Ex Parte Telfer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 20, 2018

13887241 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 20, 2018)

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