Ex Parte Ploesser et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 21, 201613564119 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/564,119 08/01/2012 32864 7590 07/25/2016 FISH & RICHARDSON, P,C (SAP) PO BOX 1022 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Karsten Ploesser 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. 13909-0277001 6040 EXAMINER CHANNA V AJJALA, SRIRAMA T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2157 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/25/2016 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): P ATDOCTC@fr.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KARSTEN PLOESSER and ALEXANDER DREILING 1 Appeal 2015-003411 Application 13/564, 119 Technology Center 2100 Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Technology The application is related to "computer-implemented methods for automatically checking and acting on one or more claims," such as factual claims or assertions made in an insurance claim. Spec. iii! 2, 1. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is SAP SE. App. Br. 4. 1 Appeal 2015-003411 Application 13/564,119 Representative Claim Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below with the key limitation emphasized: 1. A computer-implemented method for automatically checking and acting on one or more factual claims, the method being executed using one or more processors and comprising: receiving, by the one or more processors, a factual claim comprising claim information and a date corresponding to an occurrence of the factual claim; and in response to receiving the factual claim, automatically performing real-time operations comprising: processing, by the one or more processors, the claim information based on a domain vocabulary to identify at least one of one or more keywords and one or more categories, identifying one or more facts relevant to the factual claim by querying one or more context sources based on the date, determining an accuracy of the factual claim based on the one or more facts, generating, by the one or more processors, a confidence score reflecting an overall confidence in one or more factual claims based on respective accuracies, and transmitting, by the one or more processors, the factual claim and the confidence score for display in a graphical user interface (GUI). Rejection Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Aquila et al. (US 2002/0035488 Al; Mar. 21, 2002) and Leszuk et al. (US 2007/0282639 Al; Dec. 6, 2007). Final Act. 7. 2 Appeal 2015-003411 Application 13/564,119 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding Aquila teaches or suggests "generating ... a confidence score reflecting an overall confidence in one or more factual claims based on respective accuracies," as recited in claims 1, 17, and 18? ANALYSIS Claims 1-20 The claims relate to automatically checking factual claims, such as factual assertions made for an insurance claim. Spec. iii! 1-2. For example, Figure 3 of the present application shows three factual claims (labeled 304), such as factual claim 2 asserting there was a "hailstorm on 12/12/12 in Brunswick, GA." Id. ii 65. The system determines two of the three factual claims (specifically, factual claims 1 and 3) are true, yet determines factual claim 2 is false because there were no storms on 12/12/12 in Brunswick, GA. Id. iii! 65---66. Figure 3 also depicts a "confidence score" (labeled 318), which "can be calculated based on [the] number of [factual] claim[ s] determined to be accurate." Id. ii 69. For example, in Figure 3, "the confidence score of 66% can reflect the fact that two-thirds of the currently provided [factual] claims have been determined to be accurate." Id. All three independent claims (1, 17, and 18) require "generating[, by the one or more processors,] a confidence score reflecting an overall confidence in one or more factual claims based on respective accuracies" (emphasis added). Aquila teaches a system for "administering, tracking and managing insurance claim processing." Aquila ii 3. Aquila's system "scores" each insurance claim based on the insurance carrier's business 3 Appeal 2015-003411 Application 13/564,119 rules. Id. if 173. The Examiner finds Aquila's scoring of claim data satisfies the claimed "generating ... a confidence score" step. Ans. 7. We are not persuaded. We agree with Appellants that Aquila's score is not related to "an overall confidence in one or more factual claims based on respective accuracies." App. Br. 15-16. Instead, Aquila teaches the score of an insurance claim reflects the complexity of the claim, not accuracy. Aquila iii! 173-210. "The summed score is used to determine ... the severity and priority of the claim". Id. if 210. "For example, a claim that receives a high summed score likely represents a complex, high damage and high cost claim." Id. The summed score is then used to decide who will be assigned that claim, such as sending claims with low scores to "a fairly new adjuster" while reserving claims with high scores for "seasoned specialists." Id. Aquila further teaches that its score is determined by complexity factors such as the "[a ]mount of damages," "[ n ]umber of vehicles involved," and "[i]njuries involved," none of which relate to accuracy. Id. iii! 173-210. Thus, the Examiner has not persuasively shown any score in Aquila reflects overall confidence or accuracy. Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 17, and 18. Dependent claims 2-16, 19, and 20 stand with their respective independent claims. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. 4 Appeal 2015-003411 Application 13/564,119 DECISION For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-2 0. The Examiner is further encouraged to consider in the first instance whether this case has any relevance to Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), which issued after the Examiner's Final Action. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation