PTAB

IPR2019-01458

World Programming Ltd v. SAS Institute Inc

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Generating a Graph Using Graph Style Data
  • Brief Description: The ’519 patent discloses a computer-implemented method and system for generating graphs (e.g., pie charts, bar charts). The system uses graph style data, which includes metadata with descriptors that assign "statistical roles" (such as "category" or "response") to data variables, to control how the data is graphically displayed.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Davis and Harold - Claims 5-6 and 37-38 are obvious over Davis in view of Harold.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Davis (Patent 6,920,608) and Harold (XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Davis discloses a method for generating graphical displays from data contained in a markup language document (RDML). Davis uses style sheets (RDSL) to format the output. The Petitioner asserted that Davis’s RDML file structure, with tags like <data_x> and <data_y> and a line_item_set_type="Category" descriptor, teaches the core limitations of the claims, including using metadata to specify statistical roles for data variables. For example, setting the type to "Category" assigns the category role to the x-variable and the response role to the y-variable, which dictates how they are displayed in a chart.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner contended that a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSA) would combine Davis and Harold because Davis explicitly incorporates Harold by reference to describe its RDSL style sheets as a "fully compliant implementation of Extensible Style Language ('XSL')." A POSA seeking to understand or extend the capabilities of Davis's style sheets would have been directly motivated to consult Harold for details on XSL formatting properties (e.g., font, color, borders), which are a type of graph style data.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a high expectation of success because using style sheets like those described in Harold to define formatting for markup language documents like those in Davis was a standard and well-understood practice.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Davis, Harold, and Excel2000 - Claims 7-11 are obvious over Davis and Harold in view of Excel2000.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Davis (Patent 6,920,608), Harold (XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold), and Excel2000 (Microsoft Excel 2000 Bible by John Walkenbach).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground builds on the teachings of Davis/Harold and adds Excel2000 to disclose generating different non-textual formats (e.g., bar charts and pie charts) using the same statistical roles. While Davis taught generating various chart types, Excel2000 explicitly taught that different chart types are appropriate for different data representations and showed how to display the same underlying data as a column chart, an area chart, or a pie chart. The combination, Petitioner argued, renders obvious the claims requiring the use of category and response roles to generate different output formats, such as a bar chart and a pie chart.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSA would combine the Davis/Harold system with the teachings of Excel2000 to enhance its functionality. Excel2000's teachings on selecting the most effective chart type for data visualization represented a known and desirable feature for any graphing software. A POSA would therefore be motivated to implement the ability to switch between chart types (e.g., from a bar chart to a pie chart) in the Davis system to improve its utility, applying the same underlying statistical role associations to generate the different formats.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying well-known charting principles from a ubiquitous program like Excel to another graphing system, which would have been a straightforward modification for a POSA.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Davis, Harold, Rousseeuw, and Krause - Claims 22-26 are obvious over Davis and Harold in view of Rousseeuw and Krause.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Davis (Patent 6,920,608), Harold (XML Bible by Elliotte Rusty Harold), Rousseeuw (Robust Regression and Outlier Detection), and Krause (The Basics of S and S-Plus).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: This ground addresses claims related to formatting a display based on a "response's departure from a preselected statistical measure." Petitioner asserted that Rousseeuw teaches common statistical methods for identifying outlier data points that deviate from a confidence interval (a preselected statistical measure) and formatting them differently in a plot. Krause teaches a method for creating different data subsets to apply different formatting (e.g., symbols or colors) to each subset.
    • Motivation to Combine: Petitioner argued a POSA would be motivated to integrate the robust outlier detection algorithms from Rousseeuw into the Davis/Harold graphing system to add valuable statistical analysis capabilities. Rousseeuw provided an express motivation by stating a hope that such methods would be "incorporated into major statistical packages." A POSA would then use the subsetting technique from Krause as a known method to implement the differential formatting of the identified outliers in the Davis system.
    • Expectation of Success: A POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rousseeuw stated its algorithms had already been implemented in software (PROGRESS). Integrating these known statistical algorithms into a graphing package was a predictable and logical improvement.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "graph generator module" (Claim 34): Petitioner argued this term, as a "nonce" word for "means," should be construed under 35 U.S.C. §112, para. 6 as a means-plus-function term. The functions are receiving data, having access to a graph style data structure, and generating graphical output. Petitioner contended the corresponding structure in the ’519 patent is a general-purpose computer programmed with the algorithm described in the specification (e.g., Fig. 7 flowchart) for performing these functions. This construction was central to mapping the prior art's software components, like Davis's "RDML data viewer" and "chart view," to the claimed apparatus.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review (IPR) and cancellation of claims 5-11, 22-26, and 37-38 of the ’519 patent as unpatentable.