Ex Parte Zoldi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2018

13367344 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2018)

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