Singla, Anurag

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2020

15031503 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 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.
15/031,503 04/22/2016 Anurag Singla 90196525 3286
146568 7590 01/14/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
WANG, HARRIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/14/2020 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANURAG SINGLA
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, 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 1–15, which are all of the pending
claims. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the
applicant, EntIT Software LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A predictive analytics device, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory to store instructions that, when executed by the
processor, cause the processor to:
calculate a first plurality of model forecast trend curves utilizing
historical security events associated with a computer network;
determine which of the first plurality of model forecast trend
curves best fits the historical security events to form a first best fit
forecast trend curve representing forecasted security events;
compare predicted security events from the first best fit forecast
trend curve with real-time security events associated with the computer
network and determine that the predicted
events from the first best fit forecast trend curve deviate by more than
a threshold from the realtime security events;
calculate, based on the real-time events deviating from the
predicted security events from the first best fit forecast trend curve by
a threshold, a second plurality of model forecast trend curves utilizing
the real-time security events and representing forecasted security events
for the computer network; and
determine which of the second plurality of forecast trend curves
and first best fit forecast trend curve best fits the real-time security
events to form a second best fit forecast trend curve representing
forecasted security events for the computer network.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Nasle US 2008/0120080 A1 May 22, 2008
Sharan US 2013/0081065 A1 Mar. 28, 2013

Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter (abstract idea).
Claims 1–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nasle and Sharan.
ANALYSIS
I. Section 101 Rejection2
The Examiner rejects claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 on the basis
that the claimed invention is patent-ineligible because it is directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more. Final Act. 5–6. Appellant
argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, are directed to
patent-eligible subject matter, and the Examiner’s rejection should be
reversed. Appeal Br. 8–12. For the reasons explained below, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s § 101 rejection and we, therefore,
sustain that rejection.
A. Principles of Law
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. The Supreme Court, however, has interpreted § 101 to
include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).

2 With regard to the Examiner’s § 101 rejection, Appellant argues all claims
collectively with claim 1 (Appeal Br. 8), and we consider claim 1 to be
representative of the claimed subject matter on appeal. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

4
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, 75–77 (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, 573 U.S. at
217. The first step in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. For
example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 218–20. The
“directed to” inquiry asks not whether “the claims involve a patent-ineligible
concept,” but instead whether, “considered in light of the specification, . . .
‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal
citations omitted). In that regard, we determine whether the claims “focus
on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology” or are
“directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke
generic processes and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If, at the first stage of the Alice analysis, we conclude that the claims
are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, they are considered patent
eligible under § 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

5
elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). In
other words, the second step is to “search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e.,
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.’” Id. at 217–18 (brackets in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). The prohibition against patenting an abstract
idea “‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula
to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant
postsolution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010)
(internal citation omitted).
The Patent and Trademark Office (the “Office”) has published revised
guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, the Office first looks 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); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance at 52, 54–55; see
also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).3
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then
look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial

3 Unless otherwise specified herein, all references to the MPEP are to Rev.
08.2017 (Jan. 2018).
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

6
exception that are 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. See 2019 Guidance at 56. We
follow this framework in our analysis herein.
B. Application of Legal Principles
1. Step One of Alice / Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance
Prong 1: Whether the Claims Recite an Abstract Idea
In applying the framework set out in Alice, and as the first step of that
analysis, the Examiner concludes claim 1 “is directed to the abstract idea of
comparing information regarding a sample to a control or target data”
because, according to the Examiner, claim 1 “recites the steps of ’comparing
predicted events from a best fit trend curve with the real time events.’ Final
Act. 5. In challenging the Examiner’s determination that the claims recite an
abstract idea, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s summarization of claim
1 “is an impermissible mischaracterization.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant then
contends:
the instant claims are directed to specific, concrete solutions to
predicting or forecasting future security events associated with a
computer network to allow a network security operator or
administrator to address and protect against security attacks, and
as such, the claims are necessarily rooted in . . . computer
technology.
Id. at 10; see also Reply Br. 1–2.
Claim 1 recites:
A predictive analytics device, comprising:
a processor; and
a memory to store instructions that, when executed by the
processor, cause the processor to:
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

7
calculate a first plurality of model forecast trend curves
utilizing historical security events associated with a computer
network;
determine which of the first plurality of model forecast
trend curves best fits the historical security events to form a first
best fit forecast trend curve representing forecasted security
events;
compare predicted security events from the first best fit
forecast trend curve with real-time security events associated
with the computer network and determine that the predicted
events from the first best fit forecast trend curve deviate by more
than a threshold from the realtime security events;
calculate, based on the real-time events deviating from the
predicted security events from the first best fit forecast trend
curve by a threshold, a second plurality of model forecast trend
curves utilizing the real-time security events and representing
forecasted security events for the computer network; and
determine which of the second plurality of forecast trend
curves and first best fit forecast trend curve best fits the real-time
security events to form a second best fit forecast trend curve
representing forecasted security events for the computer
network.
The Examiner finds that the claim recites “statistical mathematical
functions such as trend curve best fits and comparing data with the trend
curve.” Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner and find that the claimed steps
of “calculate [a first set of curves]. . . determine [a first best fit curve]. . .
compare [data]. . . calculate [a second set of curves]. . . and determine [a
second best fit curve]” comprise mathematical relationships and
calculations, thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of mathematical
concepts. See 2019 Guidance at 52.
The Examiner also finds that the claim recites “[c]oncepts relating to
data comparisons that can be performed mentally or are analogous to human
mental work.” Ans. 5–6. For example, the steps of “calculate [a first set of
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

8
curves]. . . determine [a first best fit curve]. . . compare [data]. . . calculate [a
second set of curves]. . . and determine [a second best fit curve]” can be
performed mentally. We agree with the Examiner and find that the claimed
steps can be performed in the human mind, thus, the claim also recites the
abstract idea of mental processes. Id. Thus, under prong 1 of Step 2A in
accordance with the 2019 Guidance, the claims recite an abstract idea. We
turn now to prong 2.
Prong 2: Whether the Claims Integrate the Abstract
Idea Into a Practical Application4
In accordance with prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance, we
evaluate claims to determine whether they recite additional elements beyond
the abstract idea, and, if so, we evaluate the additional elements to determine
whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. 2019
Guidance at 54. The 2019 Guidance at page 55 provides exemplary
considerations, including whether an additional element:
• “reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or
an improvement to other technology or technical field”;
• “implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial
exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or
manufacture that is integral to the claim”;

4 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under the second step of Alice (Step 2B of Office Guidance as
identified in the 2019 Guidance). Solely for purposes of maintaining
consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate them under the first step
of Alice (Step 2A of Office Guidance as identified in the 2019 Guidance).
See 2019 Guidance at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

9
• “effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article [or
thing] to a different state or thing”; or
• “applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful
way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception
to a particular technological environment.”
The 2019 Guidance also highlights certain examples in which courts
have held that “a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical
application,” such as where the claims “merely use[] a computer as a tool to
perform an abstract idea” or the additional element adds “insignificant extra-
solution activity” to the abstract idea. 2019 Guidance at 55 (emphasis
added); see also October 2019 Update at 11–15. Appellant’s invention is
directed to the mathematical concept and mental process of calculating data,
determining data, comparing data, calculating data, and determining data—a
process in which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity. See
Final Act. 5–6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the claims recite
steps beyond the abstract idea, such as “improving security.” See Reply Br.
1–2. In particular, claim 1 does not recite any step beyond determining a
curve. We find the steps such as “compare predicted security events . . .
with real-time security events” are directed to insignificant extra-solution
activity. As our reviewing court has explained, such data gathering of “real-
time security events” simply provides data for other method steps. See, e.g.
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an
otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.”’ (alterations in original) (quoting In
re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989))); see also 2019 Guidance at
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

10
55 (identifying “add[ing] insignificant extra-solution activity to the” abstract
idea as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a
practical application).
Consistent with the Examiner’s determination, we determine the
claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical
field or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; we also
find the claims do not include a transformation of an article or meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment. See Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 3–7. As the
Supreme Court has explained, “if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a
computer,’ that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
223 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84).
In summary, we conclude the claims do not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application sufficiently to remove them from the realm of
reciting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. Accordingly, in step one of the
Alice analysis, we conclude the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
2. Step Two of Alice / 2019 Guidance
Regarding step two of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the
elements of the claims, when considered individually or in combination, do
not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 5–6. In
particular, the Examiner finds:
The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the
claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more
than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer,
and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known to the
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

11
pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim
element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform
the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract
idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim (s) are rejected under 35
U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Appeal Br. 11. In the Answer, the Examiner additionally sets forth evidence
that “a processor” and “a memory” are well-understood, routine, and
conventional when claimed in a generic manner. Ans. 6–7 (citing MPEP
2016.05(d)(ii); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (“The
computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its
most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such
does not impose meaningful limitations on the scope of those claims.”)).
Appellant argues that there are a number of additional elements other
than a processor and a memory. Reply Br. 2. Appellant then recites four of
the five steps recited in claim 1. Id. at 3. Missing from Appellant’s
argument, however, is any identification of which elements in claim 1 are
additional elements beyond the abstract idea. The analysis in the second
step of Alice does not consider whether the limitations that are part of the
recited abstract idea are routine or well-known. As the Federal Circuit has
explained, patent law does not protect abstract ideas, “no matter how
groundbreaking the advance.” SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018). What is necessary to impart patent eligibility
for a claim that recites an abstract idea is a specific limitation beyond the
judicial exception that is not well-understood, routine, and conventional.
The Examiner addresses the limitations of the claims that are arguably
beyond the recitation of the abstract idea (i.e., the processor and memory),
and finds that these limitations perform routine and conventional data
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

12
processing using generic computing devices. Ans. 6–7. Appellant does not
persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings. See generally Reply Br. 2–3.
For the reasons stated above, we disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and
hence we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as patent-ineligible.
For the same reasons, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2–15, which are
not separately argued, as patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

II. Section 103 Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1–15 as obvious over Nasle and Sharan.
Final Act. 6. Claim 1 recites “determine which of the first plurality of model
forecast trend curves best fits the historical security events to form a first
best fit forecast trend curve representing forecasted security events.” The
Examiner finds that paragraph 278, as well as step 706 of Figure 7, of Nasle
teaches “determining a best fit forecast based on historical events.” Final
Act. 6.
Appellant contends that Nasle does not disclose the claimed
“determine which of the first plurality of model forecast trend curves best
fits the historical security events to form a first best fit forecast trend curve
representing forecasted security events,” because Nasle does not disclose
(a) a “plurality of model forecast trend curves” as claimed, nor
(b) determining which of the plurality forms the “best fit forecast trend
curve” as claimed. Appeal Br. 12–14.
We agree with Appellant for the reasons given by Appellant. We
highlight the following for emphasis. Paragraph 278 of Nasle discusses
Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

13
statistical techniques such as best-fit curve trending (least squares
regression). Step 706, shown in Figure 7 of Nasle, discloses “Generate
predicted system data for the monitored system using a virtual model of the
monitored system.” However, the Examiner has not persuasively explained
how Nasle’s disclosure of best-fit curve trending (least squares regression)
and generating predicted data using a model of a monitored system teaches
“determine which of the first plurality of model forecast trend curves best
fits the historical security events to form a first best fit forecast trend curve
representing forecasted security events” as claimed.
The Examiner also finds that Sharan teaches “a best fit determination
engine to determine which of the first plurality of model forecast trend
curves best fits the historical events to form a first best forecast trend curve.”
Ans. 9 (citing Final Act. 7). Appellant contends that Sharan describes a best
fit domain schema. Reply Br. 3–4. Appellant also contends that the
Examiner has not persuasively explained why domain schema may be
considered curves. Id. at 4. We agree with Appellant; the Examiner has not
explained why the schemas of Sharan can be considered “curves” as
claimed.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103. Each of claims 2–15 recite, or depend from a claim that
recites, the same or a similar limitation as that recited in claim 1, for which
the rejection fails.

Appeal 2019-001765
Application 15/031,503

14
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
(patent ineligible / abstract idea) is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Nasle and Sharan is reversed.

DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–15 101 Eligibility 1–15
1–15 103 Nasle, Sharan 1–15
OVERALL OUTCOME 1–15

Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner’s decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1).

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED