ORACLE INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 2, 2020

13795802 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/795,802 03/12/2013 Timothy P. MCCANDLESS ORA130717-US-NP 2948
55498 7590 06/02/2020
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/02/2020 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIMOTHY P. MCCANDLESS and MEHRSHAD SETAYESH
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
KRISTEN L. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–27. See Final Act. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the assignee Oracle
International Corporation of Redwood Shores, California. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a method and system for performing trend
analysis of themes in social data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for analyzing social media
data to identify one or more trends and perform trend analysis on
a portion of the social media data representing a range of time,
the method comprising:
analyzing a portion of the social media data using an
analysis unit, the analysis unit being communicatively coupled
to receive inputs from one or more online social data sources and
to provide analysis outputs to a workflow engine, the analysis
unit generating trend analysis for the portion of the social media
data, the analysis of the portion of the social media data
performed by a process comprising:
receiving social media data from the one or more online
social data sources transmitted over one or more electronic
communications links, the social media data representing a first
range of time, performing latent semantic analysis on a portion
of the social media data to identify themes within the social
media data, the portion of the social media data comprising some
or all of the social media data and representing a second range of
time, performing semantic filtering to remove content from
within the social media data resulting in a reduction of the social
media data that is to be clustered, clustering at least some of the
portion of the social media data into one or more clusters by
classifying the social media data based on at least the themes
identified as a result of the latent semantic analysis, and
performing trend analysis on data from the one or more clusters
over the second range of time, the trend analysis comprising
both:
(1) tracking a volume of the data from the one or more
clusters over the second range of time, and
(2) performing sentiment analysis on the volume of the data
from the one or more clusters over the second range of time;
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
3
processing trend analysis results using a workflow engine, the
workflow engine processing the trend analysis results using a set of
rules provided in a rulebase, the trend analysis results processed by:
receiving the trend analysis results from the analysis unit
transmitted over one or more electronic communications links
identifying one or more items based at least in part on the trend
analysis results;
and
automatically processing at least some of the one or more items
by identifying a first rule from the set of rules for determining whether
to create an electronic message, the electronic message being sent
over the one or more electronic communication links to a specific
destination based at least on a second rule from the set of rules, the
second rule corresponding to identifying the specific destination for
the electronic message.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Burkitt
Choudhary
England
Szucs
US 8,769,576 B2
US 8,775,429 B2
US 2012/0290399 A1
US 2013/0246430 A1
July 1, 2014
July 8, 2014
Nov. 15, 2012
Sept. 19, 2013

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2.
Claims 1–4, 7–12, 15–20, and 23–27 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over England, in view of Szucs, in
further view of Choudhary. Final Act. 6.
Claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 21, and 22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over England, in view of Szucs, in further
view of Choudhary, in further view of Burkitt. Final Act. 17.
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
4
OPINION
Claims 1–27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
5
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court
also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
6
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;
see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under Step 2B, to
whether the claim:

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2),
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
7
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is 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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Step 1 of the Revised Guidance asks whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. See Revised Guidance. Claim 1 is a method, claim 9
is a computer program product and claim 17 is a system. See independent
claims 1, 9, and 17.
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Revised Guidance, we determine
whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). See Revised Guidance.
The Examiner finds that all the limitations of claim 1 pertain to
organizing human activity “relating to concepts involving collecting and
analyzing information, . . . concepts involving organizing information, . . .
and concepts involving data recognition, collection, storage and
management.” Final Act. 4.
Although we do not agree that all the limitations of claim 1 relate to
organizing human activity, we find that the following limitations pertain to
organizing human activity:
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
8
receiving social media data from the one or more online
social data sources transmitted over one or more electronic
communications links, the social media data representing a first
range of time,
performing latent semantic analysis on a portion of the
social media data to identify themes within the social media
data, the portion of the social media data comprising some or
all of the social media data and representing a second range of
time,
performing semantic filtering to remove content from
within the social media data resulting in a reduction of the
social media data that is to be clustered, clustering at least some
of the portion of the social media data into one or more clusters
by classifying the social media data based on at least the themes
identified as a result of the latent semantic analysis

Claim 1. Our reviewing court has concluded that classifying and storing
data in an organized manner is a well-established “basic concept” sufficient
to fall under Alice step 1. In re TLI Commc’ns LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
We, therefore, conclude claim 1 recites a concept of organizing
human activity performed within the human mind, which falls within the
mental processes category of abstract ideas identified in the Revised
Guidance.

Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Revised Guidance, we next determine
whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
The “additional elements” recited in claim 1 include the claimed “analysis
unit” and the limitations pertaining to performing “trend analysis” over a
“second range of time” and in particular the following limitations:
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
9

analyzing a portion of the social media data using an
analysis unit, the analysis unit being communicatively coupled
to receive inputs from one or more online social data sources
and to provide analysis outputs to a workflow engine, the
analysis unit generating trend analysis for the portion of the
social media data, the analysis of the portion of the social media
data performed by a process comprising:
. . .
performing trend analysis on data from the one or more
clusters over the second range of time, the trend analysis
comprising both:

(1) tracking a volume of the data from the one or more clusters
over the second range of time, and
(2) performing sentiment analysis on the volume of the data
from the one or more clusters over the second range of time;

processing trend analysis results using a workflow
engine, the workflow engine processing the trend analysis
results using a set of rules provided in a rulebase, the trend
analysis results processed by:

receiving the trend analysis results from the analysis unit
transmitted over one or more electronic communications links,
identifying one or more items based at least in part on the
trend analysis results; and
automatically processing at least some of the one or more
items by identifying a first rule from the set of rules for
determining whether to create an electronic message,
the electronic message being sent over the one or more
electronic communication links to a specific destination based
at least on a second rule from the set of rules, the second rule
corresponding to identifying the specific destination for the
electronic message.

Claim 1. To integrate the exception into a practical application, the
additional claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
10
computer or any other technology or technical field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a)), apply the judicial exception with a particular machine (see
MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect a transformation or reduction of a particular
article to a different state or thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use
the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Revised Guidance.
The Examiner finds the “workflow engine” as being a general purpose
computer performing generic computer functions but does not address the
“analysis unit” performing trend analysis over a second range of time by
“(1) tracking a volume of the data from the one or more clusters over the
second range of time, and (2) performing sentiment analysis on the volume
of the data from the one or more clusters over the second range of time.”
See Final Act. 4–5.
We agree with Appellant’s argument that under step 2A, prong 2, the
claim recites an abstract idea combined with additional elements, because
the analysis unit performing the trend analysis over a second range of time
by “(1) tracking a volume of the data from the one or more clusters over the
second range of time, and (2) performing sentiment analysis on the volume
of the data from the one or more clusters over the second range of time”
solves the technical problem of how to make sense of the different forms and
types of online social data wherein after the first clustering of the social data
into clusters based on themes, tracking a volume of data from the one or
more clusters over a range of time allows for detection of trends that may
exist for the identified themes. Appeal Br. 14–15.
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
11
Figure 2B is reproduced below:

Figure 2B illustrates tracking a volume of the data from one or
more clusters over a range of time, and performing sentiment analysis
on the volume of the data from the one or more clusters over the range
of time.

As shown in Figure 2B the theme trend data 208 can be analyzed in
conjunction with the sentiment trend data 210 for the same timeframe. Spec.
para. 31. It can be seen that there is a spike in interest for a given theme
early in the analyzed timeframe and at the same point in time, the sentiment
trend data sharply drops in sentiment for the same topic, moving from a
positive opinion to a negative opinion. Id. The trend analysis shows that the
negative opinion remains throughout that entire timeframe. Id. This
example analysis shows an interesting moment-in-time correlation between
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
12
a spiked interest in a topic and a steep drop in sentiment for that topic (i.e.,
possibly based on an event that was viewed negatively by the public), along
with the longer term effects of that correlation. Id.
We agree with Appellant that the themes can be tracked over the
period of time to detect trends, if any, that exist for the identified themes and
the trend data can be used to understand the changes that occur with respect
to the topics and subjects that interests individuals when they provide
content on social media sites. See Appeal Br. 15 (citing para. 26). Thus, we
agree with Appellant that “[t]his permits the system to understand the
contextual and semantic significance of terms that appear within the
received data.” Appeal Br. 15.
We further agree with Appellant that “the improved results are much
more relevant and accurate as opposed to conventional methods of
monitoring social media data, which create inaccurate analysis results due to
creating results that overly emphasize less meaningful topics while ignoring
more meaningful topics.” Appeal Br. 15 (citing Spec. para. 4). The trend
analysis over a range of time, as opposed to prior art systems that perform a
snapshot in time analysis, improve the technical field. See Spec. para. 4.
We conclude that claim 1 and claims 9 and 17 reciting similar claim
limitations, include additional elements that integrate the abstract limitations
into a practical application.
Accordingly, claims 1–27 describe patent-eligible subject matter.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellant argues, inter alia, that the proposed combination of
England, Szucs, and Choudhary, alone or in combination, does not teach or
suggest: (a) “clustering at least some of the portion of the social media data
into one or more clusters by classifying the social media data based on at
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
13
least the themes identified as a result of the latent semantic analysis” and
performing trend analysis where “the trend analysis comprising . . . tracking
a volume of the data from the one or more clusters over the second range of
time”; and “(b) performing the trend analysis comprising both (1) tracking a
volume of the data from the one or more clusters over the second range of
time, and (2) performing sentiment analysis on the volume of the data from
the one or more clusters over the second range of time.” Appeal Br. 38–39
(underlining omitted, italics added). Appellant argues and we agree, that
England teaches only performing sentiment analysis on multiple websites,
social posts, and social network sites with absolutely no description of the
trend analysis comprising both steps of: tracking a volume of data from the
one or more clusters and then performing sentiment analysis on the volume
of the data from the one or more clusters over the second range of time. Id.
at 39.
We agree with Appellant that neither paragraph 72 nor paragraph 81
teach the recited claim limitation. See England, paras. 72 and 81.
“[W]hen evaluating claims for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103,
all the limitations of the claims must be considered and given weight.” In re
Gardner, 449 F. App’x 914, 916 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (non-precedential) (citing
Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1983)); see In re
Glatt Air Techs., Inc., 630 F.3d 1026, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding
obviousness was not established where the prior art failed to teach the
claimed shielding).
Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and, for the same reasons, the rejections of
claims 2–27 as the additional cited references do not cure the above recited
deficiency.
Appeal 2019-003130
Application 13/795,802
14
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–27 are reversed.
More specifically, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–27 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 is reversed, and the rejection of claims 1–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–27 101 Eligiblity 1–27
1–4, 7–12,
15–20, 23–
27
103 England, Szucs,
Choudhary
1–4, 7–12,
15–20, 23–
27
5, 6, 13, 14,
21, 22
103 England, Szucs,
Choudhary, Burkitt
5, 6, 13,
14, 21, 22
Overall
Outcome:
1–27

REVERSED