Ex Parte Snyder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 12, 2017

12747868 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 12, 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.
12/747,868 05/16/2011 Jim Snyder 21CT003US /AK192683 9051
136856 7590 12/14/2017
Richards Rodriguez & Skeith LLP
816 Congress Avenue, Suite 1200
Austin, TX 78701
EXAMINER
WONG, LESLIE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2164
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2017 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):
iplaw@rrsfirm.com
ecoffee@rrsfirm.com
rwilliams@rrsfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIM SNDER, JOON HAO CHUAH, JOE DENTE,
TRAVIS HARTWELL, MORGAN HOLLINGER, JOHN THELE,
JIMMY WAN, and ROBBY MORGAN
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
Technology Center 2100
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
Denise M. POTHIER Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 73 through 106, 108 through 146,
and 148 through 154. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse and enter a NEW GROUND OF REJECTION pursuant to
our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method of abstracting information for
use in link analysis. See Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
1. A method for abstracting information for use in link
analysis comprising:
representing a plurality of collected observable data points in a
graph data structure, wherein representing the plurality of
collected observable data points in the graph data structure
comprises organizing the plurality of collected observable data
points into one or more typed nodes and one or more typed
edges between the nodes; and
abstracting information for use in link analysis from the
plurality of collected observable data points by computationally
generating a new edge between first and second nodes, wherein
the first node corresponds a first observable data point and the
second node corresponds to the second observable data point,
wherein the new edge reveals a relationship between the first
observable data point and the second observable data point that
is not intrinsically available in the collected observable data
points.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 73 through 79, 81 through 83, 87,
88, 90, 96, 98 through 101, 105, 108 through 120, 122 through 124, 128,
129, 131, 137, 139 through 142, 146, and 148 through 154 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Hassan (US 2007/0124291). Final Act. 5—
21.1
The Examiner has rejected claims 80 and 121 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(b) as being unpatentable over Hassan and Kim et al. (US
2002/0129014). Final Act. 22.
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated May 11, 2016,
Reply Brief dated February 6, 2017, Final Office Action mailed October 15,
2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 6, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
The Examiner has rejected claims 84 through 86, 89, 91 through 94,
97, 106, 125 through 127, 130, 132 through 135 and 138 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(b) as being unpatentable over Hassan and Bayliss (US 7,912,842).
Final Act. 22—28.
The Examiner has rejected claims 86 and 136 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(b) as being unpatentable over Hassan and Moore (US 2007/0061266).
Final Act. 28—29
The Examiner has rejected claims 102 through 104, and 143 through
145 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(b) as being unpatentable over Hassan and Smith
(US 2008/0258880). Final Act. 29-30.2
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Brief, the Examiner’s
rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claims 1, 73, 114, and 154.
Appellants argue that Hassan does not teach the limitation of
independent claim 1 directed to a new edge in a link analysis where a new
edge reveals a relationship between two observable data points that is not
intrinsically available in the collected observable data. App. Br. 46-48,
Reply Br. 4—10.
2 The rejection of claims 1, 73 through 106, 108 through 146, and 148
through 154 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph has been withdrawn.
Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments directed to claim 1
on pages 3 through 9 of the Answer. The Examiner interprets the claim term
‘“not intrinsically available’ to be data that is NOT explicitly or internally
available; and ‘observable data point’ is the raw collected data.” Answer 4.
We agree that this interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the
disclosure.
The Examiner cites to paragraphs 57, 59, 21 60, 61, 67 through 76 and
Fig 4, as teaching this “not intrinsically available” limitation in claim 1.
Answer 5. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hassan’s Entity 1 (A1 Gore)
and Entity 2 (American) meets the claimed first and second node
corresponding to observable data points. Answer 6. Further, the Examiner,
finds that the “Vice President” edge (link shown in Fig. 4 of Hassan) meets
the claimed new edge that is based upon data that is not intrinsically
available in the collected data. Id.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings that these teachings of
Hassan disclose the claimed new edge reveals a relationship between two
observable data points that are not intrinsically available in the collected
observable data points. As argued by Appellants, the relationship “Vice
President” is within the raw text analyzed by Hassan’s system and this text is
observable. Reply Br. 4. Further, the Examiner’s reliance on Hassan’s
relation extractor and graph expander, which find relations that are strongly
related to the main entity, does not satisfy the claim’s language as the
relations are from the raw data. Answer 7—8 (citing paragraph 60). Thus, the
relationship between entities in Hassan is explicitly or internally available;
as such, Hassan’s teachings do not meet the Examiner’s interpretation of not
4
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
intrinsically available. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellants argue that Hassan does not teach the limitation of
independent claims 73, 114 and 154 directed to defining an abstraction edge-
type which is not an observable data edge type. App. Br. 48, Reply Br. 10-
15.
The Examiner responds to Appellants’ arguments directed to claims
73, 114 and 154 on pages 10 through 15 of the Answer. The Examiner
states “[bjased on the Specification, Examiner interprets: -observable data
(i.e., nodes and/or edges) is the raw collected data: and - abstraction data
requires analysis of observable data in order to derive the abstraction
relationship(s) from the observable data.” Answer 10. We agree that this
interpretation is reasonable and consistent with the disclosure.
The Examiner cites to Hassan’s Relation Classifier, Related Entities
Extractor, and the Figure 8 graph depicting relationships, as teaching
extracting, finding, and depicting relationships. Answer 12—14 (citing 21,
42, 57, 60, 62, 65, 117 and Figure 8). We concur. Further, Examiner states
that Hassan teaches that temporal features, which are closely related to the
entity can be extracted and finds that the temporal features are not
observable data. Answer 14 (citing para. 60). We disagree with the
Examiner. Based on the record, the Examiner, has not shown sufficiently
that the temporal features and the strength, closeness, or relationships are not
in the raw data; nor has the Examiner shown that these features are used in
defining an abstraction edge type that is not an observable edge type. See
Final Action 7; see also Answer 14. Additionally, the Examiner finds that
the links are derived from other data which meets the claimed non-
5
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
observable data. Answer 14. We disagree with the Examiner as the
Examiner has not demonstrated adequately the “other data” is not part of the
raw data and thus non-observable as claimed. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claims 73, 114
and 154 and dependent claims 74 through 79, 81 through 83, 88, 90, 96, 98
through 101, 105, 108 through 113, 115 through 120, 122 through 122, 128,
129, 131, 137, 139 through 142, 146, and 148 through 153.
The Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 80, 84 through 86,
89, 91 through 93, 97, 102 through 104, 106, 121, 125 through 127, 130, 132
through 135, 143 through 145, and 138.
NEW REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We now enter a new rejection against independent claims 1, 73, 114,
and 154 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an abstract concept. We
leave it to the Examiner to determine if the dependent claims merely further
modify the abstract concept and do not recite significantly more.
Patent-eligible subject matter is defined in § 101 of the Patent Act,
which recites:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
There are, however, three judicially created exceptions to the broad
categories of patent-eligible subject matter in § 101: laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 7, 134
S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
6
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). Although an abstract idea, itself, is
patent-ineligible, an application of the abstract idea may be patent-eligible.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Thus, we must consider “the elements of each
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.” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297—98). The
claim must contain elements or a combination of elements that are
‘“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly
more than a patent upon the [abstract idea] itself.’” Id. (citing Mayo, 132 S.
Ct. at 1294).
The Supreme Court sets forth a two-part “framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Id. at 2355.
First, we determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [Mayo,] 132 S.Ct., at
1296—1297. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the
claims before us?” Id., at------- , 132 S.Ct., at 1297. To answer
that question, we consider the elements of each 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. Id., at------- , 132 S.Ct.,
at 1298, 1297. We have described step two of this analysis as a
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., at------- , 132 S.Ct., at
1294.
Id.
The Federal Circuit has explained that, in determining whether claims
are patent-eligible under Section 101, “the decisional mechanism courts now
7
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
apply is 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.” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288,
1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit also noted in Amdocs that
“examiners are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e., sets forth or
describes) a concept that is similar to concepts previously found abstract by
the courts.” Id. at 1294 n.2 (citation omitted).
In the instant case, claim 1 recites a method for abstracting
information for link analysis, by representing collected data in a graph and
abstracting information to generate an edge link which reveals a relationship.
Claim 73, recites a method for abstracting information for link analysis,
organizing collected data into nodes, defining an abstraction edge link, and
generating an abstract edge between two nodes. Claim 114 recites a system
with a processor, a memory having a link-oriented data set with a plurality
of nodes and edges between the nodes, and software to define an abstraction
edge-type and to generate an abstraction edge-type between nodes in the
dataset. Claim 154 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium for
organizing collected data into nodes, defining an abstraction edge link, and
generating an abstract edge between two nodes.
Thus, each of independent claims is directed to the abstract concept
organizing data and creating an abstraction between nodes of data. Thus the
independent claims are by their very terms generating an abstraction. They
are also similar to those at issue in Content Extraction and Transmission
LLC. v. Wells Fargo Bank Natl Assn, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(holding that the claims were “drawn to the abstract idea of 1) collecting
8
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing
that recognized data in memory.”).
With respect to the second part of the Alice analysis, we do not find
that the claims recite significantly more to transform the abstract idea to a
patent-eligible subject matter. Method claims 1 and 73, merely recite
methods of representing data and abstracting data and do not differentiate
the process from a mental process of relating data. System claim 114 recites
a processor and memory, and computer readable medium claim 154 recites a
medium with code executable on a processor, which performs the abstract
concept discussed previously. While these claims recite a computer
elements, we consider that these recitations are merely directed to generic
computer functions. “[T]he use of generic computer elements like a
microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.” FairWarning IP, LLC v.
Iatric Sys. Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)); see also Alice
Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347.
Thus, we do not consider the independent claims recite significantly
more to transform the abstract idea to a patent-eligible and we reject the
independent claims 1, 73, 114, and 154 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 73 through 106, 108
through 146, and 148 through 154 is REVERSED. However, we enter a
9
Appeal 2017-005195
Application 12/747,868
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION against independent claims 1, 73, 114,
and 154.
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). This section provides that “[a] new ground of rejection . . . shall
not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new grounds of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims
so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and
have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the
prosecution will be remanded to the examiner. . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§41.52 by the Board upon the same Record. The request for rehearing must
address any new ground of rejection and state with particularity the points
believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in entering the new
ground of rejection and also state all other grounds upon which rehearing is
sought.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
10