PTAB

IPR2019-01458

World Programming Limited v. SAS Institute Inc.

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: System and Method for Generating Graphs Using Style Metadata
  • Brief Description: The ’519 patent relates to a system and method for generating graphs, such as bar or pie charts, by using "graph style data." This data includes metadata with descriptors that define "statistical roles" (e.g., a "category" role and a "response" role) for data variables, which decouples the graphical styles from the generating application and allows for their reuse.

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 taught a system for generating various chart types from Reusable Data Markup Language (RDML) documents, which use RDSL style sheets. For the claimed "first association," Davis's <data_x> and <data_y> tags associate data with variables. For the "second association," Davis's line_item_set_type descriptor assigns statistical roles (e.g., "Category," "X-Y Plot") to those variables. The combination of these associations is used to generate non-textual displays. Petitioner asserted that apparatus claims 37-38 are obvious for the same reasons as their corresponding method claims 6-7.
    • Motivation to Combine: Davis expressly incorporates the Harold reference by name to describe Extensible Style Language (XSL), which is the basis for Davis's RDSL style sheets. Therefore, a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA) would be motivated to look to Harold to understand how to implement and store formatting and graph style data in the RDSL files used by the Davis system.
    • Expectation of Success: Given Davis's express incorporation of Harold, a POSA would have had a high expectation of success in using Harold's teachings on XSL to implement the style sheets in Davis's system.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Davis, Harold, and Excel - 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), and Excel2000 (Microsoft Excel 2000 Bible by John Walkenbach).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner contended that claim 7’s Markush group of different output formats (pie charts, bar charts, etc.) is rendered obvious by the combination. Davis disclosed the capability to generate these chart types and switch between them. Excel2000, a well-known spreadsheet program, provided detailed examples of when and why to use different chart types for the same data (e.g., using a bar chart for discrete units and a pie chart for proportions). For dependent claims 8-11, Petitioner argued it would have been obvious to apply the category and response roles taught in Davis to define the elements of the various chart types (e.g., axes, number of pie slices, size of slices) taught by the combination with Excel2000.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSA implementing the chart-type switching functionality described in Davis would have been motivated to consult a prevalent and detailed reference like Excel2000. Excel2000 provided established solutions and rationales for choosing between different graphical formats to present data more effectively, which would directly inform the implementation in Davis's system.

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), Rousseeuw (Robust Regression and Outlier Detection by Peter Rousseeuw et al.), and Krause (The Basics of S and S-Plus by Andreas Krause).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued this combination taught the limitations of claims 22-26, which relate to formatting a graph based on a data point’s departure from a "preselected statistical measure." Rousseeuw taught identifying statistical outliers by determining if they fall outside a confidence interval (the statistical measure) and formatting them differently (e.g., with a numerical label). Krause taught the general technique of creating data subsets to apply different formatting (e.g., symbols, colors) to each. Applying these statistical and formatting techniques within Davis's charting system would result in a graph that meets the claim limitations.
    • Motivation to Combine: Rousseeuw provided an express motivation, stating a hope that its robust regression and outlier detection methods would be incorporated into major statistical packages, such as the spreadsheet component of the Davis viewer. A POSA would combine Rousseeuw’s algorithms with Krause’s subsetting technique to add sophisticated outlier visualization to the base charting capabilities of the Davis system.
    • Expectation of Success: Petitioner argued a POSA would have a reasonable expectation of success because Rousseeuw’s algorithms had already been successfully implemented in other software packages, demonstrating their viability.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "graph generator module" (claim 34): Petitioner argued this term, as a generic nonce word, should be construed as a means-plus-function term under 35 U.S.C. §112, para. 6.
    • Recited Functions: (1) receiving data to be displayed in a non-textual format, and (2) generating at least one graphical output based upon the received data.
    • Proposed Corresponding Structure: Petitioner asserted the corresponding structure is the algorithm disclosed in the ’519 patent’s specification, particularly the flowchart in Figure 7. This algorithm involves a program that (a) receives a data structure containing both styles data and data to be charted, (b) determines display characteristics from the styles data, and (c) generates an output using the data and the determined characteristics. This construction was central to mapping claim 34 to the RDML data viewer in Davis.

5. Relief Requested

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