3-13. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bayyapu, Isaacson, and Feinberg. Final Act. 14-16. ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as obvious over Bayyapu and Isaacson is in error because Bayyapu fails to teach or 2 Upon further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, whether the claims are patent-ineligible as being directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application, where the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See MPEP § 2106 (incorporating 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Recitation, as in this case, of the collection, organization, and display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract absent a ‘specific improvement to the way computers [or other technologies] operate.’”). Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 4 suggest “enabling generation of a data visualization interface for rendering a first custom report according to user configuration previously received on a template of the data visualization interface.” Appeal Br. 11-12. In particular, Appellant argues: 1) the Examiner does not specify “which server side modules and interfaces in [Bayyapu] he is relying on” with respect to the claimed “data visualization interface”; 2) “[t]he Examiner never explained how the server side modules, interfaces, view controller and display files could be generated during the process for displaying data from a data storage system”; 3) “[i]t is apparent to a skilled artisan that the display files 140 could not be a template of the server side modules, interfaces, view controller and display files” and 4) Bayyapu “fails to teach or suggest the claim features ‘rendering a first custom report according to user configuration previously received on a template of the data visualization interface.” Id. at 12. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. We address Appellant’s contentions in the order presented. First, the Examiner identifies Bayyapu’s view controller, in conjunction with other components, e.g., “server side modules, interfaces,” as meeting the limitation of a “data visualization interface,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3-4. Appellant acknowledges finding the view controller in Bayyapu, but argues that the Examiner “never made it clear which server side modules and interfaces” the Examiner relies upon. Appeal Br. 12. This argument is unavailing, however, because we find the Examiner’s identification of Bayyapu’s view controller sufficient for teaching the claimed “data visualization interface.” Bayyapu describes a “data management system 100 for interfacing foreign data with a Flash player 128.” Bayyapu ¶ 10. In operation, view Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 5 controller 148 receives client requests “for display pages 130 associated with a dynamic web page.” Id. ¶ 25. “[V]iew controller 148 automatically identifies display files 140 associated with the request[ed] display pages 130.” Id. ¶ 28. Display files 140 may include charts that require foreign data from foreign data sources 116, in which case view controller 148 makes a request for this information. Id. After any necessary translations and calculations on the foreign data, display files 140 are compiled into display pages 130, and view controller 148 transmits the requested pages to display engine 134 for display on GUI 120. Id. Here, we find Bayyapu’s view controller 148 teaches the claimed “data visualization interface” because view controller 148 acts as an interface for accessing foreign data used for a visual display on GUI 120. Appellant provides no specific argument as to why view controller 148 is not a “data visualization interface.” See Appeal Br. 12; Reply Br. 4. Second, we agree with the Examiner that Bayyapu teaches “enabling generation” of view controller 148, based on its very existence. See Ans. 7- 8. In other words, it is implicit in Bayyapu that one must generate a view controller because Bayyapu describes the functionality of this component that is necessary for the data management system. See, e.g., Bayyapu ¶¶ 25, 28. Third, Appellant’s argument that “[i]t is apparent to a skilled artisan that the display files 140 could not be a template of the . . . view controller” (Appeal Br. 12) is not persuasive because Appellant does not explain why Bayyapu’s display files 140 cannot be templates. See, e.g., Ex parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 at *4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative) (“Appellants’ argument . . . restates elements of the claim language and simply argues that Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 6 the elements are missing from the reference. However, Appellants do not present any arguments to explain why the Examiner’s explicit fact finding is in error.”). Fourth, Appellant’s argument that Bayyapu “fails to teach or suggest the claim features ‘rendering a first custom report according to user configuration previously received on a template of the data visualization interface’” (Appeal Br. 12) is also unpersuasive because here too Appellant does not explain why Bayyapu fails to teach the disputed limitation. Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s combination of Isaacson with Bayyapu is improper because “[t]he two references have different goals and solve different problems, and there is no suggestion or motivation to pick the API in [Isaacson] and add it to [Bayyapu].” Id. at 13. Moreover, Appellant argues, the Examiner failed to explain where to add Isaacson’s API in Bayyapu’s system and what its input and output are. Id. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s combination arguments. Appellant’s application asserts that it relates to “visualizing data from a data storage system” (Spec. ¶ 1), and so we take this as descriptive of Appellant’s field of endeavor. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“[The field of endeavor] test for analogous art requires the PTO to determine the appropriate field of endeavor by reference to explanations of the invention’s subject matter in the patent application . . . .”). We find that both Bayyapu and Isaacson are within Appellant’s field of endeavor because, in the Examiner’s words, they both relate to “requesting, retrieving, and display of data in a markup language format (e.g. html, xml) from various data sources or databases.” Ans. 12. In other words, both references describe visualizing stored data, for example, by using a markup language. Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 7 Specifically, as discussed above, Bayyapu describes using foreign data from foreign data sources in a chart in a display file that is rendered as a display page. See, e.g., Bayyapu ¶ 28. Isaacson describes submitting data to an API via a browser displaying a first website, such that the API “provides resulting data or performs a resulting action.” Isaacson ¶ 166. For example, the API may interact with a second website and “pass that information back to the browser at the first website.” Id. Accordingly, both Bayyapu and Isaacson are analogous art to the claimed invention. See In re Klein, 647 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“A reference qualifies as prior art for an obviousness determination under § 103 only when it is analogous to the claimed invention.”). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that there is no motivation to add an API to Bayyapu. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner states that an API “encapsulat[es] the complexity of data access in the API without having [the] requesting entity (e.g. browser/server) to handle it.” Ans. 14. Appellant fails to specifically explain why this motivation is improper. See Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner does not explain where Isaacson’s API should be added to Bayyapu’s system. See Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 5. We note that “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In any case, in the Answer, the Examiner proposes “using APIs (i.e. as middle layer) between requester (e.g. server/view controller) and supplier of data (e.g. database).” Ans. 14. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented an API between Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 8 Bayyapu’s view controller 148 and the foreign data sources 116. Appellant does not specifically explain why this API placement is nonobvious, would have been beyond the level of skill in the art, or would have failed to have a reasonable expectation of success. See Reply Br. 5. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Bayyapu discloses the disputed limitations of claim 1, or in combining Isaacson with Bayyapu. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2-15 not specifically argued separately. Appellant does not provide specific separate arguments regarding the rejection of claims 16-18 as obvious over Bayyapu, Isaacson, and Feinberg. For the same reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 16-18. CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-15 103 Bayyapu, Isaacson 1-15 16-18 103 Bayyapu, Isaacson, Feinberg 16-18 Overall Outcome 1-18 Appeal 2021-000333 Application 15/672,287 9 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) (2019). AFFIRMED