Ex Parte KOUFATY et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 22, 2019

14519648 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/519,648 10/21/2014
110977 7590 04/24/2019
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Intel
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
DAVIDA. KOUFATY
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.
P68993 9811
EXAMINER
JEUDY, JOSNEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/24/2019 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. KOUFATY, GILBERT NEIGER,
RAJESH M. SANKARAN, ANDREW V. ANDERSON,
SUBRAMANY AR. DULLOOR, WERNER HAAS,
and JOSEPH NUZMAN
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21, and 23. 2 We have jurisdiction
over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Intel, Inc. as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
2 Claim 22 is canceled. While the Office Action Summary indicates claims
1-21 and 23 stand rejected (see Final Act. 1), only claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21,
and 23 stand rejected. See Final Act. 2, Ans. 3. Although not indicated by
the Examiner, dependent claims 3-14 and 17-20 stand objected to as being
dependent on a rejected claim.
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
processing core to execute a task, and a memory management unit, coupled
to the core, in which the memory management unit includes a storage unit
and first and second permission registers. (Abstract.)
Claims 1, 15, and 21 are independent. Independent claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed material added, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A processing system comprising:
a processing core for executing a task associated with one
of a user mode or a supervisor mode; and
a memory management unit, coupled to the processing
core, compnsmg:
[ A J a storage unit to store a page table entry
comprising one or more identifiers of memory frames, a
protection key, and an access mode bit indicating whether the
one or more memory frames are accessible by the task
according to the user mode or according to the supervisor
mode;
[BJ a first permission register associated with
the user mode, the first permission register to store a plurality
of fields, each one of the plurality of fields comprising a set of
bits reflecting a set of memory access permissions for the task
to access under the user mode; and
[CJ a second permission register associated with
the supervisor mode, the second permission register to store a
plurality of fields, each one of the plurality of fields comprising
a set of bits reflecting a set of memory access permissions for
the task to access under the supervisor mode,
[DJ wherein the processing core is to execute the task
to access the one or more memory frames according to one of
the user mode or the supervisor mode determined based on the
access mode bit.
2
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject
matter. (Final Act. 2.).
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following
Whether the Examiner erred in finding claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21, and 23
as directed to non-statutory subject matter. (App. Br. 7-19; Reply Br. 3-8.)
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21, and 23 are patent
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, because the claims are directed to an
abstract idea and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 3-
5; see also Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'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")).
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Brief in this case,
the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed Dec. 27, 2017 ("App. Br."); the
Reply Brief filed May 24, 2018 ("Reply Br."); the Final Office Action
mailed July 28, 2017 ("Final Act."); the Advisory Action mailed Oct. 3,
2017 ("Adv. Act."); and the Examiner's Answer mailed Mar. 28, 2018
("Ans."), for the respective details.
3
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648
("Guidance"). See USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Memorandum"). Under the
Guidance "Step 2A," the office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, does the Office then (pursuant to the
Guidance "Step 2B") look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are 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.
See Memorandum.
The Examiner finds limitations [ A J-[ CJ of independent claim 1 "can
be interpreted as data recognition and storage" [ citing Content Extraction
and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir.
2014)J, or "creating an index, and using that index to search for and retrieve
data" [citing Int. Ventures v. Erie Indemnity Company, 850 F.3d 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2017)J Co.) or "retaining information in navigation of online forms"
[citing Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343 (Fed.
Cir. 2015)]. (Ans. 4.)
The Examiner further finds limitation [DJ of independent claim 1 does
not
4
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648
constitute additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because this [is] a
conventional step and not an inventive step or an improvement
to the technology or a dramatic change.
(Ans. 4.)
Appellants distinguish the cited case law from the recited limitations
to argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. (Reply Br. 4--5.)
Particularly, Appellants contend that
[i]n Content Extraction, the Fed. Circ. found the concept of data
collection, recognition, and storage is well-known because
"humans have always performed these functions"
(Ans. 4, citing Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347) whereas "the present
claims include features that go beyond just collection, recognition and
storage of data." (Ans. 4.)
Appellants further contend that "[i]n Int. Ventures, the Fed. Circ.
found that it is a well-known concept of creating an index and using that
index to search for and retrieve data in a database" (Ans. 5, citing
Intellectual Ventures, 850 F.3d at 1326) whereas "the present claims are not
directed in any way to creating an index for searching/retrieving data in a
database." (Ans. 5.).
Appellants further contend that "[i]n Internet Patents, the Fed. Circ.
found that 'the idea of retaining formation in the navigation of online forms'
is an abstract idea" (Ans. 5, quoting Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1348)
whereas "[ t ]he claimed features are void of any rational connection to
retaining information related to the navigation of a form, much less related
to the navigation of an online form." ( Ans. 5.)
We are persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection.
5
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648
The groupings of subject matter enumerated in the Memorandum are:
(a) "Mathematical concepts" such as "mathematical relationships, ...
formulas or calculations, ... [ or J calculations";
(b) "Certain methods of organizing human activity" such as "fundamental
economic principles or practices ... commercial or legal interactions ...
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between
people"; and
( c) "Mental processes" such as "concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)."
Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas).
Claim 1 recites limitations such as [ A J "a storage unit to store a page
table entry comprising one or more identifiers of memory frames," [BJ "a
first permission register associated with the user mode," and [CJ "a second
permission register associated with the supervisor mode." Each limitation
recites physical hardware ( the limitations here recite a storage unit and two
permission registers) used in the management of a computer memory during
operation of the computer. The claims do not cover mathematical concepts,
certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes. See
Memorandum, Section III(A)(l) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim
Recites a Judicial Exception).
We further agree with Appellants that the case law cited by the
Examiner regards subject matter distinguishable from Appellants' claimed
invention, and is therefore inapposite in supporting the rejection.
Accordingly, we are persuaded claim 1 has not been shown to "recite
a judicial exception ( a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter
within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section I)," and thus
6
Appeal2018-006106
Application 14/519,648
"the claim is eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A." Memorandum,
Section III (Instructions for Applying Revised Step 2A During
Examination).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 21, and 23 is
reversed.
REVERSED
7