Ex Parte Williamson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 27, 2018

12872779 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/872,779 08/31/2010
14400 7590 09/27/2018
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP / Red Hat
Patent Docket Administrator
One Lowenstein Drive
Roseland, NJ 07068
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Eric Williamson
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.
05220-1383 (Ll333) 4096
EXAMINER
TORGRIMSON, TYLER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ERIC WILLIAMSON
Appeal2018-004126
Application 12/872,779 1
Technology Center 2100
Before MARC S. HOFF, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1--4, 6, 7, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant's invention is a system and method for interpolating
conformal input sets based on a target output. A user can input or access a
set of target data representing an output a user wishes to be generated from
1 The real party in interest is Red Hat Inc. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 5, 8-10, 16, 19, and 20 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
an interpolated set of input data based on an interpolation function. The
interpolation engine can receive the target output and generate interpolated
input variables that will produce the target output. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method comprising:
presenting a user interface comprising a dialog element;
receiving operative input data entered at the dialog element;
receiving operative output data entered at the dialog element, wherein
the operative input data and operative output data are associated with
a first time period;
generating, by a processor, an interpolation function that maps the
operative input data to the operative output data;
receiving target output data entered at the dialog element;
generating, by the processor, interpolated input data in view of the
target output data and the interpolation function, wherein generating
the interpolated input data comprises:
generating a series of alternative sets of interpolated input data, each
of the alternative sets of interpolated input data mapping, via the
interpolation function in combination with the adjusted interpolated
input data, to the target output data; and
displaying, using the user interface, graphical representations of the
series of the alternative sets of interpolated input data;
presenting, on the user interface, the interpolated input data to enable
adjustment of the interpolated input data;
receiving, via the user interface, a request to adjust the interpolated
input data; and adjusting, by the processor via the user interface, the
interpolated input data to map, via the interpolation function, a
combination of the adjusted interpolated input data and the operative
input data to the target output data, and wherein the adjusted
interpolated input data and the target output data are associated with a
second time period later than the first time period.
Claims 1--4, 6, 7, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being drawn to patent-ineligible subject matter.
2
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.," filed August 14, 2017), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed
March 9, 2018), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed January 9,
2018) for their respective details.
ISSUES
Is the claimed invention directed to a judicial exception, specifically
an abstract idea, without reciting significantly more so as to transform the
invention into a patent-eligible concept?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an
abstract idea. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to,
3
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an
idea of itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57.
If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry
ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the
elements of the claims are considered "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, 566 U.S. at 78-79).
ANALYSIS
ALICE STEP 2A-ABSTRACT IDEA
Appellant's invention is concerned with interpolating input data based
on a target output, and with generating one or more sets of input data that
will produce target output data under constrained conditions. See Spec. ,r 1.
Appellant states that "[i]n many real-life analytic applications ... the
necessary inputs for a given subject or study may not be known, while, at the
same time, a desired or target output may be known or estimated with some
accuracy." Spec. ,r 3. Appellant provides an example of a known overall
budget with unknown amounts of funding to certain departments. Id.
"Adjustment of one component amount by hand may cause or suggest
changes in other components in a ripple effect, which the analyst will then
have to examine or account for in a further iteration of the same manual
estimates." Id. Appellant thus admits that iterative solution of such a
problem is known.
4
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a specific
improvement in computer display. App. Br. 10. According to Appellant,
this specific improvement is recited in that the claims call for "a user
interface comprising a dialog element," and that this dialog element "(such
as a graphic user interface)" permits interactive updating of the display of
calculated results based on a computerized model and certain target values.
Id.
We do not agree with Appellant that "a specific improvement in
computer display" is recited. Id. Appellant's broad claim recitations
concerning the "user interface" fail to set forth such a specific improvement.
Further, Appellant's disclosure is concerned with an improved abstract idea,
specifically data interpolation and iterative solution of a mathematical
question, rather than an improvement to the functioning of the computer
itself.
Appellant's analogy of the claimed invention to McR03 is misplaced.
App. Br. 13. Appellant argues that McRO holds that a process using "'f!:.
combined order o(specific rules that renders information into a specific
format that is then used and applied to create desired results'" constitutes a
patent-eligible process. See App. Br. 12; McRO, 837 F.3d at 1310. We do
not agree with Appellant that the instant invention is analogous to the
invention in McRO. First, we do not find that the claimed invention recites
such a "combined order of specific rules that renders information into a
specific format." Appellant's claimed invention recites steps to implement
the abstract ideas of interpolation and iteration, along with broad recitations
3 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
5
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
of a "user interface." Second, unlike McRO, which enabled the automation
of a process previously not performable by a computer, Appellant merely
adapts an interpolation and iteration process to a computer with a generic
user interface. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1305.
Appellant asserts that the claimed invention is analogous to the
invention in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
App. Br. 14. The Enfzsh court found that the claims therein represented "'an
improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks
for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity."' App. Br. 14, citing
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336. In contrast, Appellant's invention recites an
improvement to interpolation and iterative solution tasks, and recites the use
of a computer ( and generically recited "interface") in its ordinary capacity.
Appellant argues that, as in Enfzsh, the Specification explains that
traditional methods are inferior to the implementations of the present
invention. App. Br. 15-16. However, after Appellant explains that in real-
life applications, a target output may be known while necessary inputs may
not be known, Appellant proposes an improvement in interpolation, "in
which a user can access or specify a desired or predetermined target
output in an analytic system." App. Br. 17; Spec. ,r 3. First, the invention
under appeal does not recite an "analytic system." Second, Appellant
unambiguously discloses that the improvement of the invention is to the
mathematical methods. Appellant argues that the claims recite an
improvement to the graphic user interface, but such an alleged improvement
is not reflected in the claim language or in the Specification.
6
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
Appellant also analogizes the claimed invention to the invention at
issue in Core Wireless Licensing. 4 Reply Br. 3. The invention in Core
Wireless Licensing concerned "improved display interfaces, particularly for
electronic devices with small screens like mobile telephones." Core
Wireless Licensing, 880 F.3d at 1359. "The improved interfaces allow a
user to more quickly access desired data stored in, and functions of
applications included in, the electronic devices." Id. An application
summary window displays "'a limited list of common functions and
commonly accessed stored data which itself can be reached directly from the
main menu listing some or all applications."' Id. The patents at issue in
Core Wireless Licensing "explain that the disclosed application summary
window 'is far faster and easier than conventional navigation approaches,'
particularly for devices with small screens." Id. The Federal Circuit found
that the claims are directed to an improved user interface for computing
devices, and directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting
content in electronic devices. The court noted the presence of limitations
that "restrain[] the type of data that can be displayed in the summary
window" and that require "that the device applications exist in a particular
state" in finding that the claims "disclose a specific manner of displaying a
limited set of information to the user." Id. at 1363.
We do not agree with Appellant that the claims under appeal are
analogous to the claims in Core Wireless Licensing. Appellant alleges that
the instant claims also recite an improved user interface. Independent claim
1 recites, inter alia, "a user interface comprising a dialog element;"
4 Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
7
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
"displaying, using the user interface, graphical representations of the series
of the alternative sets of interpolated input data;" "presenting, on the user
interface, the interpolated input data to enable adjustment of the interpolated
input data;" and "receiving, via the user interface, a request to adjust the
interpolated input data." The user interface recited in the instant appeal is
recited broadly, lacking the detailed limitations of the claims in Core
Wireless Licensing. Appellant's Specification is no more detailed than the
claim language quoted. For example, "the interpolation engine [] can
present the selection dialog 112 to the user to select, adjust, step through,
and/or otherwise manipulate the set of interpolated input data;" and "the
selection dialog 112 can permit the adjustment of the set of interpolated
input data 126 ... through different interface mechanisms, such as slider
tools to slide the value of different interpolated inputs through desired
ranges." Spec. ,r 19.
We find that Appellant discloses and claims a user interface through
which a user may adjust the parameters of the implemented abstract idea of
interpolation and iteration. We find that Appellant does not disclose or
claim a specific improvement to a user interface directed, for example, to a
particular manner of summarizing and presenting content. We find, under
Enfzsh, that Appellant's claims do not recite a specific improvement to the
functioning of a computer as a tool.
ALICE STEP 2B - INVENTIVE CONCEPT
8
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
Appellant argues that the claimed invention recites significantly more
than an abstract idea, offering "improvements to the field of facilitating the
display of the results of software programs during their execution." App. Br.
19.
We agree with the Examiner that Research Corporation Technologies,
Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010) is not persuasive to
establish that Appellant recites an analogous inventive concept. First,
Research Corporation Technologies pre-dates Alice and Enfzsh. Its holding
that "specific applications or improvements to technologies in the
marketplace are not likely to be ... abstract" closely resembles the holding
in Enfzsh that specific improvements to the functioning of a computer are not
considered abstract ideas under Step 2A of the Alice analysis. Thus,
Research Corporation Technologies is not directly applicable to the question
whether the claimed invention recites "significantly more" under step 2B of
the Alice analysis. Second, we agree with the Examiner that "specific
applications or improvements to technologies" were insufficient to render
the claimed invention in Alice non-abstract; as a result, such a finding would
be insufficient for the claims under appeal. Ans. 5. Third, as discussed
supra, we find that the improvement recited in the instant claims concerns
the mathematical methods of interpolation and iteration. Specific, detailed
improvements to a "user interface" are not recited in the claims.
Appellant's citation of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is similarly
unpersuasive. App. Br. 22. We do not agree with Appellant that the instant
claims do not merely recite an abstract idea, along with the requirement to
perform it on the internet. App. Br. 23. As discussed supra, the claimed
9
Appeal 2018-004126
Application 12/872,779
invention recites an improved abstract idea concerning interpolation and
iteration, rather than a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
otherwise generic components.
Appellant's subsequent listing of the claimed invention is wholly
unpersuasive to show any inventive concept resulting from considering the
claim as an ordered combination. App. Br. 23-24. Appellant has presented
no argument explaining why the order of elements in the independent claims
transforms the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of an
abstract idea.
Because we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that the
Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's§ 101 rejection of claims 1--4, 6,
7, 11-15, 17, 18, 21, and 22.
CONCLUSION
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, specifically
an abstract idea, without reciting significantly more so as to transform the
invention into a patent-eligible concept.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6, 7, 11-15, 17, 18, 21,
and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 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).
AFFIRMED
10