Ex Parte Currie et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201912817281 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2019) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation