Ex Parte VENKATARAMAN

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 22, 2018

13447463 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/447,463 04/16/2012 23117 7590 08/24/2018 NIXON & V ANDERHYE, PC 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11 TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kandan VENKATARAMAN 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. JRL-4010-241 6131 EXAMINER POE,KEVINT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3692 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/24/2018 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon@firsttofile.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KAND AN VENKA TARAMAN Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 1 Technology Center 3600 Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134 from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant's invention "relate[s] to a method and a computerized exchange system for processing orders." (Spec. 1, 11. 6-7.) 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nasdaq Technology AB. (Appeal Br. 3.) Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 Claims 1 and 11 are the independent claims on appeal. 2 Claim 11 is illustrative. It recites: 11. A computerized exchange system for processing data order entry messages, comprising: - a common sequencer compnsmg: - a common sequencer hardware communication interface; - a common sequencer hardware processor; and - a common sequencer memory configured to store a computer program comprising computer program code which, when run on the common sequencer hardware processor, causes the common sequencer to: - receive, via the common sequencer hardware communication interface, a plurality of data order entry messages from a plurality of order book hardware processors coupled to the common sequencer hardware interface by a data communications medium; - sequence the received plurality of data order entry messages by assigning status data including a time stamp to each of the plurality of data order entry messages to put incoming order entry messages assigned with different status data in a sequenced order; and - sending, via the common sequencer communication hardware interface and the data communications medium, the plurality of data order entry messages in the sequenced order to the plurality of order book hardware processors; - a first one of the order book hardware processors, coupled by the data communications medium to the common sequencer, and comprising: - a first hardware communication interface; - a first data processor; and - a first memory configured to store a computer program comprising computer program code which, when run on 2 The claims in the Claims Appendix to Appellant's Appeal Brief differ from the claims last entered by the Examiner. The latter, filed by Appellant on June 8, 2015, are the claims we reference here. 2 Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 the first data processor of the first order book hardware processor, causes the first order book hardware processor to: - receive, via the data communications medium and the first hardware communication interface, the sequenced data order entry messages from the common sequencer; - process the sequenced data order entry messages to create order management data that includes order acceptance, rejection, execution, or cancellation information corresponding to the data order entry messages; and - output the management data to one or more client devices; - a second one of the order book hardware processors, coupled by the data communications medium to the common sequencer, and comprising: - a second hardware communication interface; - a second data processor; and - a second memory configured to store a computer program comprising computer program code which, when run on the second data processor of the second order book hardware processor, causes the second order book hardware processor to: - receive, via the data communications medium and the second hardwre [sic] communication interface, the sequenced data order entry messages from the common sequencer; and - process independently of the processing in the first order book hardware processor and substantially in parallel with the processing in the first order book hardware processor the sequenced data order entry messages to create data that includes status information for multiple data orders entered in the computerized exchange; and - output the status information to one or more client devices. 3 Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 REJECTI0N3 Claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. ANALYSIS "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." 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. Section 101, however, "'contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."' Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc.for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if "the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Id. If the claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine if "the elements of the claim ... contain[] an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 3 The rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph, was withdrawn. (Answer 5.) 4 Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at 2357 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 79). With regard to step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner determines that the claims are directed to "a method and system for processing trade order entry messages" and that this "is a longstanding commercial practice." (Answer 3.) More specifically, the Examiner determines that the claims are directed to "the abstract idea of processing data order entry messages." (Id. at 7.)4 Appellant disagrees and argues that "none of the claims recite 'trade order entry messages"' and "the final action fails to offer any evidence that a 'computerized exchange system for processing data order entry messages' is 'a fundamental practice of commerce."' (Appeal Br. 12.) Under step one of the Alice framework, we "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that Appellant's invention "relate[ s] to a method and a computerized exchange system for processing orders." (Spec. 1, 11. 6-7.) Claim 11 provides further evidence. Claim 11 recites an "exchange system for processing data order entry 4 The Examiner also states that "the claim is directed to the abstract idea of filter-out item(s) based on criteria." (Final Action 9; Answer 4.) Because this statement appears to be inapplicable to Appellant's claims, we treat the statement as a typographical error. 5 Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 messages comprising," a "sequencer comprising," a "sequencer ... communication interface," a "sequencer ... processor," and a "sequencer memory" that causes the sequencer to "receive ... data order entry messages from a plurality of order book ... processors coupled to the ... sequencer," "sequence the received ... data order entry messages," "send[] ... data order entry messages in the sequenced order to the ... order book ... processors," and "a first one of the order book ... processors ... comprising," "a first ... communication interface," "a first data processor," and "a first memory" that causes the first data processor to "receive ... the sequenced data order entry messages from the ... sequencer," "process the ... messages," and "output ... data," and "a second one of the order book ... processors ... comprising," "a second ... communication interface," "a second data processor," and "a second memory" that causes the second data processor to "receive ... the sequenced data order entry messages from the "" th "d" t t tt ... sequencer, process . . . e ... messages, an ou pu ... s a us information." In this case, "the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations' narrowing effect for step two." See BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Step two of the Alice framework has been described "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."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73). In addressing step two, we ask 6 Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 "' [ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us?' To answer that question, we consider the elements of the claims 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. (citations omitted) ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). Appellant argues that "[ w ]hen applying the second prong of the Mayo/Alice analysis, all of the recited claim elements must be considered as an ordered combination." (Appeal Br. 15.) Appellant further argues that "claim 11 ... recites a common sequencer having a common sequencer hardware communication interface, a common sequencer processor, and a common sequencer memory." (Id. at 16.) Appellant further argues: Claim 11 also recites first and second order book hardware processors, coupled by the data communications medium to the common sequencer. . . . The first processor receives and processes the sequenced data order entry messages from the common sequencer . . . . The second processor receives the sequenced data order entry messages from the common sequencer but processes them independently but substantially in parallel with the processing in the first hardware processor .... (Id. at 17.) Additionally, Appellant argues that "[ c ]omputerized exchanges, at the time this application was filed, use a central server and a plurality of gateway servers .... The claimed ... solution to this problem is a new computer exchange architecture." (Id. at 19; see also Spec. p. 1, 11. 17-19, p. 2, 1. 12-p. 3, 1. 25.) The Examiner answers that [b ]eyond the abstract idea of processing data order entry messages, the claims merely recite "well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies]," either by requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps .... 7 Appeal2017-005930 Application 13/447,463 Applicant claims recite a common sequencer having a common sequencer hardware communications interface, a common sequencer processor, and a common sequencer memory[]. ... [T]he claims are not significantly more than an abstract idea because the application does not disclose the specific technical components that would make this claimed sequencer an improvement over the prior art. Considered individually or taken together as an ordered combination, the claim elements fail []to []make[] the claimed abstract idea into a patent eligible application. (Answer 7-8.) The Examiner does not, however, sufficiently address the claimed configuration of the sequencer with the first and second order book processors, i.e., the ordered combination of claim elements recited in claim 11. In view of the above, we find that the Examiner has not provided sufficient reasoning for us to fully evaluate the Examiner's position in view of Appellant's argument. Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claim 11 under Â§ 101. Claim 1 contains similar language and for similar reasons we reverse the rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 16, and 18 underÂ§ 101. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 16, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 is reversed. REVERSED 8