Ex Parte Jugulum et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 30, 2018

13235703 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/235,703 09/19/2011 Rajesh Jugulum
13708 7590 11/30/2018
Johnson, Marcou & Isaacs, LLC
PO Box 691
Hoschton, GA 30548
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.
CITI-0706 7717
EXAMINER
SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAJESH JUGULUM, RAJALAKSHMI RAMACHANDRAN,
JAGMEET SINGH, ROBERT A. GRANESE, KENNETH BRZOZOWSKI,
HAROLD IAN JOYCE, and DON GRAY
Appeal2017-008727
Application 13/235,703 1
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 11, 12, 29, and 30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 The Appellants identify Citigroup Technology, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008727
Application 13/235,703
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A method, comprising:
selecting, by a microprocessor, a group of proposed
critical data elements from a plurality of proposed critical data
elements consisting at least in part of type of account, original
balance, origination date, number of deposits, and number of
loans based at least in part on ranking each of the plurality of
proposed critical data elements according to weighted criteria
consisting at least in part of ease of access to each proposed
critical data element, regulatory risk associated with each
proposed critical data element, financial risk associated with
each proposed critical data element, and reputation risk
associated with each proposed critical data element;
collecting, by the microprocessor, samples of data for
each of the proposed critical data elements in said group of
proposed critical data elements from a database storing a
population of data elements representing attributes of each of a
plurality of different financial transactions;
identifying, by the microprocessor, a portion of said
group of proposed critical data elements based at least in part
on a ranking of respective degrees of correlation between said
data samples for each of the proposed critical data elements in
said group of proposed critical data elements;
generating, by the microprocessor, a plurality of
different, overlapping sets of data quality rules at least in part in
terms of data completeness and data validity for each of the
proposed critical data elements in said portion of said group of
proposed critical data elements, each set of data quality rules
comprising a different number of data quality rules for the same
proposed critical data elements in said portion of said group of
proposed critical data elements;
identifying, by the microprocessor, one of the plurality of
different, overlapping sets of data quality rules for monitoring a
quality of data in said database based at least in part on a
difference between a value for each of said sets of data quality
rules as a function of accuracy or completeness of data in the
database and a sum of a cost of creating each set of data quality
2
Appeal2017-008727
Application 13/235,703
rules as a function of number, complexity, and interdependency
of rules in each of said sets of data quality rules;
monitoring, by the microprocessor, the quality of data
within said database using said identified one of the plurality of
different, overlapping sets of data quality rules [sic]
identifying, by the microprocessor, critical data elements
that produce a predefined high number of outliers in said data
within said database based on said monitoring the quality of
data in said database indicative of a likelihood that a process is
out of control; and
identifying, by the microprocessor, causes for the pre-
defined high number of outliers produced by said critical data
elements in said data within said database.
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 7, 11, 12, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
"new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter."
35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may nevertheless be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme Court
has interpreted § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools of scientific and
technological work, such that including them within the domain of patent
protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised upon them.
Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589
(2013).
Of course, "[a]t some level, 'all inventions ... embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply"' these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
3
Appeal2017-008727
Application 13/235,703
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (citation
omitted). Accordingly, evaluating ineligible subject matter, under this
judicial exclusion, involves a two-step framework for "distinguish[ing]
between patents that claim the buildin[g] block[ s] of human ingenuity and
those that integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby
transform[ing] them into a patent-eligible invention." Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The first step determines whether the claim is
directed to judicially excluded subject matter (such as a so-called "abstract
idea"); the second step determines whether there are any "additional
elements" recited in the claim that ( either individually or as an "ordered
combination") amount to "significantly more" than the identified judicially
excepted subject matter itself. Id. at 2355.
According to the Examiner, in applying the first step of the Alice
framework, independent claim 1 is directed to "data quality assessment of a
plurality of different financial transactions," which the Examiner regards as
an abstract idea. Final Action 3, 6. In regard to the second Alice step, the
Final Office Action states:
The elements of the instant process, when taken alone,
each execute in a manner routinely and conventionally expected
of these elements. . .. [The claimed steps] are conventional
functions of a computer. The elements of the instant process,
when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially
more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each
is taken alone. That is, the elements involved in the recited
process undertake their roles in performance of their activities
according to their generic functionalities which are well-
understood, routine and conventional. The elements together
execute in routinely and conventionally accepted coordinated
manners and interact with their partner elements to achieve an
overall outcome which, similarly, is merely the combined and
4
Appeal2017-008727
Application 13/235,703
coordinated execution of generic computer functionalities
which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities
previously known to the industry.
Id. at 8-9. See also Answer 13, 16-17.
Notwithstanding the Appellants' dispute regarding the Examiner's
application of the first Alice step (see Appeal Br. 9-12 ), we are persuaded
that reversal is appropriate, in the present Appeal, based upon the following
argument of the Appellants, concerning the second Alice step.
The second Alice step considers whether the claim limitations
"involve more than performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and]
conventional activities previously known to the industry."' Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
Notably, "[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of
elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in
the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d
13 60, 13 68 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The inquiry, under the second Alice step,
"requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was
known in the art," because "the non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces" may amount to significantly
more than the identified judicial exception. BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Yet, as the Appellants argue (see Appeal Br. 9, 13), the Examiner's
analysis lacks support for the assertion that the additional elements of claim
1 are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner states a
conclusion, to such effect, but provides no factual or other support for the
position. See Final Action 8-9. See also Answer 13, 16-17. For example,
5
Appeal2017-008727
Application 13/235,703
the Examiner presents no analysis or evidentiary support for the asserted
conventionality of at least the following features of claim 1: "identifying ...
a portion of said group of proposed critical data elements based at least in
part on a ranking of respective degrees of correlation between said data
samples"; "generating ... a plurality of different, overlapping sets of data
quality rules at least in part in terms of data completeness and data validity";
"each set of data quality rules comprising a different number of data quality
rules for the same proposed critical data elements in said portion of said
group of proposed critical data elements"; and "identifying ... critical data
elements that produce a predefined high number of outliers in said data ...
based on said monitoring the quality of data in said database indicative of a
likelihood that a process is out of control."
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not adequately
explained why claim 1 fails to recite any limitations that are "significantly
more" than the identified abstract idea itself.
The foregoing discussion refers to independent claim 1, but it is
equally applicable to the other independent claims in the Appeal ( claims 29
and 30). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-3, 7, 11,
12, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 7, 11,
12, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
6