Ex Parte Schaub

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 23, 2017

10641385 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/641,385 08/13/2003 Rene C. Schaub 50277-2934 1224 42425 7590 10/25/2017 HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F EXAMINER 1 Almaden Boulevard LOFTUS, ANNE Floor 12 SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/25/2017 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): usdocket@h35g.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte RENE C. SCHAUB Appeal 2015-007873 Application 10/641,3851 Technology Center 3600 Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final rejection of claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. 1 According to the Appellant, Oracle International Corporation is the real party in interest (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2015-007873 Application 10/641,385 THE INVENTION The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to data processing and data totaling operations (Spec., para. 2). Claim 47, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 47. A method comprising: populating, by a database server, a single summary table; wherein the single summary table is persistently stored in a relational database that resides on non-volatile storage; wherein the relational database is managed by the database server; wherein the database server is executing on one or more computing devices; wherein populating the single summary table includes storing, within the single summary table, a plurality of pre computed sums; wherein the plurality of pre-computed sums include parent sums and child sums; wherein each of the parent sums is the sum of two or more corresponding child sums; wherein a particular column of the single summary table includes: for a first row, a first child sum for a first interval; for a second row, a second child sum for a second interval; and for a third row, a parent sum that includes at least the first child sum and the second child sum and is for a third interval that includes the first interval and the second interval. THE REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review: 1. Claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. 2 Appeal 2015-007873 Application 10/641,385 2. Claims 31—34, 36, 39-42, and 47—50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rauer et al. (US 6,161,103 issued Dec. 12, 2000), Colby et al. (US 2001/0013030 Al, published Aug. 9, 2001), and portions of the Specification identifying prior art. 3. Claims 30, 35, 38, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rauer, Colby, and Jensen et al. (US 2003/0188260 Al, published Oct. 2, 2003). FINDINGS OF FACT We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 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. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[ljaws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). In judging whether claim 47 falls within the excluded category of abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two- step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296—97 2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the Patent Office). 3 Appeal 2015-007873 Application 10/641,385 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. If so, we then consider the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id. This is a search for an “inventive concept”—an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that “the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358. Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the abstract concept of performing a mathematical function in a table using summing operations. This is directed to the use of an algorithm and can be performed largely in a series of mathematical steps and is an abstract idea beyond the scope of §101. We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does not. Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a generic computer to perform a generic computer function. 4 Appeal 2015-007873 Application 10/641,385 Here, the claim is not rooted in technology, but rather is a basic math operation performed on a generic computer in a conventional manner. For this reason the rejection of claim 47 and its dependent claims is sustained. Claims 49 and 50 are drawn to similar subject matter and the rejection of these claims is sustained as well. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 47 is improper because the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations: wherein a particular column of the single summary table includes'. for a first row, a first child sum for a first interval', for a second row, a second child sum for a second interval', and for a third row, a parent sum that includes at least the first child sum and the second child sum and is for a third interval that includes the first interval and the second interval. (App. Br. 4, emphasis added). Further arguments are presented in the Appeal Brief at pages 4—7. In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the above cited claim limitations are found in the Specification Background at Figure 2, Table 133; Colby at paragraph 50; and Rauer at column 29, line 10-column 30, line 10 (Ans. 4, 5). We agree with the Appellant. Here, even taking the above citations to the Specification Background, Colby at paragraph 50, and Rauer at column 29, line 10-column 30, line 10 to disclose all the argued elements of the claim limitations above, the rejection lacks adequate articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings for such a modification without impermissible 5 Appeal 2015-007873 Application 10/641,385 hindsight. Accordingly the rejections of claim 47 and its dependent claims are not sustained. Independent claim 49 contains similar claim limitations and the rejection of this claim and its dependent claim is not sustained as well. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 under 35U.S.C. § 101. We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 30—36, 38-44, and 47—50 is sustained. AFFIRMED 6