Ex Parte Tibshirani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

15090524 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
15/090,524 04/04/2016
115191 7590 12/26/2018
Hickman Palermo Becker Bingham/ Palantir
1 Almaden Boulevard, Floor 12
San Jose, CA 95113
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Julie Noelle Tibshirani
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.
60152-0709 5581
EXAMINER
YOON, SAE WON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIE NOELLE TIBSHIRANI,
RYAN AMELIA BEIERMEISTER,
DANIEL PATRICK CERVELLI,
TIMOTHY JAMES SLATCHER,
GREGORY DEJUAN MARTIN,
ANTOINE ALEXANDRE ADRIEN LLORCA, and
TIMOTHY JAMES WILSON
Appeal 2018-000231 1
Application 15/090,524
Technology Center 2600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Palantir Technologies Inc., as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's Final
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to techniques for displaying stack graphs.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a set of event data, wherein the set of event data
comprises:
a plurality of event targets;
a plurality of event sources;
a plurality of event objects, wherein an event object
comprises:
a first identifier that identifies an event target
of the plurality of event targets that corresponds to
the event object;
a second identifier that identifies an event
source of the plurality of event sources that
corresponds to the event objects; and
event time data;
displaying a stack graph for the set of event data, wherein
the stack graph comprises:
a timeline;
a plurality of stack lines, wherein a stack line
comprises one or more event overlays;
wherein each particular stack line in the plurality of
stack lines corresponds to a particular event target in the
plurality of event targets;
determining a cardinality of a first event target by:
identifying a set of event objects that correspond to
the first event target;
2
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
identifying a set of event sources that correspond to
the set of event objects;
counting a number of unique event sources in the
set of event sources;
using the number of unique event sources as the
cardinality of the first event target;
in response to determining that the cardinality of the first
event target is below a cardinality threshold, excluding the first
event target from the stack graph;
wherein the method is executed using one or more
processors.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Kaler et al.
"Kaler"
Grigsby et al.
"Grigsby"
Kincaid et al.
"Kincaid"
Shi et al.
"Shi"
Stluka et al.
"Stluka"
Tate
Wagenblatt
De Pauw et al.
"De Pauw"
Nelke et al.
US 6,467,052 B 1 Oct. 15, 2002
US 2005/0215867 Al Sept. 29, 2005
US 2006/0028471 Al Feb. 9, 2006
US 2008/0215563 Al Sept. 4, 2008
US 2009/0106652 Al Apr. 23, 2009
US 2010/0106651 Al Apr. 29, 2010
US 2012/0150576 Al June 14, 2012
US 2013/0117676 Al May 9, 2013
US 2014/0046927 Al Feb. 13, 2014
3
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
"Nelke"
Bedros et al.
"Bedros"
Hong
US 2015/0009031 Al Jan. 8, 2015
US 2016/0217218 Al July 28, 2016
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-24 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. 2-21.
Claims 1--4, 12-15, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Stluka in view of Hong. Final Act. 21-36.
Claims 5 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, and further in view Kaler. Final Act. 36-
38.
Claims 6 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, and further in view Kincaid. Final Act. 38-
39.
Claims 7 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, Kincaid, and further in view Bedros. Final
Act. 39--41.
Claims 8 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, Kincaid, De Pauw, and further in view of
Shi. Final Act. 41--43.
4
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
Claims 9 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, Grigsby, and further in view in of
Wagenblatt. Final Act. 43--46.
Claims 10 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, and further in view Tate. Final Act. 46--48.
Claims 11 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Stluka, Hong, and further in view Nelke. Final Act. 48-
49.
OPINION
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellants failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); see also Hyatt v.
Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("[T]he Board may treat
... argument[s]" Appellants failed to make for a given ground of rejection
as waived).
Claims 1-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellants argue the Examiner's finding that "displaying a stack
graph by reciting steps of organizing information through mathematical
relationships/ correlations" oversimplifies numerous features of the claims
related to determining cardinality values, determining distance scores using
shingles, and graphical representations of event objects. App. Br. 10.
5
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
Appellants argue that the Examiner has not cited a single case that found
displaying a stack graph as an abstract idea. App. Br. 11.
In particular Appellants argue that as in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the court concluded the claims were
directed to an improvement to a computer-related technology and, therefore,
not an abstract idea. App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, the claims are
directed to solving specific problems that are faced with determining
patterns in large sets of data using a computer. App. Br. 12. Appellants
assert the claims include technical computer-related elements that attempt to
solve particular problems that are unique to the computer context. Id.
Appellants further argue that "additional elements" of the present
claims qualify as "significantly more" not only because they are not generic
computer functions, but also because they add specific imitations that are
unconventional. App. Br. 14--20.
Appellants assert the instant claims are eligible for a streamlined
analysis. App. Br. 20-21.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. As an initial matter,
"[f]or purposes of efficiency in examination, a streamlined analysis can be
used for a claim that may or may not recite a judicial exception but, when
viewed as a whole, clearly does not seek to tie up any judicial exception
such that others cannot practice it." 2014 Interim Guidance on Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74618, 74625 (December 16, 2014)
( emphases added). Additionally, the Interim Guidance indicates a "full
analysis should be conducted" if there is doubt that the applicant is
effectively seeking coverage for a judicial exception. Interim Guidance, 79
Fed. Reg. at 74625. Thus, a streamlined eligibility analysis is available to
6
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
Examiners who are of the view that a claim clearly does not have a subject
matter eligibility problem. In this Appeal, the controlling law on patent
eligibility is the two-step test under Alice/Mayo as described herein.
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides our analysis. See
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,218 (2014).
According to step one, "[ w ]e must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea.
Id.
Our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas include the
concepts such as the collection and analysis of information. Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Additionally, the collecting of data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing the data in memory are also abstract ideas.
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776
F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also SAP
Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
("[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information ... is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection
and analysis.") ( citation omitted). Moreover, "a process of organizing
information through mathematical correlations and is not tied to a specific
structure or machine" is abstract. Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Further, merely combining several abstract ideas does not render the
combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F .3d
7
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another
abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) ( determining the pending claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas).
In the instant case, Appellants' claims are generally directed to the
collecting and organizing of event objects, and displaying of the organized
objects as stack graphs. We agree with the Examiner's findings that there
exists a correlation/relationship between the involved data wherein such data
correlation/relationship is used in identifying a particular number of unique
event sources and such number can be used to determining cardinality that
can further affect the display of a stack graph by excluding the particular
event target from the stack graph (i.e., based on a threshold comparison).
See Ans. 14. We further agree with the Examiner that there exists
organization of information which affects how the graph will be displayed
(i.e., received information being utilized and processed to provide a graph
output). Id.
Furthermore, merely "analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category" and
"presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing
information, without more ( such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis."
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that a
human being could mentally perform the claimed identifying, counting, and
determining step based on available data that the human being has recorded.
8
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
Ans. 15. In particular, a human being could manually delete the portion of a
pencil drawn stack graph that corresponds to the first event target which
satisfied a threshold condition. Id. Thus, determining cardinality can
consist solely of mental steps which can be carried out by a human using pen
and paper. Id.
The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims do not
change the character of the claims or alter our conclusion that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. For example, claim 6 further recites, inter alia,
determining a distance score between a first and second stack line. Claims 7
and 8 further describe an approach for determining the distance score. We
agree with the Examiner that "determining distance scores using shingles"
can be performed by determining a first and second shingle based on
analyzing respective stack lines and determining the Jaccard index between
the shingles. Id. We further agree with the Examiner that there exists a
correlation/relationship between involved data (i.e., the first and second
stack lines) where such data correlation/relationship is used in organizing
information (i.e., determining the distance score is based on the determined
J accard index between the shingles in which each shingle is determined by
analyzing the first and second stack lines and where such determined score
can be used in grouping the stack lines). Id.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea. Because the claims are "directed to an abstract idea," we
consider the claim limitations "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 573 U.S. at
218-219 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
9
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)). The Supreme Court has described this analysis "as
a search for an 'inventive concept."' Alice, 573 U.S. at 218-219. Put
differently, we must search the claims for an "inventive concept," that is, "an
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Alice 573 U.S. at 217-218 ( quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
Here, we agree with the Examiner that although the claim language
recites "wherein the method is executed using one or more processors," such
limitations amount to mere computer components recited at a high level of
generality and add no more to the claimed invention than the components
that perform basic mathematical functions/operations routinely provided by
a general purpose computer. Ans. 20-21. As explained in OIP
Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015), "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more
accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." See also Alice,
573 U.S. at 224 ("[U]se of a computer to create electronic records, track
multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an
inventive concept.); see also Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of
Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (A computer "employed
only for its most basic function ... does not impose meaningful limits on the
scope of those claims.").
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting under 35 U.S.C. § 101 claim 1 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
10
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
independent claim 12, which recites similar limitations and was not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016). Further, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 2-11 and 13-24, which depend directly or
indirectly therefrom and were not argued separately. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1--4, 12-15, and 23-24 rejected under 35 U.S. C. § 103
Appellants argue that the combination of Stluka and Hong does not
teach or suggest the limitations of:
determining a cardinality of a first event target by:
identifying a set of event objects that correspond to the
first event target;
identifying a set of event sources that correspond to the set
of event objects;
counting a number of unique event sources in the set of
event sources;
using the number of unique event sources as the
cardinality of the first event target;
in response to determining that the cardinality of the first event
target is below a cardinality threshold, excluding the first event
target from the stack graph;
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5-8. In particular, Appellants argue
that in Hong, the "cardinality" is determined by merely counting the
number of occurrences of tags and not by determining a cardinality of
a first event target as in Claim 1 by identifying a set of event objects
and identifying a set of event sources. App. Br. 7-8. Appellants
further argue that Hong does not contemplate "counting a number of
unique event sources in the set of event sources," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 8.
11
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
The Examiner relies on Stluka for the teaching of identifying a
plurality of equipment that has caused deviations which can reasonably be
interpreted as the claimed "unique event sources" as each equipment (i.e.,
corresponding to claimed event source) that caused a particular deviation
(i.e., corresponding to claimed event object) can be considered as unique as
it is a particular source(s) that caused specific event(s). See Ans. 5, 7 (citing
Stluka, paras. 33, 48, and 58). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that
Stluka teaches visualizing the deviation which occurred in each associated
target (i.e., such as a monitoring limit) and source of deviation (i.e., such as
equipment that caused deviation) where each target is displayed on each row
of a graphical display and each deviation is displayed as bars on each row,
and the cause of the deviation is displayed in a particular pattern. See Ans.
5, and 7-8; see also Stluka, para. 58, Fig. 4.
The Examiner relies on Hong for teaching the feature of graphing of
statistical data where particular data with a number of occurrences being less
than the threshold number of occurrences is excluded from graphing (Hong,
paras. 119 and 120). Ans. 6. Additionally, the Examiner finds Hong teaches
the feature of excluding particular data from being graphed based on the
condition of a number of occurrences of certain data being less than the
threshold number of occurrences. Id. In particular, the Examiner explains
Hong's determined number of occurrences of particular data can reasonably
be interpreted as the claimed "cardinality." Id. The Examiner relies on the
Merriam-Webster dictionary defining cardinality as: "the number of
elements in a given mathematical set." Id. In order for Hong to accurately
determine the number of occurrences, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
it is obvious that such number of occurrences need to be counted. Id.
12
Appeal2018-000231
Application 15/090,524
Additionally, Hong's threshold number of occurrences can reasonably be
interpreted as the claimed "cardinality threshold" as Hong's threshold is
being compared to the determined number of occurrences. Id.
We agree with the Examiner that the combination would not allow for
graphing of a row that corresponds to a particular target which is related to
deviations when the determined number is less than a threshold. Ans. 8.
Accordingly, the combination would teach the disputed limitation of "in
response to determining that the cardinality of the first event target is below
a cardinality threshold, excluding the first event target from the stack graph,"
as recited in claim 1.
Thus we affirm the Examiners' rejection of claim 1 and for the same
reasons the rejections of claims 2-24 not argued separately. See App. Br. 8;
see also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13