Ex Parte Ahmed et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 31, 2018

14196002 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/196,002 03/04/2014
11445 7590 01/03/2019
IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center
1701 North Street
Building 256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohamed N. Ahmed
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.
END920l30l83US1 9395
EXAMINER
LELAND III, EDWIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2019 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):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMED N. AHMED and AARON K. BAUGHMAN
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6 and 8-21, which constitute all the pending
claims in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 7 has been previously canceled.
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to "the field of natural language
processing, and more particularly to natural language processing with
dynamic pipelines." Spec. ,r 1. Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as
follows:
1. A method for natural language processing, the
method comprising:
selecting, by a computer processor, a dynamic pipeline
based, at least in part, on a corpus, wherein the dynamic
pipeline links a first human language technology component
and a second human language technology component, wherein
the first human language technology component comprises a
first set of algorithms and the second human language
technology component comprises a second set of algorithms
and wherein the corpus includes at least text, audio, and video;
identifying, by a computer processor, a first algorithm of
the first set of algorithms associated with the first human
language technology component and a second algorithm of the
second set of algorithms associated with the second human
language technology component;
applying, by the computer processor, the first algorithm
based, at least in part, on the corpus to generate a first cluster
space that reflects a dynamic determination of relationships
within the corpus, wherein the first cluster space includes
probabilities that each respective relationship within the corpus
is true or untrue;
amending, by the computer processor, an evidence chain
that includes one or more findings of true relationships
associated with the corpus in response to applying the first
algorithm, to reflect a most recent finding of a true relationship
of the true relationships that supersedes a previous finding in
light of a probabilistic determination from new determined
relationships in the first cluster space;
2
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
standardizing, by the computer processor, a first ontology
of the first cluster space, wherein the first ontology is a data
structure on a computer;
applying, by the computer processor, the second
algorithm based, at least in part, on the corpus and the first
ontology of the first cluster space to generate a second cluster
space that is associated with the corpus;
identifying, by the computer processor, a set of
information of one or more corpora that has a relevance to the
corpus that exceeds a pre-determined threshold based, at least in
part, on the first and second cluster spaces of corpus; and
generating, by the computer processor, a summary report
based, at least in part, on the set of information of the one or
more corpora.
App. Br. 32-33 (Claims Appendix).
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as not
being directed to patent-eligible subject matter. See Final Act. 4---6
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for not being directed to patent-
eligible subject matter. We highlight and address specific findings and
arguments for emphasis as follows.
The Examiner's Determinations
The Examiner determines claim 1 is patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claims are directed to the abstract idea of "selecting a
dynamic pipeline based on a corpus, identifying a first and second algorithm,
applying the first algorithm to the corpus to produce a cluster space,
3
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
amending an evidence chain based on applying the first algorithm,
standardizing an ontology of the cluster space, applying the second
algorithm on the corpus and the ontology, identifying related information
and generating a summary report." Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds other
independent claims 9 and 15 recite similar process steps. Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner also determines that these features are directed to an abstract
idea because they are similar to:
"Data recognition and storage" (Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343,
113 U.S.P.Q.2d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014)), "Collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis" (Electric Power Group, LLC, v.
Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)),
and "organizing information through mathematical
correlations" (Digitech: 19 see Section IV.C.1, Federal
Register, Vol. 79, No. 241, dated Tuesday, December 16, 2014,
page 74622).
Final Act. 5. The Examiner further determines the additional elements
recited in the claims are directed to computer-implemented functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional that "fail to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea above." Id.
Appellant's Contentions
Appellants argue that, under the first step of Alice, the claimed
features address "many challenges in natural language processing involve
natural language understanding-that is, enabling computers to derive
meaning from human or natural language input and that embodiments of
the present invention provide "an NLP system that determines relationships
expressed indirectly, ( e.g., relationships between entities within unstructured
data)." App. Br. 16. Appellants contrast their claims with those in Content
4
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) "because embodiments of Appellant's invention
provides for an NLP system that is not commonly used in the industry (e.g.,
determines relationships expressed indirectly)" and "does more than 'data
recognition and storage."' App. Br. 16-17.
Similarly, Appellants contend that, unlike the claims in Electric
Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
their claims recite "limitations for the technical means for improving the
functioning of natural language processing systems to identify relationships
not explicitly expressed." App. Br. 18. Appellants also argue their claims
are different from those in Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F. 3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) because their "claimed
invention does not merely 'take two data sets' and combine them into a
single data set," nor does it "organize this existing information and organize
the information into a new form." App. Br. 19.
Additionally, Appellants contend their claims, similar to those in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016), include "a set of 'rules' (basically mathematical relationships that
improve computer-related technology by allowing computer performance of
a function not previously performable by a computer." See App. Br. 20-22.
Lastly, Appellants argue their claims can readily be analogized to the
claims in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014 ), because their invention "does not merely recite a mathematical
algorithm, nor a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial practice
but instead address a challenge particular to natural language processing
systems." App. Br. 22-24. Thus, Appellants argue their claims recite more
5
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
than gathering and analyzing data because "Applicant's specification
provides context in that paragraphs [0010-0011] 'many challenges in natural
language processing involve natural language understanding-that is,
enabling computers to derive meaning from human or natural language
input"' and "embodiments of the present invention provide 'an NLP system
that determines relationships expressed indirectly, (e.g., relationships
between entities within unstructured data)."' Reply Br. 6-7.
Discussion
The pending claims do not merely recite the performance of some
business practice known from the pre-Internet world along with the
requirement to perform it. Instead, as stated by Appellants and described in
paragraphs 2--4 and 10-12 of the Specification, the claims "are directed
towards the improvement of 'natural language processing' systems." App.
Br. 21. We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims "do not
rely on 'generating the summary report' to improve the functioning of a
computer," and instead:
Id.
As acknowledged by Appellant's specification, the function not
previously performable by a computer is "deriv[ing] meaning
from human or natural language input" and "determin[ing]
relationships expressed indirectly, ( e.g., relationships between
entities within unstructured data) is something, as mentioned in
Appellant's specification that enables these NLP systems to
function better at their tasks ( e.g., improvement in performance
of a function not previously performable).
We disagree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to
gathering and analyzing data and identifying and displaying the results of the
analysis (see Ans. 14), or directed to a mathematical formula or algorithm.
6
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
Ans. 16. "The 'directed to' inquiry, therefore, cannot simply ask whether
the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially every
routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products and actions
involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Therefore, although
the claims may use an algorithm or some mathematics in the recited
calculations, the claims recite a process and system that "enables[ing]
computers to derive meaning from human or natural language input."
App. Br. 22.
Claims 1, 9, 15 are not directed to collecting information without
"requir[ ing] a new source or type of information, or new techniques for
analyzing it," like the claims in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016), cited in Ans. 14--15. Nor do the
claims recite "steps people go through in their minds" or a mathematical
algorithm. Id. at 1354. Rather, the claimed invention uses the recited
information ( e.g., a dynamic pipeline or a data structure that links two HLT
components) and applies different algorithms to identify specific
relationships among parts of the data structure.
We are also persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claimed
solution is necessarily rooted in the natural language recognition system in
order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of the Internet.
See DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Additionally, the combination of Appellants'
claim elements, like the claims in Bascom, provides a practical application
of natural language processing, including natural language understanding
that enables computers to derive meaning from human or natural language
input. In particular, the claims address "a challenge particular to natural
7
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
language processing systems" by "improving natural language processing
systems that seek to discern relationships that are not explicitly expressed."
App. Br. 23. For example, the Specification provides for specific relational
aspects of data structures in the context of a dynamic pipeline which, in tum,
"is associated with one or more cluster spaces, which are each a topological
representation of unstructured data." See Spec. ,r 19. Similarly, specific
algorithms are used to determine values representing "probabilistic findings
of truth," which is "a conclusion of a probability that an asserted finding is
true or untrue." See Spec. ,r 25. Thus, the problem and solution specifically
arise in computer technology. Additionally, the claimed invention does not
simply use a computer to process data and/or serve a conventional business
purpose that transforms the abstract idea (i.e., "selecting a dynamic pipeline"
or applying algorithms to the corpus to generate cluster spaces") into "a
particular, practical application of that abstract idea," similar to the claims in
Bascom.
The Examiner has not addressed whether the claim recitations, when
viewed in light of Appellants' Specification, relate to a challenge particular
to natural language processing systems and thus recite significantly more
than the abstract idea. The Examiner instead focuses on whether "the claims
are simply performing algorithmic steps that could be performed by a human
with pen and paper." Ans. 22. Although the claimed process and a person's
language recognition can result in similar outcomes, i.e., parse, tag, and
extract knowledge from unstructured text (Spec. ,r 10), the outcomes are
achieved through different processes. One is the way a human recognizes
speech, and the other relates to analyzing relational data structures and
linking one or more algorithms of HLT components. See Spec. ,r,r 22-28.
8
Appeal 2018-004119
Application 14/196,002
On this record, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in
concluding that claims 1-6 and 8-21 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6 and 8-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REVERSED
9