Ex Parte Sastri et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 10, 2018

13427833 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/427,833 03/22/2012
21884 7590 09/11/2018
WELSH FLAXMAN & GITLER LLC
2000 DUKE STREET, SUITE 100
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gautham Sastri
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.
ISE-005 6679
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LIZ P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GAUTHAM SAS TRI and LIONEL ALBER TI
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MEREDITH C. PETRA VICK, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1---6 and 8-15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellants identify iSentium Technologies, Inc. as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer-implemented method for finding patterns
in a target real-valued time series by utilizing sentiment and
frequency derived from a stream of social media messages,
wherein the target represents a quantifiable property of an asset
being tracked, comprising:
ingesting a stream of social media messages, filtering the
stream of social media messages to eliminate expressions not
part of current language usage, and tagging the stream of social
media messages with part-of-speech tags;
identifying a target, which is a sampled real-valued time
series based upon the stream of social media messages;
generating in real-time, through the application of
Natural Language Processing, a sentiment time series, Ss, based
upon the stream of social media messages relating to the asset,
wherein the sentiment time series is a pulsated time series;
generating in real-time a frequency time series, S1,
derived from the sentiment time series and a positive number w
representing a time called window size, the frequency time
series relating to the asset, wherein the frequency time series is
a pulsated time series;
determining, in real-time, a pattern based upon the
sentiment time series and the frequency time series; and
graphically depicting sentiment and frequency as they relate to
the asset on a monitor.
REJECTION
Claims 1---6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible
subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
2
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833
ANALYSIS
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are deemed
ineligible for patenting, because they are regarded as the basic tools of
scientific and technological work, such that their inclusion within the
domain of patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised
upon them. Ass 'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013). Of course, "[a]t some level, 'all inventions ...
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply'" these basic tools of scientific and
technological work. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354
(2014) (citation omitted). Accordingly, ascertaining ineligible subject
matter involves a two-step framework for "distinguish[ing] between patents
that claim the buildin[g] block[ s] of human ingenuity and those that integrate
the building blocks into something more, ... thereby transform[ing] them
into a patent-eligible invention." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations
omitted). The first step determines whether the claim is directed to
judicially excluded subject matter (such as a so-called "abstract idea"); the
second step determines whether there are any "additional elements" recited
in the claim that ( either individually or as an "ordered combination") amount
to "significantly more" than the identified judicially excepted subject matter
itself. Id. at 2355.
In regard to the first step of the Alice framework, the Final Office
Action states that "[c]laims 1---6 and 8-15 are directed to the abstract idea of
organizing information through mathematical correlations." Final Action 4.
In response, the Appellants argue that the claimed subject matter
"amounts to far more than simple mathematical correlations." Appeal Br. 9.
The Appellants contend that the claims are "directed to a method for finding
3
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833
patterns in a target real-valued time series by utilizing sentiment and
frequency derived from a stream of social media messages," which is not an
abstract idea, but is "a very specific method addressing a real world
problem." Id. at 8.
Rather than rebutting the Appellants' formulation of the claimed
subject matter, the Examiner adopts it. See Answer 4 ("The claims are
directed to an abstract idea of finding patterns in a target real-valued time
series by utilizing sentiment and frequency derived from a stream of social
media messages.") The Examiner determines that the Appellants'
characterization of the claims is an abstract idea, because "[t]he concept
described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those concepts found
by the courts to be abstract ideas." Id. In particular, the Examiner (id.)
cites, Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
National Association, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014), Digitech Image
Technologies, Inc. v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir.
2014), and SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 F.
App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (nonprecedential). Of these cases, Digitech
bears particular relevance to the instant Appeal, because of the Federal
Circuit's determination that"[ w ]ithout additional limitations, a process that
employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is not patent eligible." Digitech, 758 F.3d at
1351.
Responding to the Examiner's Answer, the Appellants, in the Reply
Brief, argue:
The claimed invention constitutes a very specific method
addressing a real world problem regarding how the vast amounts
of social media data generated in the Internet may be used to
4
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833
advance various social and business goals. The claimed method
involves far more than organizing information and associating
mathematical relationships or formulas with the information.
Rather, the claimed method applies a system of rules to social
media messages for the purpose of identifying patterns. The
method steps employed in accordance with the claimed invention
are not generic, easily categorized steps but involved highly
specific steps applied to a high specific data set.
Reply Br. 2-3.
Yet, the Appellants' assertions, regarding the claims' alleged
specificity and application to real-world problems, do not speak to the issue
that the Examiner raised - i.e., that the focus of the claimed subject matter
is the mathematical analysis of data, such that the claims are directed to an
ineligible concept. See Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978) ("If a
claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical
formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is
nonstatutory. ") Therefore, the Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's application of the first step of the Alice framework.
With regard to the second Alice step, the Appeal Brief asserts that the
claimed subject matter is "a complex method" having steps that "go well
beyond an abstract idea." Appeal Br. 9. In particular, the Appellants argue
that the steps of "filtering" the social media messages and "generating"
sentiment and frequency time series in real time for graphical depiction
amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea, because they
"provid[ e] a solution to a problem confronting the present world, that is,
how to make use of the vast amounts of available data in a concrete,
effective and tangible manner." Id. See also Reply Br. 3--4.
5
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833
Yet, under the second Alice step, patent eligibility turns upon whether
any claim elements ( or any combination thereof) whether those elements
"involve more than [the] performance of 'well-understood, routine, [and]
conventional activities previously known to the industry.'" Content
Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347--48 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
Because the Appellants, instead, base their argument upon the "filtering"
and "generating" steps allegedly "providing a solution to a problem
confronting the present world" (Appeal Br. 9), this argument is not
persuasive of error in the Examiner's application of the second Alice step.
The Appellants also argue, in an alternative articulation of the second
Alice step, that the claimed subject matter overcomes a problem specifically
arising in the realm of computer networks. See Reply Br. 4 ( citing DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The
Appellants support this argument, by stating that "social media is an integral
part of our current computer world," "[t]he problems associated with making
use of the data generated by social media are real and important, and the
nature of social media dictates that these problems are intimately associated
with, and arise in, the realm of computer networks." Id.
Critically, however, unlike the circumstances of DDR Holdings, the
Appellants do not point to any aspect of the claimed subject matter that,
"overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events" provided by the
computer technology employed therein. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at
1258. Accordingly, this argument is also unpersuasive.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-6 and 8-15 (for which the
Appellants present no separate argument) under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
6
Appeal2017-004608
Application 13/427,833
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1---6 and 8-15
are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
7