Ex Parte Currie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2019

12817281 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/817,281 06/17/2010
22827 7590 02/27/2019
DORITY & MANNING, P.A.
POST OFFICE BOX 1449
GREENVILLE, SC 29602-1449
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Scott Currie
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.
VARI-1 5206
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TAND
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2019 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):
USDOCKETING@DORITY-MANNING.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT CURRIE and KANG SU GATLIN
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOHN R. KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-24. Claims 2, 5, 15, and 21
are canceled. Br. 28, 29, 31, 32 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Varigence, Inc., as the real party in interest. Br. 4.
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
Summary of disclosure
Appellants disclose querying business intelligence data and generating
"a workflow slice that represents the portion of the business intelligence
workflow that contributes to the specific piece of business intelligence data."
Abstract.
Exemplary Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A method of analyzing a data asset, comprising:
receiving, at one or more processing devices, electronic signals
associated with a data asset, the data asset comprising one or
more of a relational database, data warehouse, data mart,
multidimensional database, an extract/transform/load (ETL)
package, or an analytical report definition;
analyzing, with the one or more processing devices, the
electronic signals associated with the data asset;
determining, with the one or more processing devices, a data
workflow providing data flow information for the data asset,
wherein the data workflow comprises a set of computer-
implemented transformations for a plurality of data items
associated with the data asset;
generating, with the one or more processing devices, a data
workflow representation based at least in part on the data
workflow;
receiving a query related to a selected data item of the plurality
of data items associated with the electronic data asset;
generating, with the one or more processing devices, a
worliflow slice based on the query to determine a plurality of
nodes that include a use or definition relationship associated
with the plurality of data items, wherein the workflow slice
comprises a subset of the set of transformations, the subset
corresponding to the selected data item and providing a
representation of the portion of the set of computer-
implemented transformations that contributes to the generation
of the selected data item in the data workflow, wherein
2
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
generation of the workflow slice does not affect the set of
computer-implemented transformations; and
providing, by the one or more processing devices, the workflow
slice for display on a display device to a user.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 7.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-24 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 11-23.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 14, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Stein et al. (US 2004/0189718 Al;
published Sept. 30, 2004) ("Stein") and Moon et al. (US 2004/0078105 Al;
published Apr. 22, 2004). Final Act. 24--37.
The Examiner rejects claims 9-12, 16-18, 22, and 23 2 as being
unpatentable over 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Stein,
Moon, and Bradlee et al. (US 2006/0167924 Al; published July 27, 2006)
("Bradlee"). Final Act. 37-38.
The Examiner rejects claims 13, 19, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Stein, Moon, Bradlee, and Mush et al. (US
2008/0126389 Al; published May 29, 2008) ("Mush"). Final Act. 38-39.
35 U.S.C. § 112, SECOND PARAGRAPH
The Examiner finds that the claim 1 recitation directed to generating a
worliflow slice based on a query to determine a plurality of nodes that
2 The Examiner erroneously lists claims 13, 19, and 24 as part of this
rejection. Final Act. 37-38.
3
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
include a use or definition relationship associated with a plurality of data
items is vague because "it's not clear how 'a generated ... workflow slice'
is connected to 'to determine a plurality of nodes that include a use or
definition relationship associated with the plurality of data items' and what
are the result of this 'connection."' Ans. 6; see also Final Act. 7. Therefore,
the Examiner concludes claim 1 is indefinite.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "the [S]pecification
and claim[ 1] clearly describe[s] how determining 'a plurality of nodes that
include a use or definition relationship associated with the plurality of data
items' ... is explicitly described in the original application as a more
particular feature related to 'generating ... a workflow slice."' Br. 11 (last
omission in original). In support of their argument, Appellants point to
multiple paragraphs related to generating a workflow slice, using a graph
constructor and static code analysis to generate a business intelligence
workflow representation, using flow graphs with use or definition
information calculated. See id. at 11-12 (citing Spec. ,r,r 11, 40, 43, 49).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred. As the
Specification discloses, a "workflow slice provides a representation of the
portion of the business intelligence workflow that contributes to the
generation of the specific piece of business intelligence data." Spec. ,r 42.
A workflow slice "can be generated by performing static code analysis on
the business intelligence workflow to determine a plurality of nodes that
include a use or definition relationship associated with the business
intelligence data." Id. ,r 43. These disclosures help illustrate that generating
a worliflow slice, as recited in claim 1, entails identifying (i.e., determining)
which nodes contribute to the generation of a specific piece of business
4
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
intelligence data (i.e., include a use or definition relationship associated with
a plurality of data items). Thus, contrary to the Examiner's findings and
conclusions (Final Act. 7; Ans. 6), the "connection" between generating a
worliflow slice and to determine a plurality of nodes that include a use or
definition relationship associated with the plurality of data items is clear.
Therefore, the Examiner does not show that the recitations of claim 1 are
ambiguous and that claim 1 is indefinite.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6-14, 16-20, and
22-24, which are similarly rejected. Final Act. 7; Ans. 6.
35 U.S.C. § 101
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. § 101. There are
implicit exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified
in§ 101, including: (1) laws of nature; (2) natural phenomena; and (3)
abstract ideas. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (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. ( citing Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). The Alice 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
5
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the patent-
ineligible concept itself. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18.
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 § 101
analysis." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently published
revised guidance on the application of the Alice two-part analysis. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) ("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 interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes) (see Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Step 2A-
Prong One)); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55 (Step
2A-Prong Two); MPEP § 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:
6
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 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).
Memorandum Step 2A - Prong One
Claim 1 is directed to a "method of analyzing a data asset" that
includes steps directed to generating a representation of a data workflow that
"comprises a set of computer-implemented transformations for a plurality of
data items associated with [a] data asset" and to receiving and using a query
to generate for display "a workflow slice ... to determine a plurality of
nodes that include a use or definition relationship associated with the
plurality of data items." We agree with the Examiner that claim 1, reciting
certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of analyzing a data
asset (i.e., a fundamental economic practice), is abstract. Final Act. 14; see
also Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-54. Additionally, based on the
record before us, the claim also recites mental processes (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
Memorandum Step 2A - Prong Two
Appellants argue claim 1 "is not directed to an abstract idea" because
claim 1 "is directed to an improvement in computer-related technology." Br.
13. In particular, Appellants argue "the method of independent claim 1
enables a computer system to provide the capability to easily visualize and
7
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
manipulate complex business intelligence workflow without affecting other
parts of the workflow, thereby solving a technological challenge that had
caused problems for existing business intelligence systems." Id. at 15.
Appellants further argue that, like "the claimed methods of automatic lip
synchronization and facial expression animation using computer-
implemented rules" in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), "claim 1 incorporates particular rules and recites
a specific way to solve the problem of computerized visualization and
manipulation of complex business intelligence workflow without affecting
other parts of the workflow, rather than merely claiming the idea of a
solution or outcome." Br. 14, 15.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because claim 1 does not
include recitations directed to the manipulation of a workflow. See Ans. 2-
3. Rather, the recitations of claim 1 are directed merely to generating a
"workflow slice for display." Therefore, Appellants' arguments are not
commensurate with the recitations of claim 1.
Moreover, Appellants do not identify any recited rules that reflect a
specific implementation of the claimed process that differs from what a
human workflow analyst would likely have used in searching workflow data
to generate a workflow slice. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (citing Ass 'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 595-96
(2013)); see also Robert W. Bahr, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decisions, USPTO 1, 2 (2016), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/McRo-Bascom-Memo.pdf ("[H]uman artists did not
use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations.").
That is, the claimed process is dissimilar from the patent-eligible process of
8
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
McRO, where specific rules supplant subjective determinations such that
"incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, ...
'improved [the] existing technological process' by allowing the automation
of further tasks." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314 (bracketed omission in original).
In light of the Examiner's determinations and Appellants'
unpersuasive arguments, we are unable to find any additional recitations in
claim 1 that, either individually or in combination, integrate the underlying
abstract idea into a practical application. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--
5 5. Thus, "the claim is directed to the recited judicial exception" pursuant to
Step 2A of the guidelines. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Memorandum Step 2B
The Examiner determines that the additional limitations of claim 1 do
not make claim 1 significantly more than the underlying abstract idea
because, even when considered as an ordered combination, they are directed
to: ( 1) insignificant pre-solution activities such as data gathering; (2)
insignificant post-solution activities such as displaying results; (3) generic
computer technologies that merely perform generic computer functions; and
( 4) well-known, conventional processes for analyzing data assets. See Final
Act. 19--22.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because "claim 1 recites a
non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements, as identified as
an inventive concept in [Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]." Br. 17. Specifically,
Appellants argue that the recitations of claim 1
makes reference to several different and distinct computing
operations which receive and generate different and specific
types of data. The method of claim 1 provides particular rules
9
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
for receiving electronic signals associated with a data asset and
a workflow query as well as generating data workflow
representations and workflow slices that accommodate a
meaningful arrangement for visualizing and manipulating
business complex business intelligence workflow without
affecting other parts of the workflow. The particular
arrangement of computing operations and components
referenced by [ claim 1] is both non-conventional and non-
genenc.
Id. at 18.
Appellants' reliance in Bascom is unpersuasive, however, because the
claimed method is not a "particular arrangement of elements [that provides]
a technical improvement over prior art" methods. Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350
( emphasis added). As discussed above, the claimed method generates a
workflow slice for display using methods that a human workflow analyst
would have used in searching workflow data to generate a workflow slice.
Furthermore, contrary to Appellants' arguments, the recited
computing operations and types of data represent the recitation of generic
computer elements being invoked merely as tools to automate a manual
workflow analysis process. For example, claim 1 generically recites steps
performed at or with "one or more processing devices" to receive and
analyze "electronic signals," to determine a data workflow comprising "a set
of computer-implemented transformations for a plurality of data items," to
generate "a data workflow representation" and "a workflow slice," and to
provide "the workflow slice for display." Moreover, the Specification
discloses that the "various computer systems discussed [in the Specification]
are not limited to any particular hardware architecture or configuration."
Spec. ,r 32. Even generation of the claimed workflow slice can use "any
suitable algorithm that gives the use/definition path." Id. ,r 43. Therefore,
10
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
the claimed invention merely represents automation of a manual workflow
analysis process using generic computer technologies. Such automation,
however, "does not constitute a patentable improvement in computer
technology." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044,
1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 lacks
additional recitations that render the claim patent eligible. See Final Act.
19--22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 6-14, 16-20, and 22-24, which Appellants do not
argue separately. Br. 13, 19.
35 U.S.C. § 103(A)
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Stein's
graphical user interface display of a partially-obscured workflow process
teaches or suggests generating a worliflow slice based on a query to
determine a plurality of nodes that include a use or definition relationship
associated with a plurality of data items. Final Act. 29-31 ( citing Stein
,r 102, Figs. 4D, 5B, 7D); see also Ans. 6-7.
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because, instead of generating
a workflow slice, Stein temporarily obscures a workflow representation.
Br. 20 (citing Stein ,r 102). Appellants' argument accords with Stein's
disclosure that the partially-obscured workflow process display results from
moving a quick information bar across a screen rather than from generating
a workflow slice in the manner claimed. See Stein ,r 102; also compare
Stein, Fig. 4D with Stein, Fig. 4B. As discussed above, the claimed
workflow slice generation is directed to identifying which nodes contribute
to the generation of a specific piece of business intelligence data. No such
11
Appeal2017-009330
Application 12/817 ,281
identification is evident in the cited disclosure of Stein, which arbitrarily
obscures elements of a workflow process based on their arrangement on the
display before moving the quick information bar, rather than based on
whether the elements contribute to a specific piece of business intelligence
data. Therefore, the Examiner's findings do not show that Stein teaches or
suggests "generating ... a workflow slice based on the query to determine a
plurality of nodes that include a use or definition relationship associated with
the plurality of data items," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner's findings do not show that Moon or Bradlee cure the
noted deficiency of Stein. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and the Examiner's 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 4, 6-14, 16-20, and22-24.
DECISION
Because we sustain at least one rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-14, 16-
20, and 22-24, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting these claims.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
12