Ex Parte Schaub

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2017

10641385 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2017)

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.
10/641,385 08/13/2003 Rene C. Schaub 50277-2934 1224
42425 7590 10/25/2017
HTPKMAN PAT F.RMO RFFTCFR RTNOTTAM/OR AFT F
EXAMINER
1 Almaden Boulevard LOFTUS, ANNE
Floor 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2017 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RENE C. SCHAUB
Appeal 2015-007873
Application 10/641,3851
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MATTHEW S. MEYERS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to the Appellant, Oracle International Corporation is the real
party in interest (App. Br. 1).
Appeal 2015-007873
Application 10/641,385
THE INVENTION
The Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to data processing and
data totaling operations (Spec., para. 2). Claim 47, reproduced below, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
47. A method comprising:
populating, by a database server, a single summary table;
wherein the single summary table is persistently stored in a
relational database that resides on non-volatile storage;
wherein the relational database is managed by the
database server;
wherein the database server is executing on one or more
computing devices;
wherein populating the single summary table includes
storing, within the single summary table, a plurality of pre­
computed sums;
wherein the plurality of pre-computed sums include
parent sums and child sums;
wherein each of the parent sums is the sum of two or
more corresponding child sums;
wherein a particular column of the single summary table
includes:
for a first row, a first child sum for a first interval;
for a second row, a second child sum for a second interval; and
for a third row, a parent sum that includes at least the first child
sum and the second child sum and is for a third interval that
includes the first interval and the second interval.
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
2
Appeal 2015-007873
Application 10/641,385
2. Claims 31—34, 36, 39-42, and 47—50 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rauer et al. (US 6,161,103 issued Dec.
12, 2000), Colby et al. (US 2001/0013030 Al, published Aug. 9, 2001), and
portions of the Specification identifying prior art.
3. Claims 30, 35, 38, 43, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rauer, Colby, and Jensen et al. (US
2003/0188260 Al, published Oct. 2, 2003).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101
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 long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[ljaws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Banklnt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 47 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296—97
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2015-007873
Application 10/641,385
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. If so, we then
consider the elements of the claim both individually and as “an ordered
combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the
nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea. Id.
This is a search for an “inventive concept”—an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more”
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that “the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358.
Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the abstract concept of
performing a mathematical function in a table using summing operations.
This is directed to the use of an algorithm and can be performed largely in a
series of mathematical steps and is an abstract idea beyond the scope of
§101.
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not.
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function
performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely
conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a
generic computer to perform a generic computer function.
4
Appeal 2015-007873
Application 10/641,385
Here, the claim is not rooted in technology, but rather is a basic math
operation performed on a generic computer in a conventional manner. For
this reason the rejection of claim 47 and its dependent claims is sustained.
Claims 49 and 50 are drawn to similar subject matter and the rejection of
these claims is sustained as well.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Appellant argues that the rejection of claim 47 is improper
because the cited prior art does not disclose or suggest the claim limitations:
wherein a particular column of the single summary table
includes'.
for a first row, a first child sum for a first interval',
for a second row, a second child sum for a second interval', and
for a third row, a parent sum that includes at least the first
child sum and the second child sum and is for a third interval
that includes the first interval and the second interval.
(App. Br. 4, emphasis added). Further arguments are presented in the
Appeal Brief at pages 4—7.
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the above cited claim
limitations are found in the Specification Background at Figure 2, Table
133; Colby at paragraph 50; and Rauer at column 29, line 10-column 30,
line 10 (Ans. 4, 5).
We agree with the Appellant. Here, even taking the above citations to
the Specification Background, Colby at paragraph 50, and Rauer at column
29, line 10-column 30, line 10 to disclose all the argued elements of the
claim limitations above, the rejection lacks adequate articulated reasoning
with rational underpinnings for such a modification without impermissible
5
Appeal 2015-007873
Application 10/641,385
hindsight. Accordingly the rejections of claim 47 and its dependent claims
are not sustained.
Independent claim 49 contains similar claim limitations and the
rejection of this claim and its dependent claim is not sustained as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 under 35U.S.C. § 101.
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 30-36, 38-44, and 47—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 30—36, 38-44, and 47—50 is
sustained.
AFFIRMED
6