Ex Parte Shalita et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

13690088 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/690,088 11/30/2012
87851 7590
Facebook/Fenwick
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
12/25/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Alon Michael Shalita
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.
26295-20666 2050
EXAMINER
SHORTER, RASHIDA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
ptoc@fenwick.com
fwfacebookpatents@fenwick.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALON MICHAEL SHALITA, MING HUA, and
RYAN ALLEN STOUT
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088 1
Technology Center 3600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, and 23-26, which are all of the
claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claims 9, 11, 12, and 21 have been cancelled. Claims 4, 7, 13, 16,
20, and 22 have been withdrawn (App. Br. 2).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Facebook, Inc. (App.
Br. 2).
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to optimizing the
evaluation of an expression in a social networking system by selecting an
efficient representation of the expression (Abstract). Claim 1, reproduced
below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a social networking system, information
describing a plurality of expressions, each expression specifying
a set of computations using an expression language, each
expression comprising operands and one or more operators for
combining the operands into a result, the operands comprising
attributes of entities represented in the social networking system;
for each expression of the plurality of expressions:
determining whether the expression includes a
variable term referring to a different expression using the
expression language;
selecting a type of representation for the expression
by selecting between a tree representation and a postfix
representation based at least in part on whether the
expression includes a variable term referring to a different
express10n,
generating a data structure representing the
expression by converting the expression from the
expression language to the selected type of representation,
and
storing the generated data structure in a cache;
receiving a request to evaluate an expression for a set of
entities represented in the social networking system, the request
associated with a viewing user;
accessing, from a feature store of the social networking
system, values of operands included in the requested expression
for the set of entities;
2
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088
accessing the data structure representing the requested
expression from the cache;
determining, by a processor, an expression result for each
entity of the set of entities by evaluating the requested expression
using the data structure representing the expression accessed
from the cache and using the values of the operands of the
requested expression accessed from the feature store;
selecting one or more of the entities based on a ranking of
the set of entities according to the expression result for each
entity; and
providing the selected one or more entities for presentation
to the viewing user.
REJECTION
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, and 23-262 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter
(Non-Final Act. 2-3).
ISSUE
35 USC§ 101
Appellants argue their invention as recited in claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10,
14, 15, 17-19, and 23-26, 3 is directed to patent-eligible subject matter (App.
Br. 8-23). The issue presented by the arguments is:
Issue: Has the Examiner erred in concluding the invention as recited
is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter?
2 The Examiner's non-final action rejects claims 1-8, 10-20, and 20-26
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Non-Final Act. 2). Appellants' April 22, 2016
Response canceled claims 9, 11, 12, and 21 and withdrew claims 4, 7, 13 16,
20, and 22 (Response 2-12). As such, we understand the Examiner's
rejection to be directed to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, and 23-26.
3 Appellants' Appeal Brief addresses claims 1-8, 10-20, and 22-26. For the
reason discussed above, we understand Appellants' arguments to be directed
to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19, and 23-26.
3
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088
ANALYSIS
The Examiner determines the claims do not recite patent-eligible
subject matter (Non-Final Act. 2-3). In addressing the first step of the
eligibility inquiry (Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,
2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97 (2012))), the Examiner determines the claims are
directed to similar abstract ideas of "optimizing expression language using
an efficient execution in a social media environment[,] which is a
mathematical relationship/formula" (Non-Final Act. 2-3), "organizing
information through mathematical correlations" (id. at 4), and "employ[ing]
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate
additional information" (Ans. 6).
Appellants argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and
instead "are directed to an improvement to computer functionality because
their purpose and effect are to improve the computer's performance when
evaluating expressions in the context of a social network system" (App. Br.
16; Reply Br. 3). Appellants assert that the improvement to computer
functionality is provided by the claimed use of "a particular data structure
representation (tree or postfix) that will be computationally efficient for a
given expression ( e.g., based on whether that expression includes variable
terms)" (App. Br. 18), i.e., "in order to improve performance of determining
expression results, the type of data structure generated specifically depends
on the content of the expression" (id. at 12).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Our reviewing court has
found it "relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement
to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea, even at
4
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088
the first step of the Alice analysis" (Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Accordingly, "the first step in the Alice
inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities," i.e., improving
computational efficiency, "or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool" (id. at
1335-36).
Here, based on Appellants' representations, we determine that the
claims are directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate
and are, as such, not abstract. Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
determining whether the expression includes a variable
term referring to a different expression using the expression
language;
selecting a type of representation for the expression by
selecting between a tree representation and a postfix
representation based at least in part on whether the expression
includes a variable term referring to a different expression,
generating a data structure representing the expression by
converting the expression from the expression language to the
selected type of representation, and
storing the generated data structure in a cache.
That is, the claim selects either a tree representation or a postfix
representation of an expression; the selection is based on the type of
expression to be represented, namely whether the expression refers to
another, different expression. After selecting the type of representation, a
data structure corresponding to the selected type of representation is
generated and stored for evaluation. Appellants point to their Specification
as evidence that the claimed representation selection "improve[ s] the
computer's performance when evaluating expressions" (Reply Br. 3 (citing
5
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088
Spec. ,r 61); App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. ,r,r 59---60), 19--20). The Specification
describes the "selection of the representation for an expression based on an
efficiency of evaluation of the expression using the type of representation"
and "[i]n general ... prefers a postfix representation for an expression as
being efficient compared to other representations" (Spec. ,r 59). But, the
Specification continues, "if the expression uses variables that represent other
expressions" then "a tree representation for the expression" is selected
because "postfix representation[ s] of such expressions [are] difficult to build
and maintain" (id. ,r 60). The Specification concludes that "the use of the
most efficient representation of each expression provides significant
performance improvement" when evaluating expressions (id. ,r 61,
Abstract).
Therefore, the Specification states such representation selection and
subsequent data structure generation based on expression type would result
in the disclosed improvements when evaluating expressions and the skilled
artisan would be able to implement those features; we have no basis in the
record to the contrary. Although the Examiner fairly points out that the
claims recite mathematical algorithms, i.e., expressions (Non-Final Act. 3--4;
Ans. 6), the claims are not simply directed to the use of a computer to
compute a mathematical expression (Ans. 3, 12). Instead, the claims
purportedly enhance how the computer computes the mathematical
expression, i.e., improves the computer's functionality, by using a data
structure representing either a tree or postfix representation, dependent on
the expression type. That is, although a computer is ultimately used to
compute the expression, the claims purportedly describe an improvement in
how the computer functions to compute the expression. Like Enfzsh, the
6
Appeal2017-009965
Application 13/690,088
presently claimed use of a "specific type of data structure" is "designed to
improve the way a computer" functions (822 F.3d at 1339).
"Because the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under step one
of the Alice analysis, we do not need to proceed to step two of that analysis"
(id. at 1339). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 14, and 23, which all similarly recite the expression
representation selection and data structure generation limitations discussed
above. It follows that we also do not sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15, 17-19, and 24--26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 14, 15, 17-19,
and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter is reversed.
REVERSED
7