Ex Parte Wolf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

13284750 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/284,750 10/28/2011
20575 7590 03/30/2018
MARGER JOHNSON
888 SW 5th A venue, Suite 1050
PORTLAND, OR 97204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Warren L. Wolf
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.
3480-0011 7901
EXAMINER
WU, FUMING
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
docketing@margerjohnson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WARREN L. WOLF and MANU REHANI
Appeal2016-002393
Application 13/284,750
Technology Center 2100
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, AARON W. MOORE, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-002393
Application 13/284,750
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to a "relationship analysis engine."
(Abstract.) Claim 1, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A relationship analysis engine, comprising:
a controller;
a data miner coupled to the controller and configured to mine
relationship information on a network;
a plurality of sender nodes determined by the data miner, each
sender node representing a sender of a message;
a plurality of recipient nodes determined by the data miner,
each recipient node representing a receiver of a message; and
an actionable analytics section coupled to the controller and
configured to analyze messages that are transmitted between the
sender nodes and the recipient nodes,
wherein the actionable analytics section is configured to
produce historical analytics, real-time analytics, and predictive
analytics associated with at least one relationship based on the
analyzed transmitted messages and the mined relationship
information.
1 Appellants identify DW Associates, LLC as the real party in interest. (See
App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal2016-002393
Application 13/284,750
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bradshaw et al.
Shirai
Hunt et al.
Hildreth et al.
us 5,835,722
US 2006/0271872 Al
US 2008/0288889 Al
WO 2008/148819 A2
THE REJECTIONS
Nov. 10, 1998
Nov. 30, 2006
Nov. 20, 2008
Dec. 11, 2008
1. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 "because the
claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter." (Final Act. 2.)
2. Claims 1, 2, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Hildreth. (See Final Act. 3-7; Ans. 5-10.)
3. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hildreth and Shirai. (See Final Act. 8.)
4. Claims 4--11 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hildreth, Shirai, and Hunt. (See Final Act. 8-10.)
5. Claims 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hildreth and Bradshaw. (See Ans. 14--16.)
ANALYSIS
Section 101
The Examiner rejected claim 20 under Section 101 because "the
broadest reasonable interpretation of [the] claim covers a signal per se."
(Final Act. 2.) Appellants argue "claim 20 recites ' [ o ]ne or more tangible
computer-readable media storing non-transitory computer-executable
3
Appeal2016-002393
Application 13/284,750
instructions," and that "[t]he word 'tangible' means 'easily seen or
recognized', or 'able to be touched or felt." (App. Br. 10.) Appellants
additionally argue "[t]he Examiner has ... provided no specific discussion
as to why the use of the 'non-transitory' language does not make claim 20
recite statutory subject matter." (Id.)
We agree with Appellants that the claim recitation "computer-
readable media storing non-transitory computer-executable instructions"
adequately excludes ineligible transitory signals and, therefore, reverse the
Section 101 rejection of claim 20.
Prior Art Rejections
Appellants argue claim 1 "recites that the actionable analytics section
is configured to produce 'predictive analytics,"' but "Hildreth does not do
predictive analytics." (App. Br. 14.) The Examiner responds that Hildreth's
"'identify potential terrorists' is a prediction that [results] from a (predictive)
analytics performed by the Relationship Analysis Engine based on mining of
user communication via the communications network." (Ans. 16, citing
Hildreth, p. 6, 11. 23-36.) Appellants reply that "'[i]dentify[ing] potential
terrorists', from its plain language, means identifying someone who is
suspected of being a terrorist," and that "[t]his is not a prediction," but,
instead, "is, at best, identifying someone who is believed to be a terrorist, but
who has not yet been detected committing a terrorist act." (Reply. Br. 32.)
Claim 1 recites that the actionable analytics section is "configured to
produce historical analytics, real-time analytics, and predictive analytics
associated with at least one relationship based on the analyzed transmitted
messages and the mined relationship information." Taking a broad, but
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification and Appellants'
4
Appeal2016-002393
Application 13/284,750
arguments, we interpret "predictive analytics" to mean analytics intended to
predict or determine possible future events. This comports with the common
meaning of "predictive"2 and is also consistent with the claim itself, which
distinguishes "predictive analytics" from "real-time analytics."
In view of that interpretation, we agree with Appellants that Hildreth
does not teach or suggest using the Relationship Analysis Engine to perform
"predictive analytics" because, as Appellants argue, the identification of
"potential terrorists" in Hildreth "is not predicting which persons will or
might become terrorists." (App. Br. 15.) Instead, it is an effort to determine
who presently is a terrorist, which would fall into the category of "real-time
analytics," not "predictive analytics."
Because we agree with Appellants that Hildreth does not teach or
suggest "predictive analytics," we reverse the Section 102 rejection of claim
1, as well as the Section 102 rejection of claims 2, 12-14, 17, 18, and 20, all
of which include the same limitation. For the same reason, we reverse the
Section 103 rejections of claims 3-11, 15, 16, 19, as the other references do
not cure the deficiency. Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach
Appellants' other arguments.
2 For example, Merriam-Webster defines "predictive" as "being a sign of a
later course of events." See https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/
predictive (last visited March 28, 2018).
5
Appeal2016-002393
Application 13/284,750
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-20 are reversed.
REVERSED
6