Wei Huang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 23, 2019

14237192 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2019)

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.
14/237,192 02/05/2014 Wei Huang 83789823 8509
146568 7590 09/23/2019
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
SANTOS, PEDRO J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2167
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/23/2019 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte WEI HUANG and YIZHENG ZHOU1
________________

Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–23. App. Br. 6. These claims
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Final Act. 2–4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant describes the present invention as follows: “A data storage
system includes a partitioning module to partition data across multiple
dimensions simultaneously. The partitioning may be based on a sizing

1 Appellant identifies Ent IT Software LLC as the real party in interest.
Appeal Brief filed December 11, 2017 (“App. Br.”) at 1.
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
2
parameter for each dimension. The partitioning module stores a cluster
including the partitioned event data and metadata including attributes
identifying the cluster.” Spec., Abstract.
Independent claim 1 illustrates the subject matter of the appealed
claims.2 It is reproduced below with and modified formatting for clarity and
with emphasis added to the language that recites an abstract idea:
1. A system comprising:
[i] at least one processor;
[ii] a non-transitory storage medium storing partitioning
instructions executable on the at least one processor to:
[a] receive, from network sources, event data records
representing respective events of a plurality of events, the
plurality of events comprising network events, and each
event data record having a plurality of time dimensions
that include:
a first time dimension indicating when the
respective event is received by a storage system,
and
a second time dimension indicating when the
respective event was detected at a source device
separate from the storage system;
[b] obtain, for each respective time dimension of the
plurality of time dimensions, a sizing parameter that
defines a time range for the respective time dimension;
[c] determine a cluster by performing multi-
dimensional partitioning of the event data records across
the plurality of time dimensions simultaneously based on

2 Appellant argues claims 1–3, 5–10, 15, 16, 18–23 together as a group. See
App. Br. 6. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative of
these claims. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claims 11–14 are addressed
separately.

Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
3
the sizing parameter of each respective time dimension of
the plurality of time dimensions; and
[d] store the cluster including a portion of the
partitioned event data records, and metadata identifying
the cluster from a plurality of clusters,
[iii] wherein the non-transitory storage medium further stores
event processing instructions executable on the at least one
processor to:
[a] identify a network issue using data retrieved from a
selected cluster of the plurality of clusters; and
[b] generate a response to the identified network issue.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. SECTION 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and
Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims
before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use
of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
4
U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citing Benson and
Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.”).
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
5
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look
to whether the claim recites the following:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
6
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 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.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.

ANALYSIS
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). Id. at 52–55.
Limitation [ii.b] of claim 1 recites “obtain, for each respective time
dimension of the plurality of time dimensions, a sizing parameter that
defines a time range for the respective time dimension.” This step
reasonably can be characterized as a mental evaluation, judgment, or opinion
that can be performed in the human mind. The 2019 Guidance expressly
recognizes such mental processes as constituting patent-ineligible abstract
ideas. Id. at 52. As such, limitation step [2.b] reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Limitation [ii.c] recites “determine a cluster by performing multi-
dimensional partitioning of the event data records across the plurality of time
dimensions simultaneously based on the sizing parameter of each respective
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
7
time dimension of the plurality of time dimensions.” Such a step of
partitioning records based upon sizing parameters also reasonably can be
characterized as a mental process—a mental observation, evaluation,
judgment, or opinion. As such, limitation [ii.c] also reasonably can be
characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
Limitation [iii.a] recites the step of “identify[ing] a network issue
using data retrieved from a selected cluster of the plurality of clusters.”
Analyzing data to identify a network also can be characterized reasonably as
a mental process—a mental observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, or
combination thereof. Like limitations [ii.b] and [ii.c], then, limitation [iii.a]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
For these reasons, each of limitations [ii.b], [ii.c], and [iii.a]
reasonably can be characterized as reciting patent-ineligible subject matter.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55.
Limitation [ii.a] recites
receive, from network sources, event data records
representing respective events of a plurality of events, the
plurality of events comprising network events, and each
event data record having a plurality of time dimensions
that include:
a first time dimension indicating when the
respective event is received by a storage system,
and
a second time dimension indicating when the
respective event was detected at a source device
separate from the storage system.
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
8
Receiving event data records reasonably can be characterized as
merely constituting insignificant pre-solution activity:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for
use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a
claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also In re Meyers, 688 F.2d 789, 794
(CCPA 1982), cited in MPEP § 2106.05(g) (another example of insignificant
pre-solution activity includes testing a system for a response, the response
being used to determine system malfunction).
Limitation [iii.b] reads as follows:
[iii] wherein the non-transitory storage medium further stores
event processing instructions executable on the at least one
processor to:
[b] generate a response to the identified network issue.
Appellant’s Specification indicates that the generated response can be
“an alert to a system administrator” or “display[ed] reports or
notification 220 about events.” Spec. ¶¶ 24, 25. As such, step [iii.b] does
not add any meaningful limitations to the abstract ideas because it
reasonably may be characterized as merely being directed to the
insignificant post-solution activity of displaying reports or notifications.
See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241–42 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that printing or downloading generated menus
constituted insignificant extra-solution activity).
Limitation [ii.d] recites “stor[ing] the cluster including a portion of the
partitioned event data records, and metadata identifying the cluster from a
plurality of clusters.” It was well understood by those of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
9
computer arts that received computer data typically must be stored—either
in long-term storage or in a short-term cache or buffer—so that the data can
be processed as intended. By determining that gathering, transmitting, and
displaying data constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity, then, the
courts implicitly have determined that storing data, without more, also
constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. As such, limitation [ii.d]
reasonably can be characterized as merely being directed to the insignificant
extra-solution activity of storing data.
Appellant argues that, when all of the limitations of claim 1 are
viewed as an ordered combination, claim 1 is directed to improving
computer functionality. App. Br. 7–10. More specifically, Appellant argues
that claim 1 recites both partitioning instructions and event processing
instructions. Id at 8.
As explained in the preceding section of the Analysis, however,
performing the steps of partitioning and event processing both recite abstract
ideas. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of
the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive
concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible
concept”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea”);
SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application
realm”).
Furthermore, even if the argued steps did not recite abstract ideas,
Appellant’s arguments still would be unavailing. Appellant’s arguments
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
10
merely entail restating the claim language. App. Br. 7–10. In so doing,
Appellant explains the functionality that the computer system is
programmed to possess or the tasks that the system carries out. But
Appellant does not set forth convincing arguments, much less adequate
supporting evidence, for why prior-art data partitioning possessed any
particular technical limitations or why Appellant’s partitioning steps
provides a technical improvement to the data-partitioning art. Id.
For example, Appellant presents as an argument for improved
functionality, the following restatement of the claim language:
Claim 1 recites both partitioning instructions and event
processing instructions executable on at least one processor. The
partitioning instructions are executable to receive, from network
sources, event data records representing respective events of the
plurality of events that comprise network events; to obtain, for
each respective time dimension, a sizing parameter that defines
a time range for the respective time dimension; to determine a
cluster by performing multidimensional partitioning of the event
data records across the plurality of time dimensions
simultaneously based on the sizing parameter of each respective
time dimension; and to store the cluster including a portion of the
partitioned event data records, and metadata identifying the
cluster from a plurality of clusters. The event processing
instructions are executable to identify a network issue using data
retrieved from a selected cluster of the plurality of clusters, and
generate a response to the identified network issue.
When the ordered combination of all the elements of
claim 1 are properly considered, Appellant respectfully submits
that claim 1 is directed to improving computer functionality,
namely a system that includes a network, where the improvement
in computer functionality is achieved by identifying a network
issue using data retrieved from a selected cluster of the plurality
of clusters, and generating a response to the identified network
issue.
Id. at 8.
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
11
As another example, Appellant argues the following:
In addition, claim 1 further recites event processing instructions
executable on the at least one processor to “identify a network
issue using data retrieved from a selected cluster of the plurality
of clusters,” and “generate a response to the identified network
issue.” Claim 1 thus further improves the computer functionality
of a network, by identifying a network issue and generating a
response to the identified network issue.
Id. at 11.
For these reasons, Appellants do not persuade us that claim 1 is
directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, data-
partitioning technology, or to any other technology or technical field. MPEP
§ 2106.05(a). Nor has Appellant demonstrated that claim 1 directed to a
particular machine or transformation. MPEP § 2106.05(b), (c). Nor has
Appellant demonstrated that claim 1 adds any other meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(e). Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that
claim 1 integrates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application
within the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55.
Step 2B
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 2 adds any specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. 56;
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Claim 1 recites additional elements, beyond the abstract ideas,
including “at least one processor,” “a non-transitory storage medium storing
partitioning instructions.” Appellant does not provide sufficient evidence
that the programmed processor is anything other than a conventional
processor. To the contrary, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
12
processor may be a generic device that performs well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities:
Figure 5 shows a computer system 500 that may be used
with the embodiments described herein including the data
storage system 100. The computer system 500 represents a
generic platform that includes components that may be in a
server or another computer system. The computer system 500
may be used as a platform for the data storage system 100. The
computer system 500 may execute, by a processor or other
hardware processing circuit, the methods, functions and other
processes described herein. These methods, functions and other
processes may be embodied as machine readable instructions
stored on computer readable medium, which may be non-
transitory, such as hardware storage devices (e.g., RAM
(random access memory), ROM (read only memory), EPROM
(erasable, programmable ROM), EEPROM (electrically
erasable, programmable ROM), hard drives, and flash memory).
Spec. ¶ 41 (emphasis added).
For these reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not recite additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within
the meaning of the 2019 Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. 52–55; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We,
likewise, sustain the 101 rejection of claims 2, 3, 5–10, 15, 16, and 18–23,
which Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 6. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 11–14
The limitations of claim 11 are substantially similar to those of
claim 1. Appellant argues claim 11 separately from claim 1 only based on
the fact that claim 11 additionally recites “event processing instructions
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
13
executable on the at least one processor to correlate query results from the
executed query in accordance with rules, instructions, or requests to identify
network security threats.” App. Br. 16.
Specifically, Appellant argues with respect to claim 11,
Using the inventive system to identify network security
threats allows for such network security threats to be addressed,
which improves computer functionality, namely functionality of
a system that includes a network. Claim 11 also recites a claimed
solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology in
order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer networks and involves a software-based invention that
improves the performance of a computer system by claiming a
technology-based solution.
Id. at 16–17.
These arguments are unpersuasive. The step of correlating query
results from the executed query in accordance with rules, instructions, or
requests reasonably can be characterized as an evaluation that can be
performed in the human mind. The step additionally can be characterized
reasonably as a method of organizing human activity—specifically,
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people
(including following rules or instructions). The 2019 Guidance expressly
recognizes this sort of mental process, as well as this sort of method of
organizing human activity, as constituting a patent-ineligible abstract idea.
For these reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in relation to
independent claim 1, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We,
likewise, sustain the 101 rejection of claims 12–14, which Appellant does
not argue separately. App. Br. 16–17. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2018-006586
Application 14/237,192
14
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5–16, and 18–23 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED