Ex Parte Gorelik et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2019

11937737 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/937,737 11/09/2007
29053 7590 05/03/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS A VENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Victor Gorelik
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.
TRCP.P0030US/1000197643 2385
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2019 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VICTOR GORELIK and PHILIP C. DOYLE
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1,
3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14--16, 18, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, and 31. Claims 2, 5, 9, 17,
19, 20, 25, 27, 30, 32, and 33 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a method for adjusting the scale resolution
of displayed data. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of adjusting the scale
resolution of a displayed set of data values of a chart associated
with a financial instrument displayed in a graphical user
interface (GUI), the method comprising:
monitoring the displayed chart to detect a rescale
condition, said chart including data points representing
variations in the set of data values, wherein detecting the
rescale condition includes detecting a spike in the set of data
values that causes the chart's scale resolution to decrease such
that, due to the decreased scale resolution, the variations in the
set of values for the financial instrument are graphically
compressed;
determining that the spike is an anomaly;
removing the spike from the set of data values based on
the spike being an anomaly;
automatically rescaling the chart with the spike removed
such that the scale resolution of the chart is increased; and
displaying the rescaled chart on the GUI with the
increased scale resolution such that the variations in the set of
values for the financial instrument are graphically expanded due
to the increased scale resolution, wherein the determining that
the spike is an anomaly is determined by:
a) identifying a time interval associated with the financial
instrument, the financial instrument having a first set of data
2
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
related thereto, wherein the first set of data includes a plurality
of values selected from the group consisting of:
(i) a first value associated with a high value for the
financial instrument during the time interval, (ii) a second value
associated with a low value for the financial instrument during
the time interval, (iii) a third value associated with an opening
value for the financial instrument during the time interval, and
(iv) a fourth value associated with a closing value for the
financial instrument during the time interval,
b) based upon the first set of data, analyzing whether the
time interval includes the spike, and based upon a pre-
determined confidence C, determining that the time interval
includes the spike
co co
C = [1 - J dx J f ( X, y )dy] * I 00 o/o
R R
wherein Risa user selected threshold, xis equal to the high
value minus the closing value, and y is equal to the high value
minus the opening value.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, 10-12, 14--16, 18, 21-24,
26, 28, 29, and 31 ("the pending claims") under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
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 Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
3
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
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 Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. 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. Kappas, 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 (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
(1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
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
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
4
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 192 ("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 Supreme 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. (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 tum 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. ( 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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
5
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
( 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 MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.0S(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 Memorandum.
The Examiner concludes the "claim limits describe idea( s) which are
analogous to the basic concept of a mathematical procedure for converting
one form of numerical representation to another." Final Act. 5. We agree
that the claim limitation:
based upon the first set of data, analyzing whether the time
interval includes the spike, and based upon a pre-determined
confidence C, determining that the time interval includes the
spike
a:) c.o
C= [1- J ~J f(x,y)dy]* 100%
.R R
6
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
wherein Risa user selected threshold, xis equal to the high value
minus the closing value, and y is equal to the high value minus
the opening value
explicitly recites a mathematical concept, because the limitation explicitly
states the "analyzing whether the time interval includes the spike" is "based
on a pre-determined confidence C," which is determined using an explicit
calculation or equation. Therefore, the claim recites a mathematical concept,
which is a judicial exception identified in the Memorandum, and thus an
abstract idea.
We next determine if there are additional element(s) or a combination
of elements in the claim that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. See MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h); Memorandum.
The claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in
adjusting the scale resolution of a displayed set of data values of a chart
associated with a financial instrument displayed in a graphical user interface.
The additional elements recite a specific manner of "monitoring the
displayed chart to detect a rescale condition," "detecting a spike in the set of
data values," "determining that the spike is an anomaly," "removing the
spike from the set of data values," "automatically rescaling the chart with the
spike removed such that the scale resolution of the chart is increased," and
"displaying the rescaled chart on the GUI with the increase scale resolution
such that the variations in the set of values for the financial instrument are
graphically expanded due to the increase scale resolution," which provides a
specific improvement over prior systems, resulting in an improved way of
adjusting the scale resolution of a displayed set of data values of a chart
associated with a financial instrument displayed in a graphical user interface.
See Memorandum§ III A ("An additional element reflects an improvement
7
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field."). In this regard, claim 1 is similar to the claims held patent
eligible Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356,
1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There, the claims were directed to an hnproved
display interface that allowed users to more quickly access stored data and
programs in small-screen electronics, thereby improving the efficient
functioning of the computer. Id. at 1359. The prior art taught that small-
screen electronic interfaces required users to scroll through and switch views
to find desired data and functions. Id. at 1363. Core \Vireless's invention
improved the efficiency of these display interfaces. By displaying only a
limited list of common functions and data from which to choose, the
invention spared users from time-consuming operations of navigating to,
opening up, and then navigating within, each separate application. Id. The
invention therefore increased the efficiency with which users could navigate
through various views and windows. Id. The Federal Circuit concluded that
the claims were patent eligible because the claims "recite[d] a specific
improvernent over prior systems, resulting in an improved user interface for
electronic devices," and thus were directed to "an improvement in the
functioning of computers." Id. at 1363.
Claim 1 of the similarly recites a method that differs from prior art
methods and provides a '"graph being scaled to prevent the spike from
substantially affecting visual information relating to the set of
transactions." Spec., Abstract. The invention provides an improved process
for adjusting the scale resolution of a displayed set of data values of a chart
displayed in a GUI, which if practiced, will "prevent the spike from
substantially affecting the scale at which the information relating to the set
8
Appeal2018-002062
Application 11/937,737
of transaction is displayed." Spec. ,r 16. In addition, akin to the claims
in Core Wireless, claim l recites a "specific" and "particular" manner of
removing the spike, "automatically rescaling the chart with the spike
removed such that the scale resolution of the chart is increased," and
"displaying the rescaled chart on the GUI with the increase scale resolution
such that the variations in the set of values for the financial instrument are
graphically expanded due to the increase scale resolution," that improves the
efficient functioning of computers. See Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362,
1363; see also Data Engine Techs. LLC v. Google LLC, 906 F.3d 999, 1009
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding claims eligible as reciting a specific a particular
manner of navigating a three-dimensional spreadsheet that improves the
efficient functioning of computers). The claim as a whole therefore
integrates the mathematical concept into a practical application.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8,
10-12, 14--16, 18, 21-24, 26, 28, 29, and 31 is reversed.
REVERSED
9