Ex Parte Dhakephalkar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2018

14251520 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/251,520 04/11/2014
51206 7590 06/25/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street
Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Abhijit Dhakephalkar
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.
088325-0903956
(l 15020US)
CONFIRMATION NO.
9570
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, TALIAF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2018 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):
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABHIJIT DHAKEPHALKAR, DAVID HAIMES,
ARUNESH C. BANERJEE, ZEESHA CURRIMBHOY,
ROBERT ZWIEBACH, and RONDY NG
Appeal2017-002623
Application 14/251,520
Technology Center 3600
Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge
DENISE M. POTHIER
Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge
JOHNNY A. KUMAR
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1' 2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.
Invention
Appellants' invention concerns enterprise software (e.g., Enterprise
Resource Planning software), including accounting applications that monitor
an organization's finances. Spec. i-f 2. The disclosed invention improves
how enterprise software manages and executes its transaction volume by
using two different data structures. See Spec. i-fi-1 3--4.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method of accelerating execution of a batch of
transactions using two different data structures, the method
compnsmg:
storing, by a computer system, one or more financial
ledgers in a relational database system;
prepopulating, by a computer system, a multidimensional
data cube using data from the one or more financial ledgers in
the relational database system, wherein the multidimensional
data cube comprises aggregated balances used by the batch of
transactions;
receiving, by the computer system, the batch of
transactions;
executing, by the computer system, the batch of
transactions using data in the multidimensional data cube,
wherein:
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action (Final Act.) mailed
June 26, 2015, the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed February 19, 2016, the
Examiner's Answer (Ans.) mailed October 5, 2016, and the Reply Brief
(Reply Br.) filed December 5, 2016.
2 The real party in interest is listed as Oracle International Corporation.
App. Br. 3.
the multidimensional data cube is queried for the
aggregated balances; and
the batch of transactions are executed using the
queried aggregated balances of the multidimensional data
cube to generate result values for each account affected
by the batch of transactions;
generating, by the computer system, one or more
accounting journal entries that update each account in the one
or more ledgers affected by the batch of transactions using the
result values from the multidimensional data cube;
posting, by the computer system, the one or more
accounting journal entries to the one or more financial ledgers
in the relational database system;
repopulating, by the computer system, the
multidimensional data cube with the changes resulting from the
one or more accounting journal entries being posted to the one
or more financial ledgers in the relational database system; and
updating, by the computer system, the aggregated
balances of the multidimensional data cube.
The Rejection
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 5---6.
THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that the claims are directed to
an abstract idea of (1) "methods of organizing human activity" by
"organiz[ing] information (financial data) through mathematical
correlations" (Final Act. 4) and (2) "account reconciliation and management
of a plurality of general ledgers, which is considered to be fundamental
economic practice" (Final Act. 6). The Examiner also states the additional
elements or the elements' combination in the claim do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea and are mere instructions for
implementing the abstract idea with a generic computer. See Final Act. 6.
Appellants disagree. Appellants first assert the claims are "directed to
accelerating the execution of a batch of transactions using two different data
structures," not organizing information, performing mathematical
correlations, or reconciling and managing accounts. App. Br. 6 (citing
buySAFE, 3 Bilski, 4 and Alice5); see also Reply Br. 2 (contending claims do
not solve an economic, financial, or human problem). Appellants next argue
the claims recite significantly more than generic computer components and
perform functions that are not merely generic. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 4
(citing July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, p. 7); see also Reply
Br. 4 (citing Enfzsh 6). Appellants outline three technological improvements
resulting from transferring data back and forth between two different data
structures: (1) accelerating data updates more efficiently, (2) decreasing
processing time and reducing memory, and (3) reducing database bandwidth.
App. Br. 5, 8; see also Reply Br. 2.
ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 by
finding that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter?
3 buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
4 Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
5 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
6 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded of error.
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly:
"Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. In Mayo Collaborative
Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012), and
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354, the Supreme Court explained that§ 101 "contains
an important implicit exception" for laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a two-step analytical
framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter. First, "determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible concept, such
as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If so, "consider the elements
of each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to
determine whether the additional elements" add enough to transform the
"nature of the claim" into "significantly more" than a patent-ineligible
concept. Id. at 2355, 2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see Affinity Labs
of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Mayo/Alice Step 1
Step one in the Mayol Alice framework involves looking at the "focus"
of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1335. This "inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in
light of the specification, based on whether 'their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335 (quoting
Internet Patent Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2015)). According to the Examiner, claim 1 is directed to various abstract
ideas, including a method of organizing human activity (Final Act. 4) as well
as a fundamental economic practice of account reconciliation and
management of general ledgers (id. at 6). Yet, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner fails to establish sufficiently that the claim's character as a
whole or claim 1 's focus is directed to an abstract idea.
As Appellants state, "[ t ]he independent claims are directed to
accelerating the execution of a batch of transaction using two different data
structures." App. Br. 6. Although stating the claims are directed to a
method of organizing human activity and a fundamental economic practice
(Final Act. 5-6), the Examiner recognizes Appellants' characterization of
the claims, stating
the claims as a whole are generally directed to a system and
method that seeks to accelerate execution of a batch of
transactions using two different data structures, wherein one or
more financial ledgers are stored in a relational database system
and wherein data from said ledgers is prepopulated into a
multidimensional data cube (see at least claim 1 and paragraph
[0004] of Appellant's specification).
Ans. 3; see also Final Act. 4. That is, the claims as a whole recite how the
two different data structures are used with a computer system to accelerate
executing transactions and are directed to improving an existing technology
embodied by how the two, different data structures operate as recited.
For example, claim 1 recites "[a] method of accelerating execution of
a batch of transactions using two different data structure." App. Br. 11
(Claims App'x). The claim further recites various, particular steps involving
either (1) a relational database system (e.g., "storing ... one or more
financial ledgers in a relational database system" and "posting ... one or
more accounting journal entries to the one or more financial ledgers in the
relationship database") or (2) a multidimensional data cube (e.g., "the
multidimensional data cube comprises aggregated balances used by the
batch of transactions," "executing ... the batch of transactions using data in
the multidimensional data cube, wherein: the multidimensional data cube is
queried for the aggregated balances; and the batch of transactions are
executed using the queried aggregated balances of the multidimensional data
cube to generate results values for each account affected by the batch of
transactions," "generating ... one or more account journal entries that
update each account of the one or more ledgers ... using the results values
from the multidimensional data cube," and "updating ... the aggregated
balances of the multidimensional data cube."). Id. (Claims App'x). Other
steps in claim 1 involve both the relational database system and a
multidimensional data cube (e.g., "pre-populating" step and "repopulating"
step). Id. (Claims App'x).
To be sure, some of the limitations of claim 1 recite organizing,
storing, and transmitting information and are related to entering data into a
financial ledger (e.g., the steps of "storing ... one or more financial ledgers"
step and "generating ... one or more accounting journal entries"). See Final
Act. 6; see also Ans. 3--4. Yet, the claims as a whole are directed to a
computer solution of accelerating transaction execution using one data
structure (i.e., a multidimensional data cube) to perform certain
functions/results and another, different data structure (i.e., a relational
database) to achieve other functions/results.
Considering the claims in light the Specification, the disclosure
bolsters that claims as a whole are directed to improving an existing,
technological process of enterprise software implemented on a computer
system. Spec. i-fi-12--4. The disclosure explains the software "may be tested
by the sheer volume of transactions it is forced to manage" (id. i1 3) and
using only a relational database can "become computationally prohibitive"
(id. i13 6). The Specification describes a process of "accelerating execution
of a batch of transactions using two different data structures" (id. i14),
including using a multidimensional data cube to take advantage of the
multidimensional data cube's "speed and aggregated balances ... [that are]
not available in a relational database" (id. i134). The Specification further
indicates (a) a multidimensional data cube is faster and less computationally
intensive than a relational database (see id. i153), (b) writing to the
multidimensional data cube allows for totals at each stage to be updated
immediately as aggregated balances (see id. i154), and (c) the aggregated
balances and stored values in the multidimensional data cube "offer
significantly processing and/computational advantages over accessing and
storing data in a relational database" (id. i167).
As such, the claims seemingly focus on improving existing
technology using two different data structure to achieve various benefits,
such as increased processing and computational advantages over using only
a relational database. See also App. Br. 5 (asserting (a) multidimensional
data cubes, relative to relational databases, are good at performing
calculations, pre-aggregating results, and executing transactions on the
aggregated balances and (b) relational databases provide access and storage
capacity that multidimensional data cubes do not). Also, the claimed
solution appears to be rooted in computer technology overcoming problems
specifically arising in the realm of using relational databases.
Although acknowledging the claims are directed to accelerating
transaction execution using two different data structure (Ans. 3), the
Examiner does not address the claimed data structure features sufficiently in
determining the claims' focus. See id. at 3--4. Instead, the Examiner
concludes the claims merely seek to collect, compare, store, organize, and
transmit data, without any further consideration of how the data structures
operate in the claim. See id.; see also Reply Br. 3--4. Moreover, contrasting
with Enfish, the Examiner asserts "the claims are not directed to 'an
improvement to computer technology,' ... but to the abstract idea itself."
Ans. 3. However, the Examiner provides no further explanation regarding
how the instant claims are distinguishable from those in Enfish. Id.
Although independent claims 9 and 16 do not recite accelerating
transaction execution using two different data structures in their preambles,
each of claim 9 and 16 recites various steps involving two different data
structures (i.e., a relational database and a multidimensional data cube) as
noted above, which achieve accelerated execution and the other noted
improvements to an existing technology.
Given the particular findings and record before us, the Examiner erred
in determining the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Mayo/Alice Step 2
Because we determine the Examiner fails to establish sufficiently the
claims are directed to an abstract idea, we need not proceed to step 2.
Nonetheless, under any characterization of the claim l's abstract idea,
including that presented in the concurrence, the instant claims satisfy
Mayo/Alice step two. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, LP, 773 F.3d
1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Specifically, the claimed components as a
combination perform functions that are not merely generic.
The claimed components in independent claims 1, 9, and 16 (as well
as their dependent claims) collectively add enough to transform the claims
into significantly more than any abstract idea identified by the Examiner
(e.g., a method of organizing human activity and/or a fundamental economic
practice (see Final Act. 4, 6)). For example, the claimed features as a
combination do not simply apply an abstract idea (e.g., a business practice
involving financial accounting and financial ledger management) to a
computer system but accelerate transaction execution using two different
data structures. See App. Br. 11 (Claims App'x); see also, e.g., Spec. i-f 4.
As another example, the claimed combination also adds significantly more
than any identified abstract ideas by using two different data structures,
instead of only a relational database, to increase processing and
computational advantages. See Spec. i-f 53 (discussing how the
multidimensional data cube generates data faster than a relational database),
67 (indicating the multidimensional data cube's aggregated balances have
processing and computational advantages). See also App. Br. 7-8; see also
Reply Br. 2, 4.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have persuaded us of error in
the rejection of (1) independent claim 1, (2) independent claims 9 and 16,
which recite commensurate limitations, and (3) dependent claims 2-8,
10-15, and 17-20 for similar reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-20 under§ 101.
REVERSED
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ABHIJIT DHAKEPHALKAR, DAVID HAIMES,
ARUNESH C. BANERJEE, ZEESHA CURRIMBHOY,
ROBERT ZWIEBACH, and RONDY NG
Appeal2017-002623
Application 14/251,520
Technology Center 3600
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I concur with the majority's decision; however, I respectfully disagree
with the majority's application of Alice two-step framework for the
following reasons.
First, I agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea of account reconciliation and management of general ledgers,
which is considered both as a method of organizing human activity and a
fundamental economic practice under Alice step 1. Final Act. 4---6. Such
activities are squarely within the realm of abstract ideas. Account
reconciliation and management of general ledgers is a fundamental business
practice, like (1) risk hedging in Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010), (2)
intermediated settlement in Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356-57, (3) verifying credit
card transactions in CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011), (4) collecting and analyzing information to
detect and notify of misuses in FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839
F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and (5) guaranteeing transactions in
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Account reconciliation and management of general ledgers is also a building
block of a market economy. Thus, account reconciliation and management
of general ledgers, like risk hedging, intermediated settlement, and verifying
credit card transactions, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of § 101.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
Turning now to Alice step 2, I agree with Appellants that there are
sufficient additional elements recited in the claims that are meaningful and
that can transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the
abstract idea. The Federal Circuit cases on point are (1) DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and (2)
Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841F.3d1288 (Fed. Cir.
2016), both involved business methods inventions. In DDR and Amdocs, the
Federal Circuit opted to bypass Alice step 1 in favor of step 2. In particular,
the Federal Circuit found DDR 's claims contain an "inventive concept"
under Alice step 2 because DDR 's claims (1) do not merely recite "the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world"
previously disclosed in Bilski and Alice, but instead (2) provide a technical
solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet, i.e., a "solution[]
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks." DDR, 773 F.3d at
1257. Likewise, the Federal Circuit also found Amdocs' claims contain a
sufficient "inventive concept" because like DDR, Amdocs' claims "entail[]
an unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed
fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously
required massive databases)" and "improve the performance of the system
itself." Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300, 1302.
Similar to DDR and Amdocs, I am persuaded that there is evidence in
the record to suggest Appellants' claims also contain an "inventive concept"
under Alice step 2 because these claims also focus on improving existing
technology using two different data structure to achieve various benefits,
such as increased processing and computational advantages over using only
a relational database. App. Br. 5, 8 (asserting (a) multidimensional data
cubes, relative to relational databases, are good at performing calculations,
pre-aggregating results, and executing transactions on the aggregated
balances and (b) relational databases provide access and storage capacity
that multidimensional data cubes do not).
For these reasons, I would find Appellants' claims 1-20 patent-
eligible under § 101.