Ex Parte Zoldi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 7, 201813367344 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/367,344 02/06/2012 76615 7590 08/09/2018 Mintz Levin/Fair Isaac Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Scott M. Zoldi 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. 35006-694F01US 1049 EXAMINER REFAI, RAMSEY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3627 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/09/2018 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): IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com IPFileroombos@mintz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SCOTT M. ZOLDI, JUN ZHANG, and YUTING JIA Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 1 Technology Center 3600 Before MARC S. HOFF, THU A. DANG, and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellants' invention is a method for multi-level self-calibrating fraud detection. Spec. ,r 4. The method includes the steps of providing one or more variables from a set of variables to each of a plurality of self- calibrating models implemented by one or more data processors; processing the one or more variables according to each of the plurality of self- 1 The real party in interest is Fair Isaac Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 calibrating models, producing a self-calibrating model output for each of the self-calibrating models; combining the self-calibrating model outputs; and generating an output for the real-time production data from the self- calibrating model output, the output representing a score relating to whether the transaction is fraudulent. Spec. ,r 6. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for detecting fraud in transaction data, the method comprising: providing a different set of one or more variables from a plurality of variables to each of a plurality of self-calibrating models that are implemented by one or more data processors, the plurality of variables being generated from real-time production data related to the transaction data; processing each set of one or more variables according to corresponding self-calibrating model implemented by the one or more data processors to produce a self-calibrating model output; combining the self-calibrating model output from each self-calibrating model in an output model implemented by one or more data processors; and generating an output for the real-time production data from the self-calibrating model output, the output representing a score characterizing whether a transaction associated with the transaction data is fraudulent. Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed October 9, 2015), the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September 26, 2016), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 25, 2016) for their respective details. 2 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 ISSUES 1. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea within the meaning of the first prong of Alice? 2. Does the claimed invention recite an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent would amount to significantly more than a patent upon the abstract idea itself, under the second prong of Alice? PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, [] determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. [] If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us?" [] To answer that question, [] consider the elements of each 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. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept'"-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 73, 78 (2012)). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of detecting fraud in a transaction, "which is considered a fundamental 3 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 economic practice and a method of organizing human activities." Final Act. 4. (Emphasis omitted). Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. App. Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded of error. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of "detecting," i.e. determining, whether or not transaction data indicate a fraudulent transaction. The idea, as expressed in the claim, includes gathering data to be analyzed by a plurality of software modules ("self-calibrating models"). The plurality of analyses are then combined in an "output model" and a score is generated characterizing whether a transaction associated with the transaction data is fraudulent. See Ans. 2-3. We further agree that the claim recites merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. See Ans. 2. The claimed invention in this appeal is analogous to the invention recited in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The invention in Electric Power Group detected events on an interconnected electric power grid by receiving a plurality of data streams from electricity transmission companies, as well as data from other power system data sources and non-grid data sources; detecting and analyzing events from the data received; displaying those events; accumulating and updating measurements; and deriving a composite indicator of reliability that is derived from a combination of one or more real time measurements and other data. Electric Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1352. Similarly, the invention under appeal detects fraudulent transactions, by receiving a plurality of data, analyzing the events indicated by that plurality of data, and 4 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 deriving a composite indicator of fraud from one or more combinations of the input data received and analyzed. As in Electric Power Group, the claims under appeal are directed to a process of gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, and deriving a composite indicator based on that information, using generic computer processors, rather than any particular inventive technology for performing those functions. Appellants argue that the Examiner did not consider representative claim 1 as a whole to determine whether it amounts to significantly more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea. App. Br. 11-12. We do not agree with Appellants. Beyond the abstract idea of detecting fraud in a transaction fraud, we agree with the Examiner that the claims recite only "one or more data processors," which we regard as generic computer processors, recited as performing "generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications." Ans. 3. Appellants argue that the invention is analogous to hypothetical claim 23 in Appendix 1 of the July 2015 USPTO Guidelines on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, and is thus patent-eligible. Appellants allege that, as in the hypothetical claim, the claimed invention does not recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea previously identified by the courts, and further allege that the invention does not recite any mathematical concept or mental process that could be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. App. Br. 14. Appellants' argument is not persuasive. First, Appellants have not established that the claims under appeal do not recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea previously identified by the courts. Second, Appellants have not presented evidence to establish that the fraud detection in the claimed invention could not be performed in 5 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 the human mind, or by a person using pen and paper. Third, nothing in the hypothetical claims in the Examination Guidelines affects our conclusion, expressed supra, that the claims under appeal recite a patent-ineligible abstract idea without reciting significantly more such that the nature of the claim is transformed into a patent-eligible application. Appellants next argue, analogizing to the facts of DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, 113 USPQ2d 1097 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the claimed invention addresses a business challenge and is rooted in computer technology. App. Br. 14--15. We do not agree with Appellants that the business challenge of detecting transaction fraud is particularly overcome by using computer technology. We are not persuaded that the multiple self-calibrated models "cannot possibly be executed by a human." App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 15. Further, we are unpersuaded that the use of multiple self-calibrated models, rather than a single model, necessarily "roots" the invention "in computer technology." Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in disregarding the invention's "improvements to another technology or field." App. Br. 16-17. Appellants allege that the invention's use of multiple self-calibrating models is computationally cheaper than conventional systems, and allows use of experimental nodes that allow exploring the effectiveness of new variables. App. Br. 17. We are not persuaded by this argument that the Examiner erred. First, these alleged features are not recited in the claims. Second, Appellants cite no evidence in support of this attorney argument. In the absence of such evidence, Appellants' attorney argument is entitled to little weight. 6 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 Appellants contend that the Examiner has not considered the fact that the claims show "improvements to the functioning of the computer itself." App. Br. 18. Appellants contend that the claimed implementation of multiple self-calibrating models reduces the amount of memory space required for storing the input data and increases the processing speed of the processor. App. Br. 18. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants provide no citation to the Specification, or other evidence, in support of this attorney argument, and present no evidence to support their claim that their invention improves the functioning of the computer itself. We are similarly unpersuaded by Appellants' Reply Brief analogy of the invention under appeal to the invention in Enfzsh LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (2016). The claims in Enfish were found to be directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate, i.e., a self-referential table for a computer database. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1332. We regard Appellants' submitted list of improvements as improvements to the functioning of the claimed abstract idea, rather than improvements to the computer itself. Reply Br. 10-11. Appellants' argument that the claimed invention amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because it applies the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, is not persuasive. App. Br. 19. The mere recitation in representative claim 1 of a generic "processor" is insufficient to establish the application of the abstract idea of detecting fraudulent transactions to a "particular machine." Appellants' naked assertion that the claims recite features "other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional," thus reciting 7 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 significantly more than a patent-ineligible abstract idea, is not persuasive of Examiner error. App. Br. 19-20. Appellants' bare assertion that the claims recite "specific and detailed technically complex elements" which characterize "other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment" is not persuasive to establish Examiner error. App. Br. 20. Appellants provide no explanation of the significance of any particular claim limitation and why such a limitation is alleged to constitute specific and detailed technically complex elements. We do not agree with Appellants that the Federal Circuit's decision in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am., Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (2016) supports a conclusion that the Examiner erred. Reply Br. 12-13. The McRO court found that the invention under appeal did not constitute a patent-ineligible abstract idea, because the claimed improvement allowed computers "to produce 'accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters' that previously could only be produced by human animators," realizing this automation through "the use of rules, rather than artists, to set the morph weights and transitions between phonemes." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. The invention under appeal, by contrast, does not present a claimed invention allowing the performance of functions that previously could only be performed by human operators, nor does it specify a set of rules that would supplant the work of human "artists" or other experts. We are not persuaded that the claims under appeal amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because of an inventive concept "found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, 8 Appeal2017-000288 Application 13/367,344 conventional pieces." Reply Br. 16; BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs. V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In BASCOM, the invention concerned "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user." BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The claims "do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet;" rather, "they recite a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content." Id. at 1350. Contrasted with BASCOM, the claims under appeal recite no such specific, discrete implementation, but rather a highly abstract, generic set of limitations (providing variables, processing according to a self-calibrating model, combining outputs, generating a fraud score) directed to the abstract idea of detecting fraudulent transactions. CONCLUSION 1. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea within the meaning of the first prong of Alice. 2. The claimed invention does not recite an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the patent would amount to significantly more than a patent upon the abstract idea itself, under the second prong of Alice. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21. 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation