Ex Parte Kristoff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 13, 2018

13075906 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/075,906 03/30/2011
26890 7590 11/15/2018
JAMES M. STOVER
TERADATA US, INC.
10000 INNOVATION DRIVE
DAYTON, OH 45342
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Paul Richard Kristoff
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.
20684 (2704.124US1) 2594
EXAMINER
PILLAI, NAMITHA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2143
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/15/2018 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):
michelle. boldman @teradata.com
j ames.stover@teradata.com
td.uspto@outlook.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PAUL RICHARD KRISTOFF, HAROLD LEE, JASON STONE,
HENRY FU, and MARCUS PHILIP TIDWELL
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906 1
Technology Center 2100
Before HUNG H. BUI, JON M. WRGOVAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17. Claims 3 and
12 are cancelled, and claims 18-20 are withdrawn. App. Br. 15-18 (Claims
App'x). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
WeAFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Teradata US,
Incorporated. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
October 9, 2017; Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed March 23, 2018;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed January 23, 2018; Final Office Action
("Final Act.") mailed May 5, 2017; and original Specification ("Spec.") filed
March 30, 2011.
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "a method for independent attribute
filtering within a database interface." Spec. ,r 5. According to Appellants,
[a] graphical user interface (GUI) tool [i.e., an interface, shown
in Figure 3, for a user to access a backend database] is
presented to a user for interacting with an underlying database.
The GUI tool includes a field selection and attribute selections
for the field. The user selects a field and an attribute for that
field and is presented with a first list of values retrieved from
the database for the selected attribute. Next, the user selects a
filter for the attribute within the GUI tool and a second reduced
list of values is presented to the user within the GUI tool
representing the filtered first list of values acquired by applying
the filter.
Abstract.
Claims 1 and 10 are independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed
subject matter, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method implemented and programmed within a non-
transitory computer-readable storage medium and processed by
a processor, the processor configured to execute the method,
compnsmg:
presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) tool to a user,
the GUI tool acting as an interface for the user to access a
database;
receiving, from the user, a field selection for a field of the
database within the GUI tool in response to the user browsing
the GUI for the field;
obtaining, from the user, an attribute selection for an
attribute assigned to the field within the GUI tool;
displaying within the GUI tool a first list of attribute
values retrieved from the database and assigned to the attribute
for the field;
2
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
acquiring, from the user, an attribute filter, the attribute
filter acquired from the user as one or more conditions that
reduces a set of information defined by the field;
filtering the first list to present a reduced second list of
attribute values within the GUI tool by applying the filter
against the first list, wherein the reduced second list of attribute
values is obtain from the first list of attributes presented to the
user within the GUI tool and the one or more conditions for the
attribute filter acquired from the user within the GUI tool and
displaying the reduced set of information within the GUI;
selecting, by the user, attribute values from said second
list of attribute values; and
executing a query against said database using said
attribute values selected from said second list of attribute
values.
App. Br. 14 (Claims App'x).
REJECTION AND REFERENCES
(1) Claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea
without significantly more. Final Act. 2.
(2) Claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Racovolis (US 2006/0248109
Al; published Nov. 2, 2006) and Okogun (US 2011/0265038 Al; published
Oct. 27, 2011 ). Final Act. 3-9.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101: Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-17
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014), the Supreme Court reiterates an analytical two-step framework
3
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355. The first step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an
abstract idea. Id. If the claims are directed to eligible subject matter, the
inquiry ends. Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349
(Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims "individually
and 'as an ordered combination'" to determine whether there are additional
elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible
application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In
other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e., 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. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
In rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
Examiner determines these claims are directed to an abstract idea of
"filtering data of a database" and describes "a generic filtering tool
[incorporated into a generic graphical user interface (GUI)] for filtering a set
of data based on generic conditions." Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. According to the
Examiner, these claims include limitations that are analogous or similar to
the filtering of content as discussed in Bascom. Id. ( citing Bascom Global
4
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2016)).
The Examiner also determines
[t]he claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the claims are directed to a graphical user interface that
displays the filtering content and the filtering tools.
Final Act. 2.
Alice/Mayo--Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Turning to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants do not dispute
the Examiner's determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea;
instead, Appellants argue the Examiner has oversimplified the claims,
ignored limitations recited in the claims, and failed to consider the
Specification and drawings in interpreting and understanding the claims.
App. Br. 6. In addition, Appellants argue, like the claims in Enfish (822
F.3d at 1339), their claims "provide a specific functional improvement to
query construction and execution within a database interface system - an
improvement to the capabilities and utilization of the database interface
system." Reply Br. 3.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First,
the Examiner is required to review all claims at some level of generalization
and characterize whether those claims are directed to an abstract idea under
Alice step 1. However, there is no single definition of "abstract idea." As
the Federal Circuit succinctly put it:
The problem with articulating a single, universal definition of
"abstract idea" is that it is difficult to fashion a workable
definition to be applied to as-yet-unknown cases with as-yet-
unknown inventions.
5
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Because there is no single definition of an abstract idea, the
Federal Circuit instructs us "to examine earlier cases in which a similar or
parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases were about, and
which way they were decided." Id. at 1294 (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016); accordUSPTO
Memorandum, July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (2015),
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-
update.pdf ("USPTO Memorandum") (instructing Examiners that "a claimed
concept is not identified as an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one
concept that the courts have identified as an abstract idea"). In this case, the
Examiner did just what she was required to do under the USPTO
Memorandum and has characterized the claims as required pursuant to Alice.
Second, Appellants' reliance on Enfish is misplaced. In Enfish, the
claims were directed to an improved database architecture, i.e., a self-
referential table - "a specific type of data structure designed to improve the
way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory." Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1339. Such a data structure has several distinct advantages over
conventional relational databases, including: (1) faster searching of data
than would be possible with the conventional relational model (see U.S.
Patent No. 6,151,604 ("Enfish '604 patent"), 1:55-59, 2:66-3:6); (2) more
effective storage of data other than structured text, such as storage of images
and unstructured text (Enfish '604 patent 2:16-22, 2:46-52); and (3) more
flexibility in configuring the database (Enfish '604 patent 2:27-29).
In Enfish, the Federal Circuit characterized the "directed to" inquiry
as a stage-one filter to the claims, "considered in light of the specification,
6
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
based on whether 'their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter."' Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. In particular, the Federal Circuit
interpreted the "directed to" inquiry as asking "whether the claims are
directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed
to an abstract idea." Id. (emphasis added). "[T]he focus of the claims is on
the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-
referential table for a computer database)." Id. at 1335-36. Based on the
"plain focus of the claims," the Federal Circuit reached the conclusion that
Enfish 's claims were directed to "a specific improvement to the way
computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table," and, as such,
were more than a mere abstract idea. Id. at 1336. Because the Federal
Circuit found step 1 of the Alice two-step analysis was satisfied, Alice step 2
was not required. Id.
In contrast to Enfish, Appellants' claims and Specification are directed
to an abstract idea of "filtering data of a database" and describes "a graphical
user interface [GUI] that serves as a tool with field input means [filter
mechanism] for filtering data." Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. As correctly
recognized by the Examiner, "[t]he user interface components such as fields
and lists displayed to the user" "allow the user to make field selections in the
GUI tool to customize how data is filtered based on the choices of a user."
Ans. 3. None of these user interface components as recited in Appellants'
claims 1 and 10 are intended to improve the performance of a computer or
solve a problem specific to computers or computer networks. Appellants'
Specification and arguments do not demonstrate the claims "improve the
way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory," as the claims in Enfish
did via a "self-referential table for a computer database." See Enfish, 822
7
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
F.3d at 1336, 1339. Likewise, none of the steps recited in Appellants'
claims 1 and 10, nor the rest of Appellants' Specification supply any
description or explanation as to how these user interface components such as
fields and lists are intended to provide: (1) a "solution ... necessarily rooted
in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising
in the realm of computer networks," as explained by the Federal Circuit in
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2014); (2) "a specific improvement to the way computers operate," as
explained in Enfzsh (822 F.3d at 1336); or (3) an "unconventional
technological solution ... to a technological problem" that "improve[ s] the
performance of the system itself," as explained in Amdocs (841 F .3d at 1300,
1302).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1, 2, 4--11, and
13-17 are directed to an abstract idea of "filtering data of a database."
Alice/Mayo--Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
In the second step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants argue, like the
claims in Bascom (827 F.3d at 1350), "the specific sequence of steps"
recited in claims 1 and 10 contains an "inventive concept" because ( 1) the
combination of steps or elements recited for constructing and executing a
query within a data warehouse "provides meaningful benefits within a data
warehouse system, and amounts to significantly more than a method for
using a graphical user interface that displays filtering content and filtering
tools"; and (2) like the "the unique combination of elements presented in
independent claim 1 satisfies [the requirement of§ 101]." App. Br. 8.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive only in part. For example,
Bascom (U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606 ("Bascom '606 patent")) describes a
8
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
particular arrangement of filtering software at a specific location, remote
from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end
user. The filtering software enables individually customizable filtering at
the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical ability of the ISP
server to identify individual accounts and associate a request for Internet
content with a specific individual account. Bascom '606 patent 4:35-38.
The Federal Circuit recognized that Bascom's installation of an
Internet content filter at a particular network location is "a technical
improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content" because such an
arrangement advantageously allows the Internet content filter to have "both
the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the
ISP server" and "give[ s] users the ability to customize filtering for their
individual network accounts." Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1350, 1352. According
to the panel, Bascom's claims "do not preempt the use of the abstract idea of
filtering content on the Internet or on generic computer components
performing conventional activities." Id. Instead, Bascom's claims "carve
out a specific location for the filtering system (a remote ISP server) and
require the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for
their individual network accounts." Id. As such, "an inventive concept can
be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces." Id. at 1350.
In contrast to Bascom, Appellants' claims and Specification are
directed to "a generic filtering tool [incorporated into a generic graphical
user interface (GUI)] for filtering a set of data based on generic conditions."
Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. According to Appellants' Specification, "the GUI tool
[is provided] as a marketing segmentation tool that is used for developing
9
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
custom segments for marketing campaigns of an enterprise [i.e., a
company]." Spec. ,r 12. For example, when a user/customer is shopping
online, via a GUI to access a retailer's database, the GUI is provided with a
field selection ( e.g., "Sales Associates"), attribute selections (i.e., available
attributes such as "name " "store number " "associate identifier " "gender"
' ' '
and "phone number"), and an "attribute filter mechanism" (present within
the GUI the same way as a field selection mechanism and an attribute
selection mechanism) to permit a user/customer to filter a product list across
category-specific attributes for better selection and search results. Spec.
,r,r 13-15, 23-24, 34--35.
Nevertheless, we find Appellants' incorporation of an attribute filter
mechanism into a graphical user interface (GUI) to filter data in a database
sufficiently transforms the abstract idea (i.e., "filtering data of a database")
into "a particular, practical application of that abstract idea," as discussed by
the Federal Circuit in Bascom (827 F.3d at 1352). For this reason alone, we
find the combination of elements recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 10
contains an "inventive concept" and recites something "significantly more"
to transform the abstract concept (i.e., "filtering data of a database") into a
patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Accordingly, we do
not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 13-17
In support of the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 10, the
Examiner finds Racovolis teaches virtually all aspects of Appellants'
claimed method, including presenting a graphical user interface (GUI) tool
10
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
to a user, shown in Figures 1-2, to allow the user to select a particular field
(for example, calendar fields within Microsoft® Outlook®) and attributes (for
example, labels and categories, shown in Figures 3--4) and use a filtering
module (shown in Figure 2) to filter an original list of attribute values and
present a reduced list of attribute values. Final Act. 3--4 ( citing Racovolis
,r,r 14, 15, 22, Figs 1, 5).
Racovolis' Figure 2 shows graphical user interface (GUI) tool 210 to
enable a user to use filter module 224 to filter data ( e.g., calendar
information) from database 252, as reproduced below:
FIG .. 2 Dcato Source
Racovolis' Figure 4 shows a user's selection of attributes (e.g., labels
and categories), via filter module 224, to filter data (e.g., calendar
information) from a database, as reproduced below:
11
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
FIG. 4
El[Olfx1•
J06
Racovolis also teaches filtering an original list of attribute values and
present a reduced list of attribute values, as shown in steps 608---610 of
Figure 6. Racovolis ,r,r 82-83.
While not necessary, the Examiner relies on Okogun for expressly
teaching the limitation:
filtering the first list to present a reduced second list of attribute
values within the GUI tool by applying the filter against the first
list, wherein the reduced second list of attribute values is obtain
from the first list of attributes presented to the user within the
GUI tool and the one or more conditions for the attribute filter
acquired from the user within the GUI tool and displaying the
reduced set of information within the GUI
as recited in claim 1 (similarly recited in claim 10) in order to support the
conclusion of obviousness. Final Act. 4--5 (citing Okogun, Figs. 5---6, 10).
Like Racovolis, Okogun also teaches the use of a filter mechanism for a
mobile application via a graphical user interface (GUI), shown in Figures 5
and 10, to allow a user to filter data items on data fields so that only a subset
of data items (data list) may be presented on a display. See Okogun ,r,r 55-
58.
12
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding
Racovolis and Okogun. App. Br. 9-12. In particular, Appellants argue the
cited paragraphs 22-23 of Racovolis do not teach or suggest "acquiring,
from the user, an attribute filter, the attribute filter acquired from the user as
one or more conditions that reduces a set of information defined by the
field" as recited in claim 1. Id. at 9-11. Appellants acknowledge
paragraphs 22-23 of Racovolis teaches a GUI tool that "enables a user to
create a filtered view of personal information items," but argue: (1)
"R[a]covolis fails to teach or suggest this second list of attribute values"; (2)
"[t]he filtered view of personal items discussed in Racov[o]lis is not
equivalent to Applicant's second list of attribute values, from which attribute
values are selected for use in a database query"; and (3) "[t]he personal
items are not attributes, and the list of personal items is not a list, second
list, or reduce[ d] set of attribute values." Id. at 11 ( emphasis added).
Appellants also argue the cited Figure 5, element 506 of Racovolis
does not teach or suggest the claimed "executing a query against said
database using said attribute values selected from said second list of attribute
values" as recited in claim 1, or alternatively, "executing a query against
said database using attribute values selected from said filtered attribute
values by said user" as recited in claim 10. App. Br. 12. According to
Appellants, Racovolis' Figure 5 only shows "a user interface display
including a filtered view of personal organization information" and not
execution of any query. Id.
Separately, Appellants argue the cited Figures 5 and 6 of Okogun do
not teach "an attribute filter and a reduced second list obtained from the first
list." Id. According to Appellants, "the list of messages[, as disclosed by
13
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
Okogun,] is equivalent to a list of attribute values, as recited in claims 1 and
10." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a full response to Appellants' arguments, supported
by evidence. Ans. 4--5. As such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and
explanations provided therein. Id. For example, Racovolis teaches the use
of filtering module 224, shown in Figure 2, to filter data items into a subset
of data items and, as such, teaches the claimed "acquiring, from the user, an
attribute filter, the attribute filter acquired from the user as one or more
conditions that reduces a set of information defined by the field" and
"filtering the first list to present a reduced second list of attribute values
within the GUI tool by applying the filter against the first list" as recited in
claims 1 and 10. See Racovolis ,r,r 14, 15, 22-23, 68-70, 73, Figs 1, 5.
As recognized by the Examiner, "Figure 4 [ of Racovolis] discloses a
selected second list of filtered items such as 'Business,' 'Goals/Objectives'
which represent a second list." Ans. 4 ( citing Racovolis ,r,r 64--69, Fig. 4 ).
In other words, "[t]he checked items represent a second list of filtered
attribute values that are selected by the user." Id. Similarly, "[ s ]tep 610 of
Figure 6 [ of Racovolis] displays the result of the executed query from the
second list of attributes and displaying only the personal information items
from the filtered set of attributes." Id. (citing Racovolis, Fig. 6). Contrary to
Appellants' arguments, "[t]he reduced set of the checked items in Figure 4
[ of Racovolis] represents a second list of a second set of attribute values" as
recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 10. Id. at 5.
In the Reply, Appellants continue to argue "[i]t is not seen that the
14
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
list of categories 305 shown in Figure 4 [ of Racovolis] ... as a selected
second list of filtered items, is a reduced list of the list of labels 303, or a
reduced list of the list of categories shown in Figure 3" and "[t]he list of
categories 305 shown in Figure 4, is not generated by 'filtering the first list
to present a reduced second list of attribute values within the GUI tool by
applying the filter against the first list.'" Reply Br. 5---6. Appellants'
argument is misplaced. The checked items in labels 302 and categories 304,
shown in Figure 4 of Racovolis, such as "Business" and "Goal/Objectives"
attributes, represent Appellants' claimed "reduced second list of attribute
values."
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1,
and similarly claim 10, and their respective dependent claims 2, 4--9, 11, and
13-17, which Appellants do not argue separately.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, but have not with respect to the Examiner's rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and
13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. However, we affirm the Examiner's rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
15
Appeal2018-004423
Application 13/075,906
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-17. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
16