Ex Parte LIU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

15237209 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/237,209 08/15/2016
110577 7590 12/18/2018
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
SAS Institute Inc.
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JUN LIU
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.
094926-026400US- l 003924 2309
EXAMINER
NILSSON, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2122
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 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
eofficeaction@appcoll.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 JUN LIU, RUIWEN ZHANG, and ZHENG ZHAO
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
Technology Center 2100
Before TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-29, constituting all
claims currently pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed "to modeling and simulation," and
more specifically to "enhancing processing speeds for generating a model on
an electronic device." Spec. ,r 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium
comprising program code for reducing the number of processing
iterations and memory accesses to generate one or more models
usable to perform data analysis, the program code being
executable by a processor for causing the processor to:
determine a plurality of regression coefficient values
associated with a regression analysis of data using a coordinate
descent method for finding a minimum value of a least absolute
shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) cost function,
wherein each iteration of the coordinate descent method
compnses:
determining a starting coordinate based on (i) a
previous starting coordinate or a previous regression
coefficient value from an immediately prior iteration of
the coordinate descent method; (ii) a current regression
coefficient value associated with a current iteration of the
coordinate descent method; and (iii) a refinement factor
configured to minimize a result of a univariate algorithm
comprising a relationship between (a) the refinement
factor, (b) the previous starting coordinate or the previous
regression coefficient value, and ( c) the current regression
coefficient value for the current iteration; and
starting at the starting coordinate and performing a
coordinate descent to determine a next regress10n
coefficient value for a next iteration of the coordinate
descent method;
generate a model that represents a relationship between a
plurality of independent variables and the data by assigning a
respective weight to each respective independent variable of the
2
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
plurality of independent variables, each respective weight being
a particular regression coefficient value of the plurality of
regression coefficient values that corresponds to the respective
independent variable;
receive additional data; and
determine a characteristic associated with additional data
using the model.
App. Br. 19-20 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTION
Claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law
of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly
more. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014),
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In the first step, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In the
second step, we "consider the elements of each claim both individually and
'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the additional elements
'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). In other words, the second
step is to "search for an 'inventive concept' - i.e., an element or combination
3
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to
significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.'" Id.
(alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines the claims are directed
towards a method of generating a model and determining a
characteristic associated with a set of data using the model by
determining a plurality of regression coefficients using the
LAS SO cost function and determining a starting coordinate,
current regression coefficient, and a minimization refinement
factor which minimizes the result of a univariate algorithm
representing a relationship between these three values, and
finally performing the coordinate descent method,
which is "similar to the abstract idea of collecting information, analyzing it,
and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power
Group)." Ans. 3, 5 (citing Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In addition, the Examiner determines "[t]he
inventive concept and novelty in the claims are directed toward an
improvement of an abstract idea ( coordinate descent algorithm and model)
and are not an improvement on a technology." Ans. 5.
Appellants argue the present claims are "directed to 'reducing the
number of processing iterations and memory accesses to generate one or
more models usable to perform data analysis."' App. Br. 5. According to
Appellants, the claimed invention "is entirely different than detecting events
on a power grid in real time and automatically analyzing the events, as in
Electric Power Group." App. Br. 5---6. Specifically, Appellants contend the
claims "improve the functioning of a computer at least by improving
processing speeds and reducing an amount of memory used by an electronic
device such that the pending claims amount to significantly more than the
4
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
alleged abstract idea." App. Br. 6; see App. Br. 12-15; see also Reply Br.
3--4. According to Appellants, the claimed invention is directed to "reducing
the number of processing iterations and memory accesses to generate one or
more models usable to perform data analysis," which improves upon the
typical methods that "require a significant amount of time, memory,
processing power, and electrical power," thereby "improving processing
speeds and reducing an amount of memory." App. Br. 12-13 (citing Spec.
,r,r 35, 38-39, 44, 144--145).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. We find the present
claims are more similar to the patent-eligible claims in Enfish LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) than the patent-ineligible
claims in Electric Power Group. See Visual Memory LLC, v. Nvidia Corp.,
867 F.3d 1253, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2017). At step one of the Alice analysis, "it
is not enough to merely identify a patent-ineligible concept underlying the
claim; we must deten11ine whether that patent-ineligible concept is what the
claim is 'directed to."' Rapid Litigation Management Ltd. v. CellzDirect,
Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We analyze "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." Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1335-36. "Software can make non-abstract improvements to computer
technology." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1355. We agree with Appellants that the
claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of
Alice, but are instead directed to a specific improvement in the way
computers operate.
5
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
Appellants' invention is titled and directed to "Enhancing Processing
Speeds for Generating a Model on an Electronic Device." Spec. ,r 2.
Appellants' Specification discusses processing problems encountered when
statistical models are generated from large sets of data with hundreds or
thousands of interrelated pieces of data, including increased processing
times, increased electrical power requirements, reduction of the available
resources for performing other tasks, slowdown of other processes executed
on the computing device, and the need for complicated and expensive
hardware. Spec. ,r 3. The Specification describes "improving processing
speeds and reducing an amount of memory used by an electronic device to
generate a model from a data set by reducing a number of processing
iterations and memory accesses required to generate the model." Spec. ,r 35.
Appellants disclose a "modified coordinate descent method that requires
fewer processing iterations and fewer memory accesses to generate the
model" that "can result in less processing power, memory, and electrical
power being consumed by an electronic device to generate the model."
Spec. ,r 35; see also Spec. ,r,r 44, 144, 145. Appellants' Specification further
describes that "it can take thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of
processing iterations and computations to generate the model using
traditional approaches for analyzing high-dimensional data sets" but that the
claimed invention can "overcome the above and other issues by using a least
absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) method in conjunction
with a modified coordinate descent method." Spec. ,r,r 38-39. The
Specification states that the "combination of LASSO and the modified
version of the coordinate descent method [can] analyze high-dimensional
6
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
data sets at faster speeds and using less memory than alternative
approaches." Spec. ,r 44.
Here, like in Enfzsh, the claimed invention, in light of the disclosure in
Appellants' Specification, is focused on "an improvement to computer
functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is
used in its ordinary capacity." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. As set forth above,
Appellants' Specification extensively describes improvements to computer
functionality (e.g., improving processing speeds, reducing memory, using
less electrical and processing power, etc.), as well as the benefits of using
Appellants' approach for generating models and the advantages of using
Appellants' approach as opposed to traditional approaches. See, e.g., Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1333, 1337; Visual Memory, 867 F.3d at 1259-1260 (Fed. Cir.
2017). Moreover, the claims recite more than just a result (e.g., reducing the
number of processing iterations) - they recite the specific steps that
accomplish the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat System, Inc.,
879 F.3d 1299, 1305-1306 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other words, "the claims are
directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
software arts." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339.
Therefore, Appellants have persuasively established that the claimed
invention is directed to a specific improvement in the operation of the
computer itself and cannot be considered abstract.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and 21-29.
7
Appeal2018-004371
Application 15/237,209
DECISION
The Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-9, 11-19, and
21-29 is reversed.
REVERSED
8