Ex Parte Stegelmann

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 5, 2019

13097169 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/097, 169 04/29/2011 26890 7590 02/07/2019 JAMES M. STOVER TERADATA US, INC. 10000 INNOVATION DRIVE DAYTON, OH 45342 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Rolf Gunter Erich Stegelmann 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. 20511 (2704.115US1) 5992 EXAMINER WILLIS, AMANDA LYNN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2158 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/07/2019 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): 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 ROLF GUNTER ERICH STEGELMANN Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 Technology Center 2100 Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of Claims 1, 4--7, and 9--19. App. Br. 2. Claims 2, 3, 8, and 20 were canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. 2 1 Appellant states the real party in interest is Teradata US, Incorporated. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of the Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief(filed October 10, 2017, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief (filed February 15, 2018, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed December 15, 2017, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed May 10, 2017, "Final Act."), and the Specification ( filed April 29, 2011, "Spec.") for Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to user defined functions (UDP) for a parallel database system. See Abstract. INVENTION Claims 1, 14, and 19 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of illustrative Claim 1 which is reproduced below: 1. A method implemented at least partly by a device that includes one or more processors, the method comprising: receiving a database command from a user-defined function (UDP) for accessing data stored in a database of a database system, said database command to map memory that is to be used by the UDP; mapping a block of data in the database system acquired from one or more tables to generate a memory mapping for the UDP, in response to the command from the UDP; storing the memory mapping for the UDP; thereafter, providing the stored memory mapping of the UDP for accessing and managing the memory, including the data of the tables associated with the memory mapping, for use by the UDP via set commands issued to the memory mapping within the memory, in response to the command from the UDP; making management operations available to the UDP for managing the mapping and the data within the tables that are associated with the mapping; and sharing the mappings with other instances of the UDP based on a management instruction received from the UDP. their respective details. 2 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 References and Rejections Priority Ghemawat, et al., Durham Loaiza, et al. , US 7,222,119 Bl May 22, 2007 US 2010/0122077 Al Filed Nov. 13, 2008 US 7,600,063 B2 Oct. 6, 2009 Autolt Consulting Ltd., httn://www .autoitscdpt.com/forum/tonic/112403- memory-udf/ ("FinalVersion," "Autoit") (accessed 8/15/2012). The claims stand rejected as follows: 3 1. Claims 1, 4--7, and 9--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 2-5. 2. Claims 1, 4--7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over Loaiza and Autoit. Final Act. 6-13. 3. Claims 11, 12, 15, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over Loaiza, Autoit, and Durham. Final Act. 13-18. 4. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over Loaiza, Auto it, and Ghemawat. Final Act. 18-19. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 4--7, and 9--19 in light of Appellant's arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant's 3 The rejection of Claims 1, 4--7, and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112(2nd iD as indefinite (Final Act. 5) was not maintained in the Answer. Any rejection not repeated and discussed in the answer may be taken by the Board as having been withdrawn. Ex Parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180 (Bd. App. 1957). 3 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Brief, pages 6-13. CLAIMS 1, 4--7, AND 9--19: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER. Appellant argues all claims as a group in view of the limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 8. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the Â§ 101 rejections with reference to Claim 1, and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as "the claims." See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant contends the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because Claim 1 recites a specific sequence of steps executed by a computer for method for mapping memory to a UDP. App. Br. 7. We analyze the claims in view of the 2019 Revised Guidance. 4 35 USCÂ§ 101. Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. The Supreme Court has long recognized, however, that Â§ 101 implicitly excludes "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" from the realm of patent-eligible subject matter, as monopolization of these "basic tools of scientific and technological work" would stifle the very innovation that the patent system aims to promote. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. 4 USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84(4) Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). 4 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S.66, 72-78 (2012); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). Under the mandatory Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether Appellants' claims recite: 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), and 2. additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP Â§ 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 reach the issue of whether the claim: 3. adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP Â§ 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. Judicial Exceptions. The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se): (a) mathematical concepts, 5 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical 5 Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("The concept of hedging ... 5 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 formulas, equations, 6 and mathematical calculations 7; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)8; and (c) mental processes9 ----concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). 10 reduced to a mathematical formula ... is an unpatentable abstract idea."). 6 Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) ("A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws''); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) ("[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.''). 7 SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a '' series of mathematical calculations based on selected information'' are directed to abstract ideas). 8 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219--20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a "fundamental economic practice" and thus an abstract idea); see Revised Guidance, p. 52, n.13 for a more extensive listing of "certain methods of organizing human activity" that have been found to abstract ideas. 9 If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See Revised Guidance, p. 52, n. 14; see Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper."). 10 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 ("'[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual 6 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 The Examiner finds "Claim 1 recites limitations involving mapping data to generate a memory map." Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds "[t]his limitation appears to recite the generation of a mathematical correlation, in the form of a mapping, which is used to organize the memory of the device." Id. The Examiner finds the concept of mapping is "substantially similar to the court recognized abstract idea of 'Organizing information through mathematical correlations."' Id. Under the Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether Appellants' claims recite, per se, any judicial exceptions. The Examiner finds "[ t ]his limitation appears to recite the generation of a mathematical correlation." Final Act. 2. In response to a command from a user-defined function (UDP), Claim 1 recites the "mapping" limitation analyzed by the Examiner: "mapping a block of data in the database system acquired from one or more tables to generate a memory mapping for the UDP." We find the claim does not recite, per se, a mathematical concept, relationship, formula, equation, or mathematical calculation. Except in rare circumstances, which we do not find operable here, "[ c ]laims that do not recite matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas." Revised Guidance, 53. Because we find the claims do not recite a judicial exception, we find the claims recite eligible subject matter. concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work"' (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)). 7 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 CLAIMS 1, 4--7, AND 9--19: OBVIOUSNESS OVER LOAIZA AND AUTOIT. Sharing the mappings with other instances of the UDF. Claim 1 recites, inter alia, "sharing the mappings with other instances of the UDP based on a management instruction received from the UDP." Independent Claim 19 contains commensurate recitations. Independent Claim 14 similarly contains recitations (non-commensurate) directed to User Defined Functions (UDP). The Examiner finds "[t]he claimed 'mappings' have been equated to the locks taught by Loaiza." Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that "Loaiza states 'The lock manager establishes a mapping between actual resources and resource objects."' Id; Final Act. 7. To teach the claimed "sharing the mappings with other instances of the UDP," the Examiner finds Loaiza teaches "a share lock that grants permission to access the resource." Final Act. 8 (citing Loaiza, col. 5, 11. 47-53). Appellant contends the cited portion of Loaiza teaches performing changes to a resource governed by locking mechanism and specifically, a shared lock. App. Br. 10. We agree. The cited portion of Loaiza discloses: The techniques described herein are used in conjunction with share locks. As referred to herein, a share lock is a lock that grants an entity permission to access ( e.g. read) the contents of a resource, but does not grant the entity permission to modify the resource, does not guarantee that the resource is not being modified by another entity, and does not guarantee that there are no changes to the resource that have not been made permanent by another entity. Loaiza, col. 5, 11. 47-53. We find no teaching of a user-defined function, nor any finding of how a lock operates to cause a "database command to map 8 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 memory that is to be used by the UDP", as recited in Claim 1 and commensurately recited in Claim 19. Providing the mappings in memory for access by one or more User Defined Functions (UDFs). Independent Claim 14 recites, inter alia, "providing the mappings in memory for access by one or more User Defined Functions (UDFs)." To teach this limitation, the Examiner cites Loaiza ( col. 4, 11. 63---67). Final Act. 12. The Examiner finds Loaiza does not explicitly define memory functions as user-defined functions, but cites FinalVersion for this teaching. Id. (citing FinalVersion, p.1, function list). Loaiza discloses: Techniques are described hereafter for reducing the delay between when an entity, such as a process, requests permission to modify a resource, and when the entity is allowed to begin modifying the resource. For the purpose of explanation, examples shall be given in which the resource is a data block, where a copy of the data block is stored in shared memory controlled by the entity that modifies the data block. Loaiza, col. 4, 1. 63---col. 5, 1. 2 (cited by Examiner and Appellant). Appellant contends the cited portion of Loaiza "describes techniques for reducing the delay between when an entity or process requests permission to modify a resource, and when the entity is allowed to begin modifying the resource," but "does not include any discussion concerning mappings, or access of mappings by one or more UDFs." App. Br. 12. Appellant argues FinalVersion merely lists various UDFs, but without description or explanation. Id., 11. We agree. We find no disclosure of mappings. Furthermore, the Examiner has not adequately supported the assertion that Loaiza's lock sharing involves"[ e ]ffectively sharing" a 9 Appeal 2018-003519 Application 13/097, 169 mapping. See Ans. 6. As Appellants point out, Loaiza teaches that a "lock on a resource is a data structure which indicates that a particular entity has been granted certain rights with respect to the resource." Loaiza 1 :30-32. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1, 4--7, and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is REVERSED. The rejection of Claims 1, 4--7, and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 is REVERSED. REVERSED 10