Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 20202019001933 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/804,654 07/21/2015 Haim Shuvali 84269661 8131 146568 7590 05/29/2020 MICRO FOCUS LLC 500 Westover Drive #12603 Sanford, NC 27330 EXAMINER EHNE, CHARLES ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2113 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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): software.ip.mail@microfocus.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAIM SHUVALI and GUY OFFER Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 Technology Center 2100 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20. Claims 10, 16, and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Entit Software LLC, a wholly-owned affiliate of Micro Focus International Plc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to “methods, systems, and computer- readable and executable instructions to associate error event with inputs to applications.” Spec. ¶ 11. Representative Claim Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows; 1. A system comprising: a processor; and a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor to: record, in a data store, a plurality of different error event types encountered in response to an input to a first element of an application displayed in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device; associate each of the plurality of different error event types with a unique identifier of the input; electronically represent an error event type of the different error event types associated with the unique input identifier in a GUI of a support device; and associate, with the unique identifier, further different event types encountered in response to respective inputs to the first element of the application displayed in respective GUIs of further user devices. REJECTION Claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 3 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–15; Reply Br. 4–7. As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Arguments The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to a process of analyzing data and displaying the results, which is a mental process, and similar to the abstract idea held patent-ineligible in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 6–7. The Examiner further finds that claim 1 is not significantly more than the abstract idea because the claim does not improve the functioning of a computer and instead recites generic computer components performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. See Final Act. 2–3; see also Ans. 7–8. Appellant contends claim 1 recites particular technical details in the association of different error event types with a unique identifier of an input to a first element of an application displayed in a graphical user interface of a user device, and goes beyond the Examiner’s characterization of the claim as collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the collection and analysis. See Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant argues that the features recited in claim 1 “may be useful in technical improvements directed to application testing, development, and operation on computing devices.” Id. at 9. Appellant further contends claim 1 recites a set of rules in a specific Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 4 way to solve a problem to achieve a desired outcome, similar to the claims in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 838 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Appeal Br. 10–11. Accordingly, Appellant argues, the set of rules recited in claim 1 improve a computer-related technology by causing the processor to perform operations used to identify relationships between different error events, which may be used to resolve the error events more efficiently. See id. at 12. Appellant additionally contends the combination of the features recited in claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea because claim 1 results in a technological improvement in the manner in which a system operates, similar to the claims in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant specifically argues, by associating different error event types with a unique identifier of an input to a first element of an application executing on a user device, the processor may more efficiently identify the error events using the unique identifier. See id. at 14. As a result, according to Appellant, the processor may consume less bandwidth and power in identifying the different types through the association of the different error event types and the unique identifier than if the processor were to identify the different event types individually. See id. at 14–15. Further, in the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts the Examiner has not rejected claim 1 as allegedly being unpatentable over any cited references. See Reply Br. 7. Thus, according to Appellant, the Examiner has failed to provide the required evidence (i.e., one of references that describe each of the features of the claim) as to whether the recited features might be well- understood, routine, and conventional. See id. Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 5 Principles of Law Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section: “Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)). That is, we examine claim 1 for an “inventive concept,” “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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 6 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).2 Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)). 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, and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Abstract Idea To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify the claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of organizing human activity; or (c) mental processes. 2 The Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019: USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p df). Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 7 Independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim recites a mental process, one of the abstract idea groupings listed in the Guidance. See, Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing “[m]ental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the “enumerated groupings of abstract ideas”). Claim 1 is directed to “[a] system comprising: a processor, and a non- transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor.” Appeal Br. 17. The instructions cause the processor to perform the following: (1) “record . . . a plurality of different error event types encountered in response to an input to a first element of an application displayed in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device;” (2) “associate each of the plurality of different error event types with a unique identifier of the input;” (3) “represent an error event type of the different error event types associated with the unique input identifier;” and (4) “associate, with the unique identifier, further different event types encountered in response to respective inputs to the first element of the application displayed in respective GUIs of further user devices.” Id. Here, apart from the claimed “processor,” “non-transitory storage medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of a support device,” the claim elements recite a method of collecting encountered error event types and organizing the collected error event types by a unique identifier, which Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 8 fits squarely within the mental process category of the agency’s guidelines. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes including (1) an observation, (2) an evaluation, (3) a judgment, and (4) an opinion). Further, the October 2019 Update confirms that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, is an example of a mental process. See October 2019 Update at 7. Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on a mental process, we nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. We therefore (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See id. Here, as previously discussed, the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea are “processor,” “non-transitory storage medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of a support device,” as recited in claim 1. Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the claims as a whole because the additional elements are analogous to an instruction to implement the mental process on a computer. See Final Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 9 Act. 2–3. Further, regarding the claimed “electronically represent an error type . . . in a GUI of a support device,” the display of data in a graphical user interface is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity which does not render an abstract idea patent-eligible. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying “[adding] insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that claim 1 improves the processor or otherwise improves a computer-related technology. Rather, consistent with the Examiner’s findings, the alleged technological improvement results from applying a more efficient mental process (i.e., collection of encountered error event types and organization of the collected error event types by a unique identifier) using a processor. Thus, claim 1 merely uses generic computing components to implement the improved mental process, and does not improve the underlying processor or another computer-related technology. Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims at issue in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is also not persuasive. In McRO, the claims recited rules with specific characteristics that allowed computers to product accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced by human animations, and it was the specific claimed features of the rules that produced technical improvement. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. In contrast, claim 1 does not recite any rules that enable the automation of specific tasks that previously could not be automated. Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 10 Further, Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims at issue in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is also not persuasive. In Bascom, the claims solved an Internet-centric problem of filtering Internet content, and thus, the claimed computer components were necessary components of the claims. See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349–51. In contrast, the recited “processor,” “non-transitory storage medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of a support device” of claim 1 are not necessary components to perform the method of collecting encountered error event types and organizing the collected error event types by a unique identifier recited in claim 1. In fact, the recited steps for performing the method can be done in the human mind or on pen and paper. Additionally, unlike the claims at issue in Bascom, claim 1 does not recite a technical improvement and, as previously described, recites an improvement to the underlying mental process itself. Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1: (1) does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Inventive Concept Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” As previously Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 11 discussed, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are “processor,” “non- transitory storage medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of a support device.” Claim 1 recites these elements at a high level of generality, and Appellant’s Specification indicates that these elements are generic computer components, as shown below. [0031] Figure 4 illustrates a diagram of an example of a system to associate error events with inputs to applications according to the disclosure. The system 440 can include a data store 408 (e.g., analogous to data store 108 as referenced in Figure 1), a system 442 to associate error events with inputs to applications, and/or a number of engines. The system 443 can be in communication with the data store 408. The system 443 to associate error events with inputs to applications can include a number of engines (e.g., [an] associate engine 434, represent engine 444, etc.). The system 443 to associate error events with inputs to applications can include additional or fewer engines than illustrated to perform the various functions described herein. [0032] The number of engines can include a combination of hardware and instructions to perform a number of functions described herein (e.g., represent an error event type of different error event types associated with the unique input identifier in a GUI of a support device, etc.). Each of the engines can include hardware or a combination of hardware and instructions designated or designed to execute a module (e.g., a particular module). The instructions (e.g., software, firmware, programming, etc.) may be stored in a memory resource (e.g., computer-readable medium) or as a hard-wired program (e.g., logic). [0033] The associate engine 434 can include hardware and/or a combination of hardware and instructions to associate each of a plurality of different error event types encountered in response to an input to an element of an application displayed in a GUI of a user device with a unique identifier of the input. The application is suitable for operation on a user device. For instance, in some examples, the application is a mobile application and the user device is a mobile user device, as described herein. . . . Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 12 [0035] The represent engine 444 can include hardware and/or a combination of hardware and instructions to represent an error event type of the different error event types associated, for example, by the associate engine 434, with the unique input identifier in a GUI of a support device. . . . [0036] A representation can include a representation of an error event notification message. For example, the representation can be a reproduction of an error event notification message displayed in the GUI of the support device. That is, the reproduction of the error event notification message can be visually identical to an error event notification message displayed in the GUI of the user device in response to the input. Such a reproduction of an error event notification message as originally displayed by the GUI of the user device that encountered the error event that lead to the error event notification message can promote understanding and/or enhancements of a user experience associated with execution of the application on a user device. . . . [0038] Figure 5 illustrates a diagram of an example of a computing device to associate error events with inputs to applications according to the disclosure. The computing device 555 can utilize hardware and instructions (e.g. software, or firmware), or hardware and logic to perform a number of functions described herein. [0039] For example, the computing device 555 can be a combination of hardware and instructions to associate error events with inputs to applications. The hardware, for example can include a processing resource 560 and/or a memory resource 564 (e.g., computer-readable medium (CRM), database, etc.) A processing resource 560, as used herein, can include a number of processors capable of executing instructions stored by a memory resource 564. Processing resource 560 can be integrated in a single device or distributed across multiple devices. The instructions (e.g., computer-readable instructions (CRI)) can include instructions stored on the memory resource 564 and executable by the processing resource 560 to implement a desired function (e.g., associate each of the different error event message types with the unique input identifier of the input, etc.). Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 13 Spec. ¶¶ 31–33, 35–36, 38–39 (emphasis added). Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent- ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these elements, taken individually or together with the other claim elements, do not amount to “significantly more” than applying the abstract idea on a general purpose computer. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the lack of any prior-art rejections definitively establishes that claim 1 does not recite well- understood, routine, and conventional operations. This contention conflates the non-obviousness test under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with the patent-eligibility test under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the Examiner failed to present evidence that claim 1 recites well-understood, routine, and conventional operations. As previously discussed, Appellant’s Specification provides evidence that the recited operations are well- understood, routine and conventional, as Appellant’s Specification discloses that any general-purpose computer is capable of performing the recited operations. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 31–33, 35–36, 38–39. Conclusion For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, and does not recite an “inventive concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2019-001933 Application 14/804,654 14 CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 20 101 Eligibility 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, 20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation