Ex Parte Patil et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 13, 201411618465 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 13, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DHANURJAY PATIL, MATTHEW MENGERINK, TIMOTHY M. MURPHY, and PALASH NANDY ____________________ Appeal 2012-000209 Application 11/618,465 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before: HUBERT C. LORIN, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and MICHAEL W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges. KIM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-000209 Application 11/618,465 2 STATEMENT OF CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-191. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). SUMMARY OF THE DECISION We AFFIRM. BACKGROUND Appellants’ invention is directed to use of data mining to track network behavior (Spec., para. [0001]). Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A system comprising: a receiver residing on a server to receive data from at least one node of a merchant network, the received data used to identify a connection between a first actor and a first fraudster, to determine whether the first actor is a second fraudster, the data indicative of activities related to the connection of the first actor to the first fraudster, the data comprising a normal actor score or a list of attributes of the first actor; a calculator residing on the server to calculate a score based upon the data, the score indicative of the connection between the first actor and the first fraudster; a mapper residing on the server to map the score to an assessment score; and an alerter residing on the server to send an alert to a computer system when a threshold value is exceeded by the mapping of the score to the assessment score to indicate that the first actor is the second fraudster. 1 Our Decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed July 8, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sep. 19, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Aug. 31, 2011). Appeal 2012-000209 Application 11/618,465 3 Appellants appeal the following rejections: Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adjaoute (US 2002/0133721 A1, pub. Sep. 19, 2002), Kuchar (US 2006/0287910 A1, pub. Dec. 21, 2006), and Official Notice. Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adjaoute, Kuchar, Official Notice, and Curtis (US 6,208,720 B1, iss. Mar. 27, 2001). Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Adjaoute, Kuchar, Official Notice, and Dom (US 2004/0122803 A1, pub. Jun. 24, 2004). ANALYSIS Claims 1-4, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, and 17 Independent claim 1 recites a system with four structural components of a receiver, a calculator, a mapper, and an alerter, all residing on a server.2 Each of these components is recited as performing a function. The calculator is “to calculate a score based upon the data, the score indicative of the connection between the first actor and the first fraudster.” The receiver is “to receive data from at least one node of a merchant network.” As functional language, we are required to give this language weight to the extent that the prior art is or is not capable of meeting the limitation. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78 (Fed. Cir. 1997). 2 Appellants do not set forth additional arguments for independent claims 10 or 19. We select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Appeal 2012-000209 Application 11/618,465 4 The intended use of the received data is “to identify a connection between a first actor and a first fraudster, [in order] to determine whether the first actor is a second fraudster.” The use of the received data is further recited to be limited to “data indicative of activities related to the connection of the first actor to the first fraudster, the data comprising a normal actor score or a list of attributes of the first actor.” As intended use, we do not give patentable weight to this claim language. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure, e.g., the receiver, is capable of performing the recited functional language (“to receive data from at least one node”), which in this case, is also tied to an intended use, then it meets the claim. In other words, the fact that the ultimate purpose of the claim is to detect fraud does not otherwise alter the operation of the recited receiver, calculator, mapper, and alerter. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “[b]ecause the scenarios of Kuchar include known connections between entities, Kuchar has no reason to ‘identify a connection between a first actor and a first fraudster [in order] to determine whether the first actor is a second fraudster.’” (App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 1-2). Appellants argue a portion of the claim language which is not given weight because it is merely the intended use of the system. Furthermore, we note that “to determine whether the first actor is a second fraudster” is not positively recited; meeting “identify a connection between a first actor and a first fraudster,” without more, also meets “to determine whether the first actor is a second fraudster.” Thus, all that it is necessary to find in the prior art is a App App deter gene fraud deter Kuch fraud were calcu [005 certa claim score func and a first fraud eal 2012-0 lication 11 mination ricized to ster). To mine simi ar, shown Fi If there w ster) was compared lated betw 6]) to infe in attribut ed. Thus based up tion of ide certain in actor has a ster), as c 00209 /618,465 of a conne a first indi that end, K larities bet below, pr gure 3 of K ere nume a known to with the een “Will r the likeli e (fraud) to , Kuchar s on the data ntifying a dividual ( certain at laimed. ction betw vidual (fir uchar dis ween two ovides one uchar sho rous scena have a ce scenario of iam Doe” hood that “ be a cert hows a rec , which ar connection first fraud tribute (fra 5 een two in st actor) an closes a sy individual example ws an exa rios in wh rtain attrib Figure 3, and “Jane Jane Smit ain individ eiver to re e capable between ster) in ord ud) to be dividuals, d a certain stem to co s (para. [0 of such a mple of a ich “Willi ute (fraud a “similar Smith” (K h” (first a ual (secon ceive data of perform a first indi er to deter a certain in which can individu mpare sce 019]). Fig scenario: scenario am Doe” ( ), and the ity score” uchar, par ctor) also h d fraudste and calcu ing the cl vidual (fir mine whe dividual ( be al (first narios to ure 3 of first scenarios could be a. [0055]- as that r), as late a aimed st actor) ther the second Appeal 2012-000209 Application 11/618,465 6 Additionally, even if we were to give the recited “fraud” some weight, the purpose of the system of Adjaoute is to detect fraud (para. [0035]). Accordingly, the certain attribute could be fraud, and a combination of Kuchar and Adjaoute would suggest determining similarities to detect fraud or fraudsters. We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Kuchar’s “comparison vector is indicative of similarities in overall structure of the compared scenarios” but does not provide detail to indicate a connection between two actors. (App. Br. 13-16). As we point out above, Kuchar calculates a similarity score by comparing scenarios, which indicates a connection between a first individual (first actor) and a certain individual (first fraudster) by showing how direct or indirect the connection is, whether it is based on relationships, financial transactions, meetings, or other associations that indicate the type of connection. (Kuchar, para. [0032]). That is, by comparing scenarios, Kuchar is capable of inferring information about connections between two individuals. For example, if one pair of individuals are only connected by a meeting, but another set of individuals are connected by relationships, financial transactions, meetings, and other associations, one can infer information “indicative of the connection” between each set of individuals, where the first set may have little connection and the second set may have significant connections, but both nevertheless meeting the recited limitation, as the limitation at issue does not recite a required degree of connection. For these reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as well as the rejection of dependent claims 2-4, 7, 8, 10-13, 16, 17, and 19, which were not separately argued. Appeal 2012-000209 Application 11/618,465 7 Claims 5, 6, 14, and 15 These claims are argued only by reference to the argument of claim 1 (App. Br. 16-17), and their rejection is affirmed for the reasons set forth above. Claims 9 and 18 These claims are argued only by reference to the argument of claim 1 (App. Br. 17), and their rejection is affirmed for the reasons set forth above. DECISION We affirm the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-19. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED mls Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation