Ex Parte Rucker

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2018

11589661 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/589,661 10/30/2006
7590 10/31/2018
Paul D. Greeley, Esq.
Ohlandt, Greeley, Ruggiero & Perle, L.L.P.
10th Floor
One Landmark Square
Stamford, CT 06901-2682
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Daniel Vincent Rucker
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.
384.8315USU 5276
EXAMINER
LIU,IJUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL VINCENT RUCKER
Appeal 201 7-006951 1
Application 11/589,661 2
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
JAMES A. WORTH, Administrative Patent Judges.
WORTH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 17-22, which constitute all the
claims pending in this application. 3
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6(b).
1 Our Decision refers to the Appellant's Appeal Brief (filed Oct. 19, 2016,
"Appeal Br.") and Reply Brief (filed Mar. 31, 2017), and the Examiner's
Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 8, 2016, "Final Act.") and Answer (mailed
Jan. 31, 2017, "Ans.").
2 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Dun and Bradstreet,
Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
3 This is the second time this application has come before the Board.
Previously, we reversed rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal No.
2012-008313 (PTAB Mar. 25, 2015).
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
Appellant's application relates to a system "for providing a fraud risk
score to a user by matching applicant identification data to a historical
search database" (Spec. 1, 11. 14-16). Spec. ,r 2; Fig. 1.
17. A system comprising:
an interface for receiving applicant identification data;
a first database comprising records of searches of one or
more business information databases for credit histories of
business entities;
an evaluator that:
(a) receives the applicant identification data from
the interface;
(b) matches the applicant identification data to the
records in the first database, thus yielding a plurality
of matched records;
( c) determines, from the plurality of matched
records, a total number of searches for credit
histories about the applicant that have been
conducted during a fixed period of time;
( d) determines a risk of fraud based on the number
of searches; and
( e) produces a score that indicates the risk of fraud;
and an output for providing the score to a user via a
report or display.
Appeal Br., Claims App.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner maintains, and Appellant appeals, the following
rejection:
Claims 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to an
abstract idea.
2
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
ANALYSIS
Claims 17-22
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to "determining
a score that indicate the risk of fraud by receiv[ing] data, match[ing] data
and determining a total number of searches for credit histories about the
applicant [which] is an idea of itself as concepts that were identified as
abstract ideas by the Supreme Court, such as collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis." See Ans. 2-3 (citing Electric Power Group[, LLC v. Alstrom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]); see also Final Act. 2-3. The
Examiner states that "in other words, the appellant is claiming creating a
credit score," which is generic, conventional, and long prevalent, as
businesses use credit scores daily to protect themselves from potential
business loss and fraudulent transactions. Ans. 4--5. The Examiner also
determines that this is a fundamental economic practice and a fundamental
method of organizing human activities. Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 8.
The Examiner also determines that the claims use generic computer
technology, that the recited interface and database are no more than generic
computer components, and do not include an improvement to another
technological field nor in a computer itself. Final Act. 3; Ans. 6, 8-9 ( citing
Spec. ,r 30). The Examiner also determines that the claims merely include
such additional elements as a system for use in performing the abstract idea,
matching the applicant identification data to the records in a first database
yielding a plurality of matched records, comparing new and stored
information, and using rules to identify information. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner determines that such claim elements amount to mental processes
3
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and
paper. Id. The Examiner determines that the combination of elements is no
more than the sum of their parts and provides nothing more than mere
automation of producing a score that indicates risk of fraud that were in
years past performed mentally by business representative or credit analyzers
when reviewing an applicant's application. See Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that claim 1 7 is not attempting to capture the general
concept of indicating a risk of fraud, but is instead reciting a specific
technique for doing so. Appeal Br. 12 (citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We are
unpersuaded. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention
is a general concept of determining a credit score based on a total number of
searches for credit histories, which is generic and conventional in the finance
industry to protect against potential business loss. See Ans. 6. In McRO, the
claimed invention "use[ d] a combined order of specific rules that renders
information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create
desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters." McRO,
Inc., 837 F.3d at 1315. However, Appellant has not identified any
innovations in rules, individually or as an ordered combination. The
Specification relies on high risk identifiers to flag high risk individuals, e.g.,
based on dwelling type ( apartment or building), whether the address is
legitimate, whether the location is associated with higher rates of fraud, and
search matches. See Spec. 7 :2 7-8: 13. To the extent the claimed invention is
relying on an algorithm for combining risk scores ( which is not explicitly
disclosed), such an algorithm would be in the nature of a calculation which
would itself be abstract. See Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health
4
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
Diagnostics LLC, 859 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding that use of
statistical models did not transform an invention into patent-eligible subject
matter); Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada (US.),
687 F.3d 1266, 1277-78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (performance of computations on a
computer was abstract).
Appellant argues that the following limitations are not performing
generic functions, and are not well-understood routine, and conventional:
"( c) determines, from the plurality of matched records, a total number of
searches for credit histories about the applicant that have been conducted
during a fixed period of time;" and "( d) determines a risk of fraud based on
the number of searches." Appeal Br. 14--15. In particular, Appellant argues
that the following elements go beyond limiting the abstract idea to a
computer environment: "records of searches"; "total number of searches";
"during a fixed period of time." Appeal Br. 14--15. We are
unpersuaded. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention
is relying on the search of historical databases (i.e., credit histories), which
are conventionally used to determine credit risk. See Ans. 9 ( citing Spec.
,r 30). Indeed, the Specification provides that the fraud risk score "is
calculated and based on several sources of predictive data, including
historical search data that match to the customer's input data" and "is
designed to identify a small percentage of new business applicants that have
characteristics and behaviors which are similar to previously identified
business frauds." Spec. 4: 19-24. In other words, the Specification makes
use of conventional records and searches.
To the extent that the claimed invention is relying on a history of a
high number of previous searches over a short time period to flag risk, the
5
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
Specification identifies this as a high risk pattern that is conventional. See
Spec. 6:25-30; see also id. at 7:7-10 ("This is an example of how a high risk
pattern can be detected, it represents the type of behavior the fraudsters may
exhibit in the marketplace as they attempt to perpetrate fraud against
multiple companies."). Further, using this type of pattern to identify fraud is
itself an abstract idea which is a manner of organizing human activity and a
fundamental economic principle.
Appellant asserts that claims in Electric Power Group state those
functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for
performing. Reply Br. 3 (Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstrom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellant asserts that claim 17 of the present
application is similar to those of DDR Holdings because "the claimed
solution, and in particular the performance of steps (b) - ( d), is necessarily
rooted in computer technology in order to take advantage of an opportunity
specifically arising in the realm of a computer system, (i.e., an opportunity
to determine the number of searches of a database, and thereafter use that
information for another purpose)." Reply Br. 4 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC
v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). Appellant is referring to the
limitations of matching records, determining a total number of searches, and
determining a risk of fraud in steps (b }-( d). However, Appellant has not
invented any improved technology for fraud identification. See Spec.
10: 17-24 ("The fraud risk system is preferably a computer system, including
components such as one or more computing workstations, containing a
memory and a processor for collecting and analyzing data according to the
above method."). Rather, to the extent that a computer is used to implement
the claimed scoring methodology, we agree with the Examiner that the
6
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
claimed invention is relying on generic computer functions of data collection
and analysis as in Electric Power Group. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC, 830
F.3d at 1354.
Appellant argues that there are other techniques for indicating a risk of
fraud, e.g., techniques that do not determine a risk of fraud based on a total
number of searches for credit histories, and argue that the Appellant is not
tying up the idea of indicating the risk for fraud. Appeal Br. 12-
13. However, a showing of pre-emption is not required for a determination
that an idea is directed to non-patentable subject matter. Ariosa Diagnostics,
Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("Where a
patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter
under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case, preemption concerns are
fully addressed and made moot."). In this case, it is not relevant that there
may be other methodologies for detecting fraud because we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant is relying on an abstract methodology based on
conventional databases and statistical calculations which are themselves
abstract.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 17 under § 101. Appellant does not argue the patentability of
dependent claims 18-22 separately from independent claim 17, and we
sustain the rejection of the dependent claims for similar reasons as
independent claim 1 7.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. §
101 is affirmed.
7
Appeal2017-006951
Application 11/589,661
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8