Ex Parte Cichosz et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 8, 2019

14514795 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 14/514,795 10/15/2014 Pawel Cichosz 46161 7590 04/10/2019 Cantor Colburn LLP - IBM SVL 20 Church Street, 22nd Floor Hartford, CT 06103-3207 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. DE920130085US 1 9622 EXAMINER TRAN,LOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2165 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/10/2019 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): USPTOPatentMail@cantorcolburn.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PA WEL CICHOSZ, CEZARY DENDEK, MICHAL DRAMINSKI, MIEZYSLA W KLOPOTEK, and KRZYSZTOF SKOWRONSKI 1 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 Technology Center 2100 Before: JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from a final rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Counsel for Appellant identifies the real party in interest as International Business Machines Corporation ("Appellant"). App. Br. 3. Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellant's disclosure relates to distributed processing of data records in a database computer system. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer implemented method for distributed processing of data on a distributed database computer system, the method comprising: distributing rows of an arbitrary matrix to all of a plurality of processing units, wherein a number of the rows is equal to a number of the processing units, wherein a matrix set is used to calculate a value set corresponding to each data record by using said data record as input, the matrix set comprising at least one processing parameter matrix, the value set comprising at least one calculation value, the distributed database computer system comprising the plurality of processing units connected in a share-nothing parallel processing architecture, wherein each processing unit comprises a processor of the each processing unit, a processor memory of the each processing unit, and a storage memory of the each processing unit, wherein the arbitrary matrix is stored in the distributed data base in a way that one row of the arbitrary matrix is stored in each storage memory, wherein the data records and the matrix set are stored in a distributed database using the storage memories, each processor is being operable for executing user defined functions (UDFs), calculating the value set corresponding to only one data record at a time, executing transaction processing, storing data in the processor memory, and using the data stored in the processor memory for execution of the UDFs within a framework of one transaction; and performing transaction processing in a framework of one transaction by: 2 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 executing a first UDP on each processing unit, wherein a Cartesian product of the each processing parameter matrix and the row of the arbitrary matrix is calculated on each processing unit and as a result thereof the matrix set is stored in the processor memory of each processing unit; and executing a second UDP on each processing unit having at least one data record after the executing of the first UDP, wherein a number of repetitive executions of the second UDP on each processing unit is equal to the number of the data records stored in the storage memory of the each processing unit and all data records stored in the storage memory of the each processing unit are processed one by one, wherein the value set corresponding to the data record is calculated using the matrix set stored in the processor memory of said respective processing unit. App. Br. 19--20 (Claims Appendix). REJECTION Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2. PRINCIPLES OF LAW To be statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or [a] new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. There are implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified inÂ§ 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and (3) abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014). The Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with claims directed to these implicit exceptions "from those that claim patent- eligible applications of those concepts." Id. at 217 (citing Mayo 3 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The evaluation follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if so, then determine whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept itself. See id. at 217-18. Although the second step in the Alice/Mayo framework is termed a search for an "inventive concept," the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather a search for "an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."' Id. ( citation omitted). A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013) ("Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the Â§ 101 inquiry"). If a claim proves to be unpatentable as a result of the two-part analysis, no additional determination regarding preemption is necessary. "While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility," as "questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the Â§ 101 analysis." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). After briefing on this appeal was completed, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published revised guidance on the application of the two-part Alice test. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 4 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 ("Memorandum"). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: ( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (see id. at 54 (Step 2A-Prong One)); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see id. at 54--55 (Step 2A - Prong Two); MPEP Â§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (Step 2B). ANALYSIS For the most part, Appellant argues claims 1-18 as a group and treats claim 1 as representative, reprinting various limitations of that claim. App. Br. 9-17. In discussing Alice step two, however, Appellant, in a few paragraphs, separately addresses claims 1-6, which are method claims, and, in an additional paragraph, separately addresses claims 7-18, which are not method claims. Id. at 14--16. For this opinion, we, like Appellant, treat 5 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 claim 1 as representative with the exception that we discuss Appellant's arguments that separately address claims 1-6 and claims 7-18. 2 Alice Step One Memorandum step 2A-prong one The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to a mathematical algorithm for data calculation, utilizing a matrix as a means to store data and a user-defined function to implement a data calculation routine, in which the matrix and user-defined function are well-understood, routine and conventional. Final Act. 4. The Examiner further determines that, as a result, claim 1 is directed to mathematical relationships, formulas, and calculations, which are abstract ideas under Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972), and In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (CCPA 1982). Id. In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that claim 1 recites using a dummy set of data to activate a first user-defined function to store prediction model information or parameters. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues that, in claim 1, the recited arbitrary matrix is a dummy data set and the recited matrix set that is stored in the processor memory of each processing unit constitutes prediction model information or parameters. Id. Appellant also argues that claim 1 recites utilizing a second user- defined function to processing input data by applying the prediction model information that is stored in memory areas. Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant asserts that claim 1 describes executing a second user-defined function to process the recited matrix set stored in the processor memory, which 2 Under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(iv), we could hold that claims 1-18 were exclusively argued as a group because the Appeal Brief does not provide any separate headings for any subgroup of claims, but we chose not to do that. App. Br. 9-17. 6 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 Appellant argues is prediction model information. Id. at 4. As a result, Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Id. We agree with the Examiner regarding Alice step one ( and Memorandum step 2A prong one) that the claims recite an abstract idea. Specifically, claim 1 recites mathematical concepts, as evidenced by the following recitations: distributing rows of an arbitrary matrix ... , wherein a number of the rows is equal to a number of the processing units, wherein a matrix set is used to calculate a value set corresponding to each data record by using said data record as input, the matrix set comprising at least one processing parameter matrix, the value set comprising at least one calculation value . . . wherein the arbitrary matrix is stored in the distributed data base in a way that one row of the arbitrary matrix is stored in each storage memory, wherein the data records and the matrix set are stored in a distributed database using the storage memories, ... executing user defined functions (UDPs ), calculating the value set corresponding to only one data record at a time, executing transaction processing, ... for execution of the UDPs within a framework of one transaction; and executing a first UDP ... wherein a Cartesian product of the each processing parameter matrix and the row of the arbitrary matrix is calculated ... ; and executing a second UDP on each processing unit having at least one data record after the executing of the first UDP, wherein a number of repetitive executions of the second UDP on each processing unit is equal to the number of the data records stored in the storage memory of the each processing unit and all data records stored in the storage memory of the each processing unit are processed one by one, wherein the value set corresponding to the data record is calculated using the matrix set stored in the processor memory of said respective processing unit. 7 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 These limitations are "mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations," and thus are part of the judicial exception of mathematical concepts. Memorandum at 52. We do not agree with Appellant that, instead of a mathematical concept, the claims are directed to a technical solution to a particular problem that is unique to share-nothing parallel processing architectures. App. Br. 10-12. That argument is premised on construing the recited data stored (i.e., rows of an arbitrary matrix) in the processor memories of claim 1 as limited to prediction model information or parameters. We, however, see no basis for such a construction, and Appellant has provided no evidence or persuasive arguments to support that construction. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims recite an abstract idea. Memorandum Step 2A - Prong Two The Examiner determines that claim 1 does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Final Act. 4. The Examiner acknowledges that the claim recites "A computer implement method for distributed processing of data on a distributed database computer system." Id. at 4--5. But the Examiner determines that recitation merely specifies generic computer components performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Id. at 5. In addition, the Examiner determines that considering the limitations of claim 1 as an ordered combination adds nothing more than what is present when considering those limitations individually. Id. The Examiner further finds there is no indication that the combination of limitations improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology. Id. Instead, the Examiner determines that the collective functions of the 8 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 limitations merely provide for a conventional computer implementation. Id. The Examiner provides analogous determinations for claims 2-18. Id. at 5- 1 1. Appellant argues that claims 1-18 are not directed to a mathematical algorithm for data calculation, but rather are directed to an improved share- nothing parallel processing architectures that provides a technical solution that is unique to share-nothing parallel processing architectures. App. Br. 10. Appellant argues that utilizing user-defined functions with prediction models often require a high amount of bandwidth. Id. According to Appellant, alternatives to user-defined functions increase program complexity and slow processing speed by a factor of five. Id. Appellant asserts claim 1 solves the problem of high bandwidth with user-defined functions, allowing user-defined functions to be utilized. Id. According to Appellant, claim 1 does this by utilizing a dummy set of data to activate a first user defined function to store prediction model information or parameters in memory areas at parallel processing units and then utilizing a second user-defined function to process input data by applying the prediction model information that is stored in the memory areas. Id. at 10- 11. Further, according to Appellant, claim 1 describes a new data structure and a particular use of that data structure in a new and useful method and are similar to the claims found eligible in Enfzsh. Id. at 11-12. The Examiner responds that the claims do not recite the solution to the problem cited by Appellant, determining that the claims do not recite activating a user-defined function using a dummy data set and do not recite storing prediction model information and parameters. Ans. 3--4. Further, the Examiner indicates that the claims do not recite utilizing a second user- defined function to process input data by applying the prediction model 9 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 information that is stored in the memory areas. Id. at 4. As a result, the Examiner determines that the first and second user-defined functions in claim 1 do not address any particular problem that is unique to share-nothing parallel processing architectures. Id. at 4--5. The Examiner also indicates that the Specification does not describe that alternatives to user-defined functions increase programming complexity or decrease processing speed. Id. at 5. The Examiner further indicates that a matrix is not a new data structure and that the claims provision of a particular way to process and store data is not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Id. at 6. In the Reply, Appellant argues that its claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem that is unique to share-nothing parallel architectures. Reply Br. 3--4. Consistent with the Examiner's determination regarding Alice step one, for Memorandum Step 2A, we determine that no recitations in claim 1 integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The elements of claim 1 that do not recite the abstract idea use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea ( e.g., reciting processing units, processor memory) or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (e.g., share-nothing parallel processing environment) and, therefore, do not integrate the judicial exception into an abstract idea. Memorandum at 55; Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056-57 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Spec. ,r,r 29--40 and 72-78. Alice Step Two/Memorandum Step 2B Appellant argues that method claims 1---6 "provide substantially more than the alleged abstract idea at least because the combination of steps recited in the claims are not steps that were being performed in conventional 10 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 industry practice." App. Br. 14. Further, Appellant asserts that claims 7-18 provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Id. at 15. Appellant argues that, instead of merely reciting an abstract idea performed with conventional steps or a conventional arrangement of pieces, claims 1-16 are directed to an improved share- nothing parallel processing architecture that provides a technical solution for a technical problem that is unique to the technical field of share-nothing parallel processing. Id. at 15-17. Specifically, Appellant asserts that the technical solution is "utilizing a dummy set data set as a vehicle to activate a first UDP or a set of first UDFs to store prediction model information/ parameters in respective memory areas ( e.g. temporary memory areas) at parallel processing units, and then utilizing a second UDP to process input data ( e.g., values of predictor variable) by applying the prediction model information that is stored in the memory areas ( e.g., temporary memory areas) on the input data." Id. at 16. The arbitrary matrix is part of the abstract idea discussed above, and thus does not comprise additional elements or combination of elements that can "provide an inventive concept." Memorandum at 56. In any event, using dummy data (e.g., an arbitrary matrix) is a well-understood, routine, and conventional practice with roots apparently going back to the 1500 's when "Lorem Ipsum was used as a dummy text in order to visualize the graphical layout through a meaningless text." Pavel Boytchev, Lorem Ipsum Logos, Proc. of the Balkan Conf. in Informatics, 107-18, available at https://teleam.archives- ouvertes.fr/hal-00190060/document (2007), last accessed March 28, 2019. 3 Moreover, we are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that the use of 3 Appellant's application was filed in the United States on October 15, 2014 and claims the benefit of a UK application filed on October 29, 2013. 11 Appeal2018-004858 Application 14/514, 795 dummy data in the manner recited improves the share-nothing parallel processing architecture on which the dummy data is processed. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments regarding step two of the Alice test (Memorandum step 2B), and we sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. CONCLUSION We affirm the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 12