Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 7, 2021

2020003996 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 7, 2021)

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.
14/183,298 02/18/2014 Hoda M.A. Eldardiry PARC-20130131US01 3184
35699 7590 01/07/2021
PVF -- PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
SADANANDA, ABHIJIT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/07/2021 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):
jenny@parklegal.com
sy_incoming@parklegal.com
tia@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte
HODA M.A. ELDARDIRY, EVGENIY BART,
JUAN J. LIU, ROBERT R. PRICE,
JOHN HANLEY and OLIVER BRDICZKA
___________

Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., ADAM J. PYONIN and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

1 Rather than reiterate Appellant’s arguments and the Examiner’s
determinations, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed January 6, 2020), the
Reply Brief (filed May 5, 2020), the Final Action (mailed August 5, 2019)
and the Answer (mailed March 5, 2020), for the respective details.

Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
2

Appellant2 is appealing the final rejection of claims 1–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Appeal Brief 11. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are
independent. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter “is related to a
system that detects malicious insiders by modeling behavior changes and
consistencies.” Specification ¶ 2.
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (bracketed step lettering
added):
Representative Claim3
1. A computer-executable method for identifying
anomalies, the method comprising:
[a] recording, by a server computer, work practice data
associated with a plurality of users of a plurality of computing
devices over a predetermined time period;
[b] categorizing the recorded work practice data into a
plurality of user-activity domains based on types of actions
performed by the users on the computing devices, wherein a
respective user-activity domain corresponds to a respective type
of actions performed by the users on the computing devices;
[c] establishing a single-domain model for the
predetermined time period by modeling user behaviors within a
single user-activity domain based on categorized work practice
data associated with the single user-activity domain;
[d] performing a per-domain clustering analysis to obtain
a first cluster index of a respective user within a first user-

2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Palo Alto Research Center Incorporated as
the real party in interest. Appeal Brief 1.
3 Appellant does not separately argue the claims. See, exempli gratia,
Appeal Brief 12 (referring to claim 1). Accordingly, we select independent
claim 1 as the representative claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
3

activity domain, a second cluster index of the respective user
within a second user-activity domain, and a third cluster index
of the respective user within a third user activity domain;
[e] performing cross-domain modeling, which comprises:
[e1] constructing cluster vectors for the plurality of
users, wherein a respective cluster vector for the
respective user comprises at least the first and second
cluster indices;
[e2] performing a cross-domain clustering analysis
on constructed cluster vectors based on first and second
cluster indices of the plurality of users;
[e3] predicting, based on the cross-domain
clustering analysis, a cluster index of the respective user
in the third user-activity domain;
[e4] comparing the third cluster index of the
respective user obtained from the per-domain clustering
analysis to the predicted cluster index of the respective
user in the third user-activity domain obtained from the
cross-domain clustering analysis; and
[e5] increasing a domain-specific anomaly score of
the respective user in the third user-activity domain in
response to the third cluster index mismatching the
predicted cluster index;
[f] computing a final anomaly score associated with the
respective user based on both the cross-domain modeling and
the per-domain clustering analysis for the plurality of user-
activity domains; and
[g] outputting a list of anomalous users based on the
computed final anomaly score for each user.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter without significantly
more. Final Action 7–11.

Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
4

USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).4 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.”
2019 Revised Guidance at 51; see also October 2019 Update (“October 2019
Update”) at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, June 2020)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5
2019 Revised Guidance at 52–55.

4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
5 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance at 54–55.
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
5

Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(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 Revised Guidance at 52–56.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines claims 1–21 are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101. See Final Action 7–11; see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (describing the two–step framework “for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts”).
We are not persuaded the Examiner’s rejection is in error. Unless
otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions as
our own. We add the following primarily for emphasis and clarification
with respect to the 2019 Revised Guidance.

Step 2A—Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance
Prong One
The Examiner determines that claim 1’s limitations [a]–[g] recite a
method of identifying anomalies using categorized user data and models of
user behavior. The limitations describe steps of observation, evaluation,
and/or judgment, and amount to a mental process. The Examiner also
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
6

determines the claim further limits the mental process to include a particular
mathematical algorithm for evaluating data. Final Action 7–8; see 2019
Revised Guidance at 51.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method for
identifying anomalies. Claim 1 recites recording and categorizing user work
practice data associated with computing devices in limitations [a] and [b].
Claim 1 also recites modeling user behaviors based upon the categorized
work practice data in limitation [c]. Claim 1 further recites performing per-
domain clustering analysis to obtain multiple cluster indexes of a respective
user in limitation [d]. Claim 1 recites performing cross domain modeling
comprising constructing cluster vectors for the plurality of users; performing
a cross-domain clustering analysis on the vectors; predicting a cluster index
of the respective user based on the cross-domain clustering analysis;
comparing the obtained cluster index with predicted cluster index of the
user, and increasing a user domain-specific anomaly score in response to
cluster index mismatching the predicted cluster index in limitations [e]–[e5].
Claim 1 also recites computing a final anomaly score for the user based on
both the cross-domain modeling and the per-domain clustering analysis and
outputting a list based upon the computed final anomaly for each user in
limitations [f] and [g].
These steps comprise “concepts performed in the human mind[6]

6 “If a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers
performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer
components, then it is still in the mental processes category unless the claim
cannot practically be performed in the mind.” 2019 Revised Guidance at 52
n.14.
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
7

(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”; thus, the claim
recites the abstract idea of “mental processes,” as well as, mathematical
relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations, and, thus, the claim recites the judicial exceptions of “concepts
performed in the human mind” and “[m]athematical concepts.” See 2019
Revised Guidance at 51; see Final Action 7, 8; Figure 5, ¶¶ 38, 42, 47, 54
and 55.
Our reviewing court has found claims to recite abstract ideas when
they recited similar subject matter. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the
exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-
implemented method for “anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea
because it could be “performed by humans without a computer”); Versata
Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“Courts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still
found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via
pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the
incidental use of “computer” or “computer readable medium” does not make
a claim otherwise directed to process that “can be performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” patent eligible); id. at 1376
(distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d
859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that “could not, as a practical
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
8

matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind”).
Furthermore, our reviewing court has found claims to recite judicial
exceptions when they recited similar subject matter in regard to
mathematical concepts. See Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
(“The concept of hedging . . . reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an
unpatentable abstract idea.”); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)
(“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our
patent laws.”) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972)); Parker v.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical
formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive
concept in its application.”); Benson, 409 U.S. at 71–72 (concluding that
permitting a patent on the claimed invention “would wholly pre-empt the
mathematical formula and in practical effect would be a patent on the
algorithm itself”); Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S.
86, 94 (1939) (“[A] scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is
not patentable invention.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical
calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas);
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to “a process of organizing information
through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable
value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and
manipulating the results” as an abstract idea).
Therefore, we conclude the claims recite a judicial exception pursuant
to Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
9

Prong Two
Under Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Guidance, we must determine
“whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application of the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance at 54–
55. We note that a “claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical
application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
2019 Revised Guidance at 54–55.
Appellant contends “that the instant application is directed to the
improvement of the technical field of identifying anomalous users (e.g.,
disgruntled employees) in a large organization based on work practice data,
which can include users’ various work-related activities on their company-
issued or personal computers.” Appeal Brief 15 (citing October 2019
Update). Appellant further contends:
[T]he claims (e.g., claim 1) include the components or steps of
the invention that provide the improvement described in the
specification. Those components or steps include: constructing
cluster vectors for the plurality of users; performing a cross-
domain clustering analysis on constructed cluster vectors based
on first and second cluster indices of the plurality of users;
predicting based on the cross-domain clustering analysis, a
cluster index of the respective user in the third user-activity
domain; comparing the third cluster index of the respective user
obtained from the per-domain clustering analysis to the predicted
cluster index of the respective user in the third user-activity
domain obtained from the cross-domain clustering analysis; and
increasing a domain-specific anomaly score of the respective
user in the third user-activity domain in response to the third
cluster index mismatching the predicted cluster index.
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
10

Appeal Brief 17.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive because identifying
anomalous users such as disgruntled employees is not a technical field, and
any alleged improvement to the efficiency, speed, and accuracy of
identifying anomalous users arises out of the conventional advantages of
using the claimed computing device as a tool, and not a particular
improvement to the computing device itself. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency
of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract
idea.”); see 2019 Revised Guidance; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“This invention makes the
trader faster and more efficient, not the computer. This is not a technical
solution to a technical problem.”); see also Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (distinguishing between “claims
are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being
directed to an abstract idea” or whether “the focus of the claims is on the
specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a
process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool.”); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the
process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing]
a principle in some specific fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the
patentable subject matter of § 101.’” (alterations in original) (quoting Flook,
437 U.S. at 593)).
Further, as the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim for a new
abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the technique
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
11

claimed was “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that would
not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See Ass’n
for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013).
Claim 1’s method does not recite any improvement to the claimed server
computer, instead, the method only uses the server computer to monitor
users’ computing devices to identify anomalous users using various
analytical techniques. See Specification ¶ 38 (“To detect blend-in
anomalies, the system needs to analyze work practice data in all domains.”).
Subsequently, we detect no additional element (or combination of
elements) recited in Appellant’s representative claim 1 that integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance
at 54–55. For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g.,
computing devices; server computer;): (1) do not improve the functioning of
a computer or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular
machine (except for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation
of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to
a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See
MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h); see also 2019 Revised Guidance at 55 nn.
25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly every
computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and ‘data storage unit’
capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission
functions required by the method claims.”).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the recited
judicial exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
12

at 54–55. Therefore, we conclude the claims are directed to a judicial
exception pursuant to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised Guidance.

Step 2B identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance
In Step 2B, we consider whether an additional element or combination
of elements “[a]dds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is
indicative that an inventive concept may be present” or “simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.”
2019 Revised Guidance at 56.
Appellant argues, “assuming arguendo that the claims are directed to
an abstract idea, the claims include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (under Step 2B of
the 2019 PEG).” Appeal Brief 19. Appellant contends, “that the instant
claims include the additional elements of performing cross-domain
modeling,” such as “constructing cluster vectors,” “performing a cross-
domain clustering analysis,” “predicting based on the cross-domain
clustering analysis, a cluster index of the respective user,” comparing and
predicting the cluster index of users, and increasing a domain-specific
activity score. Appeal Brief 19.
We do not find Appellant’s contentions persuasive of Examiner error
because Appellant’s argued additional elements are part of the recited
judicial exceptions discussed above. Further, even considered as additional
elements, these limitations “simply append[] well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
13

level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may not be present.” 2019 Revised Guidance at 56; see
Specification ¶¶ 6–10, 38 (“the single-domain models are based on a
Gaussian mixture model (GMM), where the maximum a posteriori
probability (MAP) values for the cluster to which each user belongs within
each domain are obtained”), 42, 47, 54, 55.
2019 Revised Guidance states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an examiner’s
conclusion that an additional element (or combination of
elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must
be supported with a factual determination. For more information
concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional
activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO
Berkheimer Memorandum. 7
2019 Revised Guidance at 56 n.36 (emphasis added).
The Berkheimer Memorandum Section III(A) states when formulating
rejections, “[i]n a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing.” Berkheimer
Memorandum at 3. The Berkheimer Memorandum provides four criteria for
the Examiner to utilize to provide support in order for the additional
elements to be considered to be well-understood, routine, or conventional.8

7 USPTO Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated April 19, 2018,
“Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility,
Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)”
available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-
berkheimer-20180419.PDF.
8 Berkheimer Memorandum at 3–4 (Section III(A)) (“1. A citation to an
express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant
during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
14

The Examiner determines: “Further, the extra-solution activity for
outputting a list of anomalous users is recited at a high level of generality
and requires nothing more than transmitting data over a network, which has
been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional
computer functionality.” Final Action 10 (citing to MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive because,
in determining if the additional elements (or combination of additional
elements) represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity, the
Examiner supported the determination based upon a factual determination as
specified in the Berkheimer Memorandum. See Berkheimer Memorandum
at 3–4 (Section III(A)(2)).
Further, in BASCOM, our reviewing court found that while the claims
of the patent were directed to an abstract idea, the patentee alleged an
“inventive concept can be found in the ordered combination of [the] claim
limitations that transform the abstract idea of filtering content into a
particular, practical application of that abstract idea.” BASCOM Glob.
Internet Servs., Inc., v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir.
2016). In particular, the patent in BASCOM claimed “a technology-based
solution (not an abstract-idea-based solution implemented with generic
technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet

conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . . 2. A citation to one or
more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting
the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s). . . . 3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . .
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).”).
Appeal 2020-003996
Application 14/183,298
15

that overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems.”
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351.
Claim 1 is distinguishable, as it recites an abstract-idea-based solution
that identifies anomalous users using a computing system. See generally
Specification. Therefore, we are not persuaded that an ordered combination
of limitations in representative claim 1 provides an inventive concept. See
2019 Revised Guidance at 56. Accordingly, we conclude claims 1–21 are
directed to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, as well as, mathematical concepts, such
as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations, as identified in the 2019 Revised Guidance, and
are directed to the judicial exception without significantly more. See 2019
Revised Guidance at 52.

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–21 101 Eligibility 1–21

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