Ex Parte Angrish et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 15, 2018

14268145 (P.T.A.B. May. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/268,145 05/02/2014
29989 7590 05/17/2018
HICKMAN PALERMO BECKER BINGHAM LLP
1 ALMADEN BOULEVARD
FLOOR 12
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
Rohan Angrish
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.
60365-0014 4645
EXAMINER
BORISSOV, IGOR N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/17/2018 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):
usdocket@h35g.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROHAN ANGRISH, RISHI DESHPANDE,
KASHY AP DEORAH, TAP AN PANDIT A, ULHAS
MANDRA WADKAR, KESHA V KRITY, SANJA Y DALSANIA,
ABHAY KUMAR, and DA VE ARTHURS
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 "Open Table, Inc., a unit of The Priceline Group (NASDAQ: PCLN), and a
Delaware corporation having headquarters in San Francisco, California, is
the real party in interest." (Appeal Br. 1.)
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants' claimed concept relates to "computer-implemented
techniques for managing payments for experiences, such as restaurant
dining, in coordination with a booking system." (Spec. ,r 2.)
Illustrative Claim
1. In a service provider computer system, a method
compnsmg:
the service provider computer system receiving, from a
computing device of a customer and via the Internet, a
reservation request for a restaurant of a merchant;
the service provider computer system generating, in response to
the reservation request, a reservation record for the
customer;
the service provider computer system sending the reservation
record to a booking computer of the merchant via the
Internet;
the service provider computer system receiving, from the
booking computer of the merchant via the Internet, a
location identifier assigned by the merchant to the
customer at a time of service, the location identifier
identifying a table at the restaurant of the merchant where
the customer is served by the merchant;
the service provider computer system matching ticket data for
an open ticket obtained from a merchant point-of-sale
computer to the reservation record for the customer;
the service provider computer system identifying the open
ticket at the point-of-sale computer of the merchant,
based, at least in part, on the location identifier;
the service provider computer system sending a notification of
the open ticket to the computing device of the customer;
the service provider computer system receiving a request from
the computing device of the customer to pay the open
ticket at the merchant point-of-sale computer;
the service provider computer system obtaining a current total
ticket amount for the open ticket from the merchant
point-of-sale computer;
2
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
the service provider computer system determining an estimated
total ticket amount based at least in part on the current
total ticket amount;
the service provider computer system communicating with a
payment network gateway computer to cause payment of
the estimated total ticket amount from a payment account
of the customer to be authorized but not captured;
the service provider computer system sending an indication to
the computing device of the customer that payment of the
open ticket is successfully authorized;
the service provider computer system publishing, to a
HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP) long polling
channel subscribed to by the point-of-sale computer of
the merchant, a mobile payment indication associated
with the open ticket;
after the open ticket is closed at the merchant point-of-sale
computer in response to the mobile payment indication,
the service provider computer system obtaining a final
total ticket amount for the closed ticket from the
merchant point-of-sale computer; and
the service provider computer system communicating with the
payment network gateway computer to cause payment of
the final total ticket amount to be captured for the
merchant from the payment account of the customer.
References2
Mortimore US 2008/0147450 Al June 19, 2008
Lin US 2010/0082481 Al Apr. 1, 2010
Groetzinger US 2012/0173310 Al July 5, 2012
Klein US 2012/0185561 Al July 19, 2012
Sussman US 2012/0215573 Al Aug.23,2012
White US 2013/0138518 Al May 30, 2013
Laracey US 2013/0238455 Al Sept. 12, 2013
2 Our quotations from these references will omit, where applicable, bolding
and/ or italicization of reference numerals.
3
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
reciting only ineligible subject matter. (Final Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 11-13, 17, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laracey, Groetzinger, White,
Mortimore, and Klein. (Final Action 14.)
III. The Examiner rejects claims 3, 10, and 14--16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Laracey, Groetzinger, White,
Mortimore, Klein, and Lin. (Final Action 27, 30, 33, 34.)3
IV. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Laracey, Groetzinger, White, Mortimore, Klein, and
Sussman. (Final Action 35.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 14, 17, and 18 are the independent claims on appeal, with
the rest of the claims on appeal (i.e., claims 2-13, 15, and 16) depending
therefrom. (See Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Independent claims 1, 14, 17, and 18 each recite steps involving a
"payment network gateway computer," a merchant's "point-of-sale
computer," and information relating to payment of a customer's "ticket" at
the merchant's restaurant. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In these steps, the
payment network gateway computer does not obtain ticket information from
the merchant's point-of-sale computer and the merchant's point-of-sale
3 We consider the Examiner's failure to mention claims 14--16 in the heading
of this rejection (see Final Action 27) as an inadvertent omission, as these
claims are discussed in detail in the body of the rejection (see id. 30-35).
4
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
computer does not communicate with the payment network gateway
computer to cause payment of this ticket amount. Instead, a separate
computer system (i.e., not the merchant's point of sale computer and not the
payment network gateway computer) "obtain[s]" ticket-amount information
from the merchant's point-of-sale computer and "communicat[ es]" with the
payment network gateway computer "to cause payment" of the ticket
amount. (Id.)
In other words, in the method recited in the claims on appeal, the
customer's ticket information is transmitted through, and managed by, an
intermediary computer system serving as a go-between for the payment
network gateway computer and the merchant's point of sale computer.
Independent claims 1, 14, 17, and 18 also recite steps involving the
customer's "computing device," the merchant's "booking computer," and
information relating to the customer's "reservation" at the restaurant.
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) In these steps, the merchant's booking computer
does not receive a reservation request from the customer's computing
device. Instead, a separate computer system (i.e., not the customer's
computing device and not the merchant's booking computer) "receiv[es]" a
"reservation request" from the customer's computing device, "generat[ es]" a
"reservation record," and "send[s]" the reservation record to the merchant's
booking computer. (Id.)
In other words, in the method recited in the claims on appeal, the
customer's reservation information is transmitted through, and managed by,
an intermediary computer system serving as a go-between for the customer's
computing device and the merchant's booking computer.
5
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
Independent claims 1, 14, 17, and 18 additionally recite steps
involving the customer's seating information (i.e., a "location identifier")
and the correlation of this seating information to the customer's ticket
information. (Appeal Br., Claims App.) This correlation is not
accomplished by the merchant's point-of-sale computer receiving seating
information from the merchant's booking computer; nor by the merchant's
booking computer receiving ticket information from the merchant's point-
of-sale computer. Instead, a separate computer (i.e., not the merchant's
point-of-sale computer and not the merchant's booking computer)
"receiv[es]" the customer's seating information (i.e., the "location
identifier") from the merchant's booking computer, and "identifi[ es]" the
ticket at the merchant's point-of-sale computer "based, at least in part, on the
location identifier." (Id.)
In other words, in the method recited in the claims on appeal, the
customer's seating information and ticket information is transmitted through,
and managed by, an intermediary computer system serving as a go-between
for the merchant's booking computer and the merchant's point-of-sale
computer.
Significantly, in the method recited in the independent claims on
appeal, the same computer system (i.e., a "service provider" computer
system) performs as 1) the intermediary between the merchant's point of
sale computer and the payment network gateway computer; 2) the
intermediary between the customer's computing device and the merchant's
booking computer; and 3) the intermediary between merchant's booking
6
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
computer and the merchant's point-of-sale computer. 4 According to the
Appellants, this thrice-intermediary arrangement of the "service provider"
computer system, allows "multiple different kinds of computers" (i.e., the
payment network gateway computer, the merchant's point-of-sale computer,
the merchant's booking computer, and the customer's computing device) "to
cooperate to facilitate reservations, bookings, table seatings and payment."
(Reply Br. 6.)
Rejection I
The Examiner determines that independent claims 1, 14, 17 and 18 are
directed an "abstract idea," and do not contain any "additional elements"
that amount to "significantly more" than this abstract idea. (Final Action 3.)
More succinctly, the Examiner concludes that the independent claims on
appeal do not survive the two-part Alice test. 5
4 Specifically, independent claims 1 and 14 recites a "service provider"
computer system that performs all of the above-discussed "obtaining,"
"communicating," "receiving," "generating," and "sending" steps. (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 17 recites "one or more processors" of
a "service provider" computer system that are "caused" to perform all these
obtaining," "communicating," "receiving," "generating," and "sending"
steps, and independent claim 18 recites "one or more service provider
computer devices" that are caused to perform these steps. (Id.)
5 The Alice test entails two steps for distinguishing between an "abstract
idea[]" and a "patent-eligible application[]" of an abstract idea. Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The first
step of the Alice test is to determine whether the claims at issue are
"directed to" an abstract idea. Id. If so, the inquiry proceeds to the second
step of the Alice test where the elements of the claims are considered
"individually and 'as an ordered combination"' to determine whether there
are additional elements that "'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Id.
7
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
As for the first step of the Alice test, the Examiner interprets
independent claims 1, 14, 17, and 18 as being directed to a concept that falls
within the information-based category of abstract ideas. (See Final
Action 3.) As discussed above, the independent claims do indeed focus
upon the transmission and management of information (i.e., the customer's
ticket information, the customer's reservation information, and the
customer's seating information). And a determination that such an
information-focused concept is an abstract idea is aligned with controlling
case law. 6
As for the second step of the Alice test, the Examiner appears to
consider the "additional elements" to include the five recited computer
components, namely, the service provider computer system, the payment
network gateway computer, the merchant's point-of-sale computer, the
merchant's booking computer, and the customer's mobile computing device.
(See Final Action 4--5.) And according to the Examiner, these computer
components constitute "generic computing elements" that merely have the
ability to "receive/compute/send data." (Answer 6.) A determination that
these computer components, individually, constitute generic computer
components, is plausibly supported by the record. (See e.g., Spec. ,r,r 41, 44,
46, 50.)
However, as pointed out by the Appellants (see e.g., Appeal Br. 13),
an inventive concept can reside in the non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known, conventional pieces, even if these pieces constitute
6 See e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F. 3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
8
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
generic computer components. 7 In this regard, the Examiner states, more
than once, that the "computer limitations as an ordered combination" do not
amount to significantly more than the aforementioned abstract idea. (Final
Action 10; see also id. 12, 40, Answer 12, 13, 14.) But we see no discussion
by the Examiner regarding the thrice-intermediary arrangement of the
service provider computer system relative to the other four computer
components. As talked about above, this ordered combination is strategic to
the Appellants' method, in that it facilitates the cooperation of "multiple
different kinds of computers." (Reply Br. 6.)
Accordingly, on the record before us, the Examiner does not
adequately establish that the additional elements recited in independent
claims 1, 14, 17, and 18, when considered as an ordered combination, are
insufficient to transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible
application under the second step of the Alice test. The Examiner's further
findings and determinations with respect to the dependent claims likewise
provide no insight as to the conventionality of the ordered combination of
the recited computer components. (See Final Action 12-13.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 101
Re} ections II-IV
The Examiner finds that the computer components recited in
independent claims 1, 14, 17, and 18 are "old elements" and that the claimed
arrangement of these "old elements" is "merely a combination of old
7 See e.g., Bascom Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341,
1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
9
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
elements, and in the combination each element merely would have
performed the same function as it separately." (Final Action 18.)8 More
succinctly, the Examiner concludes that the Appellants' claimed
combination of computer components would have been obvious over the
prior art.
As discussed above, in the method recited in independent claims 1,
14, 17, and 18, the customer's ticket information is transmitted through, and
managed by, an intermediary computer system which serves as a go-between
for the payment network gateway computer and the merchant's point of sale
computer. The Examiner finds that Laracey discloses such an intermediary
computer system (see Final Action 14--16); and this finding is plausibly
supported by the record (see e.g., Laracey ,r,r 207,212,213).
As also discussed above, in the method recited in independent
claims 1, 14, 1 7, and 18, the customer's reservation information is
transmitted through, and managed by, an intermediary computer system
which serves as a go-between for the customer's computing device and the
merchant's booking computer. The Examiner finds that Mortimore
discloses such an intermediary computer system (see Final Action 19--20);
and this finding is plausibly supported by the record (see e.g., Mortimore
,r,r 12, 47).
As further discussed above, in the method recited in independent
claims 1, 14, 17, and 18, the customer's seating information is transmitted
through, and managed by, an intermediary computer system that receives
this information from the merchant's booking computer. The Examiner
8 See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007).
10
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
finds that Groetzinger teaches that an intermediary computer system can
receive seating information from a merchant's booking computer (see Final
Action 17); and this finding is plausibly supported by the record (see e.g.,
Groetzinger ,r 30).
As indicated earlier, the Examiner's rejection is premised upon "a
combination" of these three prior art intermediary computer systems in
which each prior art intermediary computer system performs "the same
function as it did separately." (Final Action 18, 19, 20.) The Examiner
specifically says that, in this combination, there would be "no change" in the
"respective functions" of the three prior art intermediary computer systems.
(Id.)
Thus, in the Examiner's proposed combination of the prior art, three
intermediary computer systems would be provided to perform three
respective intermediary functions. However, in the method recited in the
independent claims on appeal, the same computer system (i.e., the "service
provider" computer system) performs all three of these intermediary
functions. Put another way, "it is the relationship and arrangement" of the
respective computing devices recited in the claims "that allows the claims to
overcome prior art." (Reply Br. 8.) We note that the Examiner offers us no
insight as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would infer that the three
prior art intermediary computer systems could be incorporated into a single
computer system, and/or how this incorporation could be accomplished
without any change to their respective functions.
Accordingly, on the record before us, the Examiner does not
adequately establish that the proposed combination of the prior art would
produce the method recited in independent claims 1, 14, 1 7, and 18. The
11
Appeal2017-007566
Application 14/268, 145
Examiner's further findings and determinations with respect to the additional
prior art references and the dependent claims do not compensate for this
shortcoming. (See Final Action 21-37.)
Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We REVERSE the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-18.
REVERSED
12