Ex Parte George et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 25, 2018

14513410 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/513,410 10/14/2014 William Brandon George
111003 7590 05/30/2018
Adobe / Finch & Maloney PLLC
50 Commercial Street
Manchester, NH 03101
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.
AD0l.4347US01 3819
EXAMINER
LELAND III, EDWIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2677
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/30/2018 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):
docketing@finchmaloney.com
nmaloney@finchmaloney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM BRANDON GEORGE, KEVIN GARY SMITH, and
WALTER CHANG
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410 1
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. EV ANS, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-18, and 20-25. Appellants have canceled claims
4, 8, 10, 12, and 19. App. Br. 17-22. We have jurisdiction over the
remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Adobe Systems Incorporated as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to "consumer
segmentation, and more specifically to methods for using natural language
processing techniques to define, manipulate, and interact with consumer
segmentation." Spec. ,r 1. According to the Specification, existing
consumer segmentation tools are complex to use and may require
specialized training and knowledge. Spec. ,r 10. Thus, rather than adhering
to a formalistic syntax required by a particular consumer segmentation tool,
the Specification discloses using a natural language segmentation query.
Spec. ,r 11. In a disclosed embodiment, the "query is parsed to identify
individual grammatical tokens which are then correlated with specific
segment token types through the use of a token repository." Spec. ,r 11.
Segment token types are used to construct a formal segment definition
having the required structure to access consumer segmentations by a content
provider. Spec. ,r 13.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for consumer segmentation that
compnses:
parsing a received natural language query into a plurality
of received grammatical tokens;
accessing a token repository that correlates certain
grammatical tokens with one or more segment token types;
identifying a first received grammatical token that also
exists in the token repository;
2
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410
correlating the first received grammatical token with a
particular segment token type based on a correlation that is
defined in the token repository;
correlating a second received grammatical token with a
raw value segment token type, wherein the second received
grammatical token does not exist in the token repository;
identifying a modified second grammatical token that (a)
exists in the token repository, (b) is correlated with the raw value
segment token type, and ( c) represents a closest matching
grammatical token based on the second received grammatical
token;
obtaining a segment definition structure that comprises a
plurality of segment token type placeholders arranged in a logical
order;
mapping the first grammatical token and the modified
second grammatical token onto the segment definition structure
based on a location of a matching segment token type
placeholder within the segment definition structure; and
rendering a segment definition that corresponds to the
received natural language query, conforms to the segment
definition structure and comprises the first grammatical token
and the modified second grammatical token.
The Examiner's Rejection
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, 13-18, and 20-25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final
Act. 3--4.
3
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410
ANALYSIS 2
Appellants dispute the Examiner's conclusion that the claims are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. App.
Br. 4--16; Reply Br. 2-7. In particular, Appellants contend the claims are
directed to "a consumer segmentation framework that automatically converts
a natural language query to a computer-readable segment definition using a
combination of rules that are specifically defined in the claims." App. Br. 5.
More specifically, Appellants assert the claims recite a limited set of rules
used in a specially designed process to realize a technological improvement
within a conventional industry practice. App. Br. 13. According to
Appellants, the specialized rules enable the automation of consumer
segmentation, such as from a natural language query, rather than requiring
complex tools, requiring specialized training and knowledge, to define,
manipulate, and interact with consumer segmentations. App. Br. 13; see
also Spec. ,r 12. As discussed below, we are persuaded by Appellants'
arguments.
Under the Supreme Court's two-step framework, if a claim falls
within one of the statutory categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) then the first inquiry is
whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially recognized exceptions
(i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If so, the
2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
May 17, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief, filed October 11, 2017 ("Reply
Br."); the Examiner's Answer, mailed August 31, 2017 ("Ans."); and the
Final Office Action, mailed September 26, 2016 ("Final Act."), from which
this Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410
second step is to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. As part
of "directed to" inquiry of step one, we must "look at the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex. v.
DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016), our reviewing
court framed the question as "whether the focus of the claims is on [a]
specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities ... or, instead, on a
process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which computers are invoked
merely as a tool." If the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the
inquiry ends. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., 837 F.3d 1299,
1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to parsing a natural
language query into tokens, correlates the tokens with a type from a
repository, modifies unmatched tokens to match tokens in the repository,
maps tokens onto a segment definition structure and renders the segment
definition. Final Act. 3. The Examiner analogizes the claimed steps
(elements) to other ideas the courts have concluded to be abstract-namely,
collecting, analyzing, and displaying information (see Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); collecting and
analyzing information to detect misuse (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); and comparing
information to target data (see Ass 'n for Molecular Pathology v. USP TO,
689 F.3d 1303, 1334--35 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
5
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410
When considered as a whole, in light of the Specification, we disagree
with the Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of simply
collecting, analyzing, and comparing data. Rather, the focus of Appellants'
claims is on improving the ability to define, manipulate, and interact with
consumer segmentations by using a natural language query framework. See
Spec. ,r,r 10-12; see also McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 ("We do not assume that
such claims are directed to patent ineligible subject matter because 'all
inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of
nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas."') ( quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293
(2012)). The improvement to the consumer segmentation input process
itself is similar to McRO, where the court found the focus of the claims was
to an improvement to an existing technological process (i.e., accurate and
realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters)
by applying a limited set of rules having specific characteristics. McRO,
837 F.3d at 1313. For example, after parsing the natural language query into
a plurality of grammatical tokens, the claimed invention applies specific
rules to identify the token(s) with particular segment tokens defined in a
token repository. If there is not a direct correlation between the grammatical
token and a segment token type, the claimed invention further applies rules
to identify a modified grammatical token representing a closest match
approach. Further, the identified (i.e., correlated) segment token types are
mapped onto a segment definition structure based on a location of a
matching segment token type placeholder within the segment definition
structure. Accordingly, we conclude the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea.
6
Appeal2018-000407
Application 14/513,410
Because we find it dispositive that the claims do not recite patent-
ineligible subject matter, we need not address other issues raised by
Appellants' arguments.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5-7,
9, 11, 13-18, and 20-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11,
13-18, and 20-25.
REVERSED
7