Ex Parte Bhagwan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 22, 201613604157 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/604, 157 09/05/2012 49267 7590 09/26/2016 TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P,C 401 Broadhollow Road, Suite 402 Melville, NY 11747 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR V arun Bhagwan 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. YOR920100582US2 (379 6932 CON) EXAMINER LU, CHARLES EDWARD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2161 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/26/2016 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): patents@tb-iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte V ARUN BHAGW AN, TYRONE W. A. GRANDISON, DANIEL F. GRUHL, and KILIAN M. POHL Appeal2014-009027 Application 13/604,157 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16, which are all the claims pending in this application. Claims 2, 3, 10, and 11 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation (App. Br. 4). Appeal2014-009027 Application 13/604,157 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention relates to validating data (Abstract). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows. 1. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer readable program code, wherein the computer readable program code when executed on a computer causes the computer to: receive data elements for storage in slots of an individual descriptor; select at least one validation test based on a weighting of the data elements that indicates a respective degree of importance of the data elements; apply the selected at least one validation test to the data elements stored in the slots to generate respective validation results; and generate a validation score indicating a sufficiency of the stored data elements based on the validation results, wherein the data elements provide material for analysis of a subject and wherein each weight of the weighting of the data elements indicates a respective degree of importance of a corresponding data element in the analysis, and wherein the validation score scores an enablement of the stored data elements for enabling the performance of the analysis of the subject. The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16 stand rejected under 35 USC§ 101 for being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. 2 Claims 1, 4--7, 9, and 12-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Weinberg (US 2008/0077573 Al, Mar. 27, 2 We do not address the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16 under 35 USC 101 because the rejection has been withdrawn. (Ans. 3). 2 Appeal2014-009027 Application 13/604,157 2008), Greenwell (US 2006/0171523 Al, Aug. 3, 2006), and Song (US 2008/0021801 Al, Jan. 24, 2008). (Final Act. 5-14). Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable under Weinberg, Greenwell, Song, and Ryan (US 2006/0031182 Al, Feb. 9, 2006). (Final Act. 8-10; Ans. 14--15). 3 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 9 recite "the validation score scores an enablement of the stored data elements for enabling the performance of the analysis of the subject."4 The Examiner finds this limitation is taught by Song, which teaches analyzing data records pertaining to a subject and assigning risk values (validation scores) to the subject based on the analysis. (Final Act. 8; Ans. 3--4). The Examiner finds Song's use of the risk values to perform further investigation of the subject teaches enabling performance of analysis of the subject. (Ans. 3--4). Appellants argue Song's risk values, which are used to determine if a client's activity constitutes fraud, do not indicate or quantify the sufficiency of the data for enabling Song's system to perform an analysis of the client. (App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 9-10). Rather, Appellants argue, "Song's system simply determines whether a client's activities constitute fraud; the system 3 The Examiner's provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1 and 4--8 over US patent application number 13/016,407 (see Final Act. 2--4) is moot in view of the abandonment of this application on March 28, 2014. 4 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 4--8 and 12-16 (see App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 6-13). Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2014-009027 Application 13/604,157 does not evaluate whether the data on the activities is sutlicient to enable the system to perform the fraud analysis." (App. Br. 8). We disagree. Contrary to Appellants' arguments, paragraph 108 of Song, cited by the Examiner, discloses that a risk value "is used to determine the priority sequence of ... cases during the investigation process. A user can investigate these cases one by one from top to bottom of the screen because these cases are sorted based on the magnitude of these representative risk values." (Song i-f 108; Ans. 3--4). Song's investigation of cases in prioritized order based on the magnitude of the risk values teaches a validation score that scores an enablement of the stored data elements for enabling the performance of the analysis of the subject. (See id.). The sorting of Song's risk values based on their magnitudes indicates and quantifies the sufficiency of the data, from which Song's risk values were obtained, to perform the analysis of the subject. (See id.). Accordingly we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants additionally argue Song's determination of a threshold number of risk values needed to detect suspicious activity is not an ability of the stored data elements to support performing an analysis of the subject. (Reply Br. 9). We do not find this argument persuasive because it does not address the Examiner's specific findings discussed supra. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4--9, and 12-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. 4 Appeal2014-009027 Application 13/604,157 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation