September 27, 2021

Volume XI, Number 270

Advertisement

September 24, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

An Informative PTAB Decision on Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently designated its decision in Ex Parte HANNUN (Appeal 2018-003323) (“HANNUN”) as being informative regarding the application of the latest 2019 revised guidance on patent-eligible subject matter.  As a side note, the initial publication of the decision was erroneously titled Ex Parte Linden and included the wrong application number on the cover sheet, but the PTAB has since corrected this mistake.  HANNUN is the seventh PTAB decision on statutory subject matter that has been designated as informative or precedential. Read more about prior PTAB decisions here.

HANNUN involves U.S. Application No. 14/735,002, now issued as U.S. Patent No. 10,540,957, which is directed to speech recognition systems developed using end-to-end deep learning.  The technology is designed to improve speech to text transcription in noisy environments using a simplified and scalable architecture.  At the time of filing, the application was assigned to Baidu USA LLC, which is the American R&D center for China’s largest search engine provider.

After the Examiner twice rejected all claims as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and provided very little reasoning, Applicant appealed to the PTAB. In reversing the Examiner, the PTAB applied the Supreme Court’s two-step framework for analyzing patent-eligible subject matter (Alice test). Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). The analysis under the Alice test first determines whether a claim directed to an abstract idea, and if so, proceeds to the second step of determining whether there is an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.

In HANNUN, the PTAB noted that mental processes and methods of organizing human activity are two separate categories of abstract ideas.  The claims recited steps of normalizing an input file, generating a jitter set of audio files, generating a set of spectrogram frames, obtaining predicted character probabilities from a trained neural network, and decoding a transcription of the input audio using the predicted character probability outputs.  The PTAB concluded that these steps cannot be practically performed in the mind and are therefore not a mental process.  The PTAB also found that these steps do not recited any methods of organizing human activity.  The PTAB noted that while the claims may be based on mathematical concepts, the claims themselves do recite any mathematical algorithms or formulas.  As such, the PTAB determined the claims were not directed to any type of abstract idea.

Since the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, the analysis under the Alice test should have concluded, however, the PTAB took the opportunity to comment on the Examiner’s rejection.  The PTAB noted that the Examiner was remiss for merely concluding that the claims fail to meet the second step of the Alice test without providing any factual support.  The PTAB also reversed the Examiner’s determination of obviousness in view of the cited prior art, handing a complete victory to Applicant.

HANNUN provides another example of what types of activities should not be regarded as abstract ideas.  For arguing against rejections alleging that the claims recite mental processes, it may be useful to point out the practicality of mentally performing the steps.  For arguing against rejections alleging methods of organizing human activity, it may be useful to point out a lack of recognized, organizing human activities such as fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.  HANNUN seems to limit abstract idea rejections alleging mathematical concepts to instances where a mathematical algorithm or formula is affirmatively recited in the claims.  Finally, HANNUN provides a reminder that Examiners need to provide factual support for rejections, and if they fail to, there is an option to attack the rejection itself. 

©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 30
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Christina Sperry, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Boston, Medical Tech and Intellectual Property Law Attorney
Member

Christina is an experienced patent attorney whose clients are focused in the medical technology space, from start-ups to large corporations and academic institutions. She advises on patent preparation and prosecution and provides opinions on infringement, validity, and right-to-use for clients in the US and internationally.

The areas of technology in which Christina is particularly focused include mechanical, electrical, and electro-mechanical technical fields such as medical and surgical instruments and devices including endoscopic, soft tissue...

617-348-3018
Justin Leisey Patent Lawyer Mintz
Associate

Justin is a registered patent attorney with a background in chemical engineering. He drafts and prosecutes US and foreign patent applications for clients in a variety of industries, including the life sciences, biotechnology, medtech, pharmaceuticals, energy and sustainability, cleantech, manufacturing, and technology sectors.

Justin regularly conducts patent searches and drafts invalidity/infringement and patentability opinions, assesses risks associated with freedom-to-operate issues, drafts landscape analyses and competitive intelligence...

858.314.1498
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement