Quadracci, Leonard Jon.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2019

13359217 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2019)

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.
13/359,217 01/26/2012 Leonard Jon Quadracci 11-0765-US-CIP 2779
63759 7590 10/30/2019
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 190809
DALLAS, TX 75219
EXAMINER
GLASS, RUSSELL S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2019 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):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte LEONARD JON QUADRACCI
________________

Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217
Technology Center 3600
________________

Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
RUSSELL E. CASS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CASS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and 35
U.S.C. § 103. Appeal Br. 5, 18, 28, 32.2 Claims 1–19 constitute all the
claims pending in this Application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Boeing Company of Chicago, Illinois. Appeal Brief filed March 9, 2018
(“Appeal Br.”) 2.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
December 29, 2017 (“Final Act.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May
23, 2018 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed July 23, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

2
BACKGROUND
The present invention relates to a system and method for managing
complex or large projects using an associative memory. Spec. ¶ 2. As the
Specification explains, information for projects may be stored as data
entities in an associative memory. Id. ¶¶ 34; 45. The data entities may be
stored in the memory in association with data entities of the same particular
type. Id. ¶ 50. For example, types may include project entities, task entities,
and deliverable entities, and the data entities may include, for example, a
particular project, a task for the project, or a deliverable produced by a
project. Id. ¶¶ 82–84. A data entity may also include attribute types
including name, material, descriptor, specification, associated entities in
project entities, and associated entities in task entities. Id. ¶ 87. The
attributes relating to associated project entities and associated task entities
may include links to the actual data entities in the associative memory. Id.
¶ 91.
Appellant’s system can receive project information as free text, and
parse the free text into types of data entities. Id. ¶ 127. These data entities
may be stored in the associative memory, and criteria may be identified that
are used to group the data entities into a number of clusters. Id. ¶¶ 128–129.
A user can query the associative memory by entering search terms related to
a particular area of interest and, based on these terms, the associative
memory can generate a list of projects relating to the particular area of
interest. Id. ¶¶ 154–160. According to the Specification, Appellant’s
invention leverages associative memory technology to rapidly evaluate large
volumes of data in multiple formats to identify and group or “cluster”
similar projects. Id. ¶ 112. The Specification describes an embodiment in
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

3
which the project is the manufacturing of an aircraft having a new design, or
the inspection of a mechanical system. Id. ¶ 38.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue:
1. A method for manufacturing, the method comprising:
storing the information for the projects as data entities in an
associative memory;
wherein the associative memory includes a plurality of
data having a plurality of associations in which the data
entities are included in the plurality of data;
wherein the associative memory further includes a
content-addressable structure; and
wherein the associative memory is configured to be
queried based on at least one relationship selected from
a group that includes direct relationships and indirect
relationships among the plurality of data;
grouping the data entities stored in the associative memory
to form a number of clusters;
using the number of clusters in a project selected from the
group consisting of: manufacturing an aircraft and
performing maintenance on an aircraft.
Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix).

ELIGIBILITY
I. SECTION 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.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

4
ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), and
Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims
before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use
of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561
U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 183 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

5
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept” sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (citation omitted). “A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
II. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) recently
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

6
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look
to whether the claim recites the following:
(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) (referred to as Step 2A, prong 1 in the Guidance); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (referred
to as Step 2A, prong 2 in the Guidance).
See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then move to Step
2B of the Guidance and look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

ANALYSIS
I. THE SECTION 101 REJECTION
A. The Examiner’s Rejection and Appellant’s Contentions
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejects claims 1–19 under 35
U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2. The Examiner determines that the claims are
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

7
“directed to the abstract idea of organizing the data in the associative
memory according to the content and relationships, and then grouping the
data in the associative memory to form clusters.” Id. According to the
Examiner, “[t]his is an idea in and of itself, such as organizing information
through mathematical correlations, which has been found to be an abstract
idea,” citing Digitech Image Tech., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758
F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Final Act. 2. The Examiner also determines
that “the abstract idea can be characterized as a certain method of organizing
human activity, such as generating rule-based tasks,” citing Accenture
Global Services, GMBH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2013), and also as “customizing data based on known information,”
citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Final Act. 2.
Next, the Examiner finds that “[t]he additional element(s) or
combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se,
i.e. associative memory, content addressable structure, clusters, project
manager, project analyzer, project management system, amount(s) to no
more than implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer system.”
Final Act. 2. “Viewed as a whole,” the Examiner concludes, “these
additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to
transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract
idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself.” Id. at 2–3.
Appellant responds that, inter alia, the claimed use of an associative
memory is not a method of organizing human activity, but rather involves
clustering data in a content-addressable memory, which is something that
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

8
only an associative memory can perform. Appeal Br. 10. According to
Appellant, grouping the data entities to form clusters, as claimed, is a
specific computer activity. Id. at 17. Appellant further contends that the
claims in the instant case are directed to a physical process of using the
clusters in an associative memory in the manufacturing and performance of
aircraft. Id. at 6–8. Finally, Appellant asserts that the claimed use of an
associative memory was not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Id.
at 17–18; Reply Br. 4.
B. Analysis under Step 2A, Prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first must
determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the
claim. The 2019 Guidance identifies three judicially excepted groupings:
(1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity
such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. 2019
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–53. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1
recites the judicial exception of one of the certain methods of organizing
human activity.
Based on existing Supreme Court and Federal Circuit precedent, the
2019 Guidance has identified “methods of organizing human activity” that
may constitute a judicially excepted grouping as including “fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, and
mitigating risk), commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in
the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales
activities or behaviors, and business relations), and managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

9
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” See 2019
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites one of the certain
methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 Guidance and the
relevant caselaw. See 2019 Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 & n.13 (citing
cases). Claim 1 includes the limitations of “storing the information for the
projects as data entities,” “grouping the data entities” and using the grouped
data “in a project.” These steps describe basic aspects of project
management, and are “following rules or instructions.” See 2019 Guidance
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, these steps involve managing interactions between
people, specifically the individuals involved in carrying out and overseeing
the project. These steps, therefore, qualify as one of the certain methods of
organizing human activity. See 2019 Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For
these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a judicial
exception to patent-eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
C. Analysis under Step 2A, Prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance
Having determined that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, we next
turn to whether the claim recites “additional elements that integrate the
[judicial] exception into a practical application.” See 2019 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). As the 2019
Guidance explains, “[a] claim that integrates a judicial exception into a
practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a
manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that
the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial
exception.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. In the context of Step 2A,
an additional element may have integrated the exception into a practical
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

10
application if it “reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer,
or an improvement to other technology or technical field” or uses the
exception “in conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is
integral to the claim.” Id. at 55 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Eibel Process Co. v.
Minnesota & Ontario Paper Co., 261 U.S. 45, 64–65 (1923)). On the other
hand, a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application
where it “merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a
computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.”
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63).
Here, claim 1 recites additional elements involving computer
technology that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the use of an “associative memory” that “includes a content-
addressable structure” and stores data entities “having a plurality of
associations.” Appeal Br. 34 (Claims Appendix). The “associative
memory” is also “configured to be queried based on at least one relationship
selected from a group that includes direct relationships among the plurality
of data.” Id. And, claim 1 further requires that “the data entities stored in
the associative memory” are grouped “to form a number of clusters.” Id.
The Specification explains that the claimed technology improves over
“currently available manual or automated tools,” such as “relational database
manipulation tools.” Spec. ¶ 123. Such existing tools, the Specification
explains, “may find keywords,” but “the perspective may be that of the
relational database designer, not the entity that relates to the current
problem.” Id. Relational databases also “may not account for all of the
entities that reside in the free text and may fail to understand those
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

11
characteristics that make projects uniquely similar and not similar because
they have the same terms.” Id. By contrast, the Specification explains, the
claimed invention’s use of associative memory, data entities, associations,
and clustering, allows the system to “handle[] unstructured, ambiguous, free
text data by breaking the text down into recognizable and comparable units,
without limiting any data,” thereby allowing the user to “discover[] highly
similar research and development projects.” Id. at 121–122.
Thus, we are persuaded that the claimed invention reflects an
improvement in the functioning of a computer as compared to the use of
traditional relational databases and related tools. Consequently, we find that
the additional limitations of claim 1 relating to the use of the associative
memory integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter. We, therefore, reverse the rejection of claim 1, as well as the
rejection of apparatus claim 14, which includes similar limitations. We also
sustain the rejection of claims 2–13 and 15–19, which are dependent on
claim 1 or claim 14.

II. THE SECTION 103 REJECTION BASED ON ROSSI
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner rejected claim 1 as
unpatentable over Rossi (US 2006/0069694 A1; published Mar. 30, 2006) in
view of Kim (US 2005/0209767 A1; published Sept. 22, 2005). The
Examiner determines, inter alia, that Rossi discloses an associative memory
in paragraph 31, and discloses in paragraph 22 “grouping data by a tree-
structure, two or more dimensions or indices, rows, columns or cubes,”
which “can be considered to be clusters as claimed” in claim 1. Ans. 9. See
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

12
Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on Kim as teaching “a method of
diagnosing a turbine engine using data clusters.” Final Act. 3. Appellant
argues, inter alia, that “Rossi does not actually disclose manipulating
entities in an associative memory as claimed,” including “grouping the data
entities stored in the associative memory to form a number of clusters.”
Appeal Br. 20–21.
We agree with Appellant. To begin with, Rossi is not directed to
disclosing the manipulating of data in an associative memory, but rather is
directed to a user interface for displaying database information, particularly
for small screen devices, by determining what information from a database
(of any kind) should be shown on the display. Rossi ¶¶ 5–8, Title, Abstract.
The portion of Rossi upon which the Examiner relies to disclose an
“associative memory,” paragraph 31, merely mentions the term “associative
memory” in passing:
The database 100, query engine 314, and user component 310
of FIG. 3 may reside on the same computer system.
Alternatively, the database 100 may reside on a separate
computer system accessed by the user component. To decrease
response time and/or function in an unlinked environment, all
or a portion of the database may be downloaded to the
computer system of the user component, such as to associative
memory. The user component may down load all or a portion
of the database from time to time, such as opportunistically, to
update the local database and allow access to data.
Rossi ¶ 31 (emphasis added). This paragraph does not provide any
information about the recited aspects of the “associative memory,” including
how data is stored in the memory or how the memory is queried. For
example, it does not state that the memory is “content-addressable” or that it
“is configured to be queried based on” direct and indirect relationships
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

13
between the data stored in the memory, as required by claim 1. Indeed, it is
not clear from paragraph 31 whether the term “associative memory” in Rossi
is being used to refer to the same type of memory structure that is described
as an “associative memory” in claim 1. We note Rossi frequently describes
data as being “associated” with other data. See, e.g., Rossi, Abstract.
Paragraph 22 of Rossi, which the Examiner relies on to teach
“grouping data entities stored in the associative memory to form a number of
clusters,” states as follows:
Databases may associate one or more records with other
records. For example, a hierarchical data store may associate
records in groups in such a way that their relationships form a
branching, tree-like structure. In another example, a multi-
dimensional database may be organized by two or more
dimensions or indices. With two dimensions, the data may be
structured as an array with rows and columns. With three or
more dimensions, the multi-dimensional data may be structured
as a cube in which each dimension, or group of dimensions,
forms an edge of the cube. Accordingly, an index or dimension
represents a perspective of the contents of a database.
Moreover, a hierarchy may be associated with a dimension of a
database. Dimensions may act as indices for identifying a
particular data item or range of data items within a database.
Rossi ¶ 22.
We agree with Appellant that, even if these different groups of records
could be considered “clusters,” paragraph 22 does not teach using such
groups of records in an associative memory with a content-addressable
structure, as claimed in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 5.
Paragraph 22 mentions “tree-like structures” and “multi-dimensional
databases,” but the Examiner has not pointed to a teaching or suggestion in
Rossi that these databases or structures could be implemented as an
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

14
associative memory with a content-addressable structure. Thus, the
Examiner has not established that paragraphs 22 and 31 of Rossi teach
grouping of data entities stored in an associative memory with a content
addressable structure to form a number of clusters, as claim 1 requires. The
Examiner also does not rely on Kim for this disclosure. See Final Act. 3;
Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
Section 103 based on Rossi and Kim, and also reverse the rejection of
independent apparatus claim 14, which includes similar limitations. We
further reverse the rejection of claims 2–13 and 15–19, which are dependent
on claim 1 or 14.

III. THE SECTION 103 REJECTION BASED ON MOTOYAMA
In the Final Office Action, the Examiner also rejected claim 13 as
unpatentable over Motoyama (US 2008/0229313 A1; published Sept. 18,
2008) in view of Ciacciarelli (US 2005/0240458 A1; published Oct. 27,
2005) and Kim. The Examiner determines, inter alia, that Motoyama’s
disclosure of databases 506 and 536 corresponds to storing project
information as data entities in an associative memory as claimed. Final Act.
6–7. The Examiner also determines that Ciacciarelli discloses methods for
project management in which “[p]resentation of information may be
performed in responses to queries or according to a predetermined
schedule.” Id. at 8. The Examiner further determines that grouping entities
in a database to form clusters “is a conventional technical means in data

3 We note claim 1 stands rejected under two separate prior art grounds.
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

15
mining” and that Kim discloses using the technologies disclosed in the other
references in manufacturing and maintaining aircraft. Id. at 8–9. Appellant
argues that none of the cited reference discloses an associative memory with
a content-addressable structure as claimed in claim 1. Appeal Br. 31; Reply
Br. 6.
We agree with Appellant. Motoyama includes the following
disclosure about databases 506 and 536, which the Examiner relies on to
teach the claimed “associative memory”:
Databases 506, 536 depict typical databases for storing data
508, 538 related to the development project, thus providing
access to the information by authorized individuals at
workstations 501, 502, through queries transmitted over the
network 500. The type of data stored on databases 506, 536 is
effectively limitless, wherein non-limiting examples include
project initiation forms, member and project task schedules,
specifications, software code, inspection reports, web page
files, and document directories and indexes.
Motoyama ¶ 73. The Examiner points to no disclosure in Motoyama that
databases 506 and 536 are an “associative memory,” or that they have a
“content-addressable structure” as required by claim 1. Motoyama merely
discloses that databases 506 and 536 are “typical databases for storing data”
relating to a development project, and that the “type of data stored” in these
databases “is effectively limitless.” Motoyama ¶ 73. Nor does the Examiner
point to any other structure that in Motoyama that would correspond to the
claimed “associative memory.” The Examiner also does not point to any
disclosure of the claimed “associative memory” in Ciacciarelli or Kim.
Because none of the cited references disclose the use of an associative
memory as claimed in claim 1, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

16
has failed to sufficiently establish that claim 1 is obvious over Motoyama,
Ciacciarelli and Kim.
The Examiner also rejects claims 2–19 over Motoyama, Ciacciarelli
and Kim, and further in view of Rossi. Final Act. 9–12. Appellant argues
that the Examiner’s rejection here is deficient for the same reasons as claim
1 and because the Examiner did not properly compare Rossi to the claims.
Appeal Br. 32–33.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established the
unpatentability of independent claim 14. As discussed above in connection
with the Examiner’s first 103 rejection based on Rossi, Rossi does not
disclose manipulating entities in an associative memory as claimed,
including grouping the data entities stored in the associative memory to form
a number of clusters, as disclosed by independent claims 1 and 14. See
Rossi ¶¶ 22, 31. In this rejection, the Examiner also cites to additional
portions of Rossi, but does not explain how they disclose grouping data
entities in an associative memory to form clusters, which is required by all
of the claims, and our review of those portions of Rossi does not reveal such
a disclosure. See Final Act. 9–12 (citing Rossi ¶¶ 28, 29, 32, 37, 38, Fig. 8).
Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claim 14 over
Motoyama, Ciacciarelli, Kim, and Rossi. We also reverse the Examiner’s
Section 103 rejection of claims 2–13 and 15–19, which are dependent on
claims 1 or 14.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 and under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-007769
Application 13/359,217

17
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 § 101 1–19
1–19 § 103 Rossi, Kim 1–19
1 § 103 Motoyama,
Ciacciarelli, Kim
1
2–19 § 103 Motoyama,
Ciacciarelli, Kim,
Rossi
2–19
Overall Outcome 1–19

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

REVERSED