Ex Parte Telfer et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 20, 201813887241 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 13/887,241 05/03/2013 ANGUS RICHARD TUT EUR T8477022US 1059 142109 7590 02/ CONNEELY PC 121 WILLOWDALE AVENUE SUITE 207 TORONTO, ON M2N 6A3 CANADA EXAMINER DOAN, HIEN VAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2449 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2018 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): j oe @ conneely. c a info @ conneely. ca j conneely @ rogers .com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANGUS RICHARD TELFER and THOMAS BRYAN RUSHWORTH. Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1 through 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 INVENTION Appellants disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a method of generating a directed graph. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below. 1. A method for generating a directed graph for a transaction in an application, comprising: receiving event information for events included in the transaction at a processor, each event having a link directed from a first endpoint to a second endpoint in the application; assigning an identification ("ID") number to each event and including the ID number in the event information for each event; based on endpoint, correlating the event information to produce dyadic event information representative of dyadic events, each dyadic event including a first event and a second event associated with the endpoint, the dyadic event information for each dyadic event including a first ID number and a second ID number for the first event and the second event, respectively; based on ID number, combining the dyadic event information to produce correlation fragments associated with the ID number; and, combining the correlation fragments to produce the directed graph for the transaction. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1 The Examiner has rejected claims 2 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Final Act. 5.2 1 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed April 27, 2016 (“App. Br.”), Examiner’s Answer mailed November 22, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Final Action mailed December 11, 2015 (“Final Act.”) and Appellants’ Specification filed May, 3, 2013 (Specification). 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 11 through 18 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 6. 2 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 4, 6, 10 through 14, 16, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dempo (US 2011/0035429 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2011) andMoudgal (US 2005/0182708 Al, pub. Aug. 18, 2005). Final Act. 6—11. The Examiner has rejected claims 5, 7 through 9, 15, and 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dempo, Moudgal and Cinato (US 2009/0292948 Al, pub. Nov. 26, 2009). Final Act. 11—14. ANAFYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, the Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. $ 112(b) The Examiner rejected claim 2 as being indefinite as the claim term “event collectors” is a limitation which invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and the Specification does not provide sufficient structure or acts for the claimed function. Final Act. 5. Further, the Examiner concludes that, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “collectors” is software to perform a function, and the Examiner finds the Specification does not recite the structure or acts for performing the function. Ans. 5. Appellants argue that the rejection is in error as “at least FIG. 2 of the drawings and paragraphs [0042] and [0044] of the specification clearly provide the required support for the expression ‘event collectors.’” App Br. 22. 3 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 We concur with the Examiner and are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that the Specification provides adequate support of the claim limitation. Initially, we note it is uncontested that claim 2 is invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), and it is apparent from Appellants’ Specification that the claimed invention is intended to be performed on a computer. Specification para. 14. When a claim invokes § 112 (f), the associated written description must disclose adequate corresponding structure to perform the claimed function. See Williamson v. Citrix Online LLC, 792 F.3d 1339, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2015). If the written description fails to do so, the claim is indefinite. See id. at 1351—52. For a computer-implemented means-plus-fimction claim limitation invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112 (f), the corresponding structure for performing a specific function must be more than simply a general purpose computer or microprocessor. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). A computer- implemented means-plus-function term is limited to the corresponding structure disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof, and the corresponding structure is the algorithm. See Aristocrat Techs. Austl. Pty Ltd. v. Inti Game Tech., 521 F.3d 1328, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We have reviewed paragraphs 42 and 44 of Appellants’ Specification, cited by Appellants as providing support for the “event collectors,” and find these paragraphs mention that they are widely distributed and responsible for detecting events. However we find no disclosure of specific hardware or a specific program codes or algorithms to implement the “event collectors.” Thus, we concur with the Examiner that the Specification provides insufficient disclosure to support the claim 2 recitation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) and that the claim is indefinite. Accordingly, we sustain the 4 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) and claims 3 through 5, which depend from claim 2.3 Rejections under 35 U.S.C. $ 103(a) With respect to the obviousness rejection based upon Dempo and Moudgal, Appellants’ arguments on pages 17 through 20 of the Appeal Brief present us with two issues: 1) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Dempo and Moudgal teaches based upon ID number, combining the dyadic event information to produce correlation fragments with ID number as recited in claim 1? 2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Dempo and Moudgal teaches combining the correlation fragments to produce the directed graph for the transaction as recited in claim 1? Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue assert that Dempo teaches that events are combined based upon predetermined logical expressions. App. Br. 17—18. Appellants reason the rejection is in error as “according to the Applicants’ Claim 1, events are combined based on their ID number alone.” App. Br. 18. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments, states that claim 1 does not recite that events are combined based upon their ID number alone. Ans. 6. Further, the Examiner provides an explanation of how Dempo’s teachings are applied to the claimed feature of combining events. 3 We note that claims 6 through 9 similarly rely upon dependent claim 2 but are not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). 5 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 Ans. 6—7. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Dempo teaches combining the event with the ID number A1 and the event with the ID number B1 to create a composite event. Ans. 6—7. We concur with the Examiner’s finding that Dempo teaches combining events based in part upon event number. Further, as identified by the Examiner, Appellants’ arguments are premised upon the assertion that the events are combined based upon ID only, a feature that is not recited in claim 1. Accordingly, Appellants’ arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue assert that Moudgal teaches a method for using unfocussed directed graphs based upon node types. App. Br. 19. As such, Appellants argue the rejection is in error as Moudgal does not teach the claim 1 limitation of directed graphs, which are generated by combining correlation fragments, based on ID number of detected events. App Br. 19. Further, Appellants argue claim 1 recites a directed graph for a transaction whereas Moudgal’s directed graph is based upon multiple transactions. App. Br. 20. The Examiner, in response to Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue, finds that Dempo teaches combining events based upon ID to create correlation fragments to producing a directed graph. Ans. 7 (citing Dempo Fig. 17). The Examiner finds that Dempo’s events, discussed above with respect to the first issue, are comprised of plural broker nodes which are fragments used to produce the composite event, which are used to produce a directed graph. Ans. 7. The Examiner finds that Dempo does not teach the directed graph is for a transaction, but that Moudgal teaches a 6 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 directed graph for a transaction. Ans. 8 (citing Figs. 12, 17, paras. 0059, 0090, 0091, 100). Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. The arguments address Moudgal alone and not the combined teachings. As discussed above with respect to the first issue, we concur with the Examiner that Dempo teaches creating correlation fragments based upon ID number associated with events. Further, Appellants have not identified any error in the Examiner’s finding that Dempo teaches a directed graph. Thus, we need not reach Appellants’ argument that Moudgal does not teach creating a directed graph based upon event ID number, as the Examiner finds that this is taught by Dempo and only relies upon Moudgal to show the type of data (transaction data) that is presented in a directed graph. Appellants’ argument that Moudgal teaches creation of directed graph directed to multiple transactions and not one, has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection. Representative claim 1 requires the graph to be of a transaction but does not preclude more than one transaction being represented in the same graph. Further, as discussed by the Examiner, Moudgal teaches the directed graph represents a transaction pattern of transaction data. Ans. 7; Moudgal paras. 59, 100. We concur. Moudgal is concerned with determining a fraudulent transaction, which may include intermediaries and other transactions (thus, a transaction is both plural and singular as a transaction (a fraudulent transaction) made up of other transactions). See, e.g., para. 6. This is similar to the discussion of a transaction in Appellants’ Specification, which discusses a transaction as being the results of a series of events. See, e.g., Specification para. 14. 7 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 Thus, Appellants’ arguments directed to the second issue have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 through 4, 6, 10 through 14, 16, and 20 grouped with claim 1. With respect to the rejection of claims 5, 7 through 9, 15, and 17 through 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon Dempo, Moudgal, and Cinato, Appellants argue that the rejection is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to claim 1. As we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 7 through 9, 15, and 17 through 19. DECISION We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) and of claims 2 through 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Should there be further prosecution, the Examiner is encouraged to enter a rejection of claims 6 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as these claims inherent the indefiniteness problem from claim 2 upon which they depend. Further, the Examiner is also encouraged to consider whether the independent claims recite an abstract concept of generating a graph based upon received data and as such may not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims directed to collecting information, analyzing information and presenting the results recite an abstract idea). 8 Appeal 2017-008315 Application 13/887,241 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). See 37 C.F.R § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation