Ex Parte BEHUN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2019

13692385 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/692,385
98804 7590
Reed Smith LLP
P.O. Box488
Pittsburgh, PA 15230
12/03/2012
06/27/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory Irwin BEHUN
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.
P23501USOO 5758
EXAMINER
VETTER, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2019 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):
ptoipinbox@reedsmith.com
gdonovan@reedsmith.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY IRWIN BEHUN, ANTHONY PAUL FLYNN, and
MICHAEL THOMAS TOCZYLOWSKI
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. Claims 1--4, 8, 15, 16, 26, and 27 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is National Railroad
Passenger Corporation Company, Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Disclosed embodiments of Appellants' invention relate to a "user
interface for onboard ticket validation or collection." Title.
Exemplary Claim
5. A system of managing an electronic ticket, the system
compnsmg:
a computer having connectivity to a database, the
database comprising a reservation number associated with one
or more tickets for one train of a plurality of trains identified in
the database, passenger information associated with each ticket
for the one train of the plurality of trains identified in the
database, a ticket status indicating whether a corresponding
ticket for the one train of the plurality of trains is used or
unused, and information about the trains of the plurality of
trains;
a bar code scanner;
a mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner, the
mobile device having a controller for executing a set of
instructions, the mobile device being remote from and
configured to be communicatively coupled with the computer;
and
a non-transitory controller-readable medium storing the
set of instructions which, when executed by the controller,
cause the controller to:
cause the bar code scanner to scan a bar code indicative
of the reservation number in the database while on board a train
of the plurality of trains;
identify the reservation number in the database based on
the bar code;
2 We herein refer to the Final Office Action, mailed July 20, 2017 ("Final
Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Dec. 15, 2017 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer,
mailed Feb. 9, 2018 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief, filed April 9, 2018
("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
identify the one or more tickets associated with the
identified reservation number;
identify at least one ticket of the one or more tickets as
being valid or invalid based on the information about the train
on board which the bar code was scanned and the ticket status
in the database, wherein
the at least one ticket is valid if the ticket is for the
train on board which the bar code was scanned and the
ticket status is unused, and
the at least one ticket is invalid if the ticket is for a
different train of the plurality of trains and the ticket
status is unused, and the different train is identified based
on the information about the trains of the plurality of
trains as being a separate train from the train on board
which the bar code was scanned or a different departure
time for the train on board which the bar code was
scanned;
change the ticket status of a valid ticket from unused to
used and update a passenger manifest based on the
identification of the valid ticket, wherein the passenger manifest
comprises a list of passengers expected to be on board the train
on board which the bar code was scanned based on the
passenger information in the database associated with each
ticket for the train on board which the bar code was scanned
and passengers confirmed to be on board the train on board
which the bar code was scanned;
change the ticket status of an invalid ticket from unused
to used and update the passenger manifest to include the
passenger information in the database associated with the
invalid ticket;
change at least one of a point of origin, a destination, a
ticket type or a fare paid, while the train on board which the bar
code was scanned is in motion after the train on board which
the bar code was scanned has departed the point of origin; and
display an employee user interface by way of the mobile
device, the employee user interface including reservation
3
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
information associated with the reservation number including
passenger name and the ticket status.
App. Br. 21-22 (Claims Appendix).
Rejection3
Claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more.
Final Act. 3.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more?
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's responses to Appellants'
arguments. In our analysis below, we highlight and address specific findings
and arguments for emphasis.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Ans. 3.
4
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Principles of Law-35 US.C. § 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 Jaws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981)).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014)
(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." (emphasis omitted)); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 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, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding of rubber products" (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 193); "tanning,
5
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores"
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 252, 267---68
(1854))); 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
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; 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 tum 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 (quotation marks 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,
6
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
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.
Subject Matter Eligibility-2019 Revised Guidance
The United States Patent and Trademark Office "USPTO" recently
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) ("2019 Revised Guidance"). This new guidance is applied in this
opinion. Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the
claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, or
certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people); 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)). 4
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, and 55.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
applies, relies on, or uses 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. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. When the judicial exception is so
integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception and is patent
eligible under§ 101. Id.
4 All references to the MPEP are to the 9th ed., Revision 08-2017 (rev. Jan.
2018).
7
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Only if a claim: ( 1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate
whether the claim provides an inventive concept. See 2019 Revised
Guidance at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18.
For example, we 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, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Because there is no single definition of an "abstract idea" under Alice
step 1, the USPTO has recently synthesized, for purposes of clarity,
predictability, and consistency, key concepts identified by the courts as
abstract ideas to explain that the "abstract idea" exception includes the
following three groupings:
1. Mathematical concepts-mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations;
2. Mental processes-concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
and
3. Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions
(including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior
or relationships or interactions between people (including
8
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
According to the 2019 Revised Guidance, "[ c ]laims that do not recite
[subject] matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract
ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas," except in rare
circumstances. Even if the claims recite any one of these three groupings of
abstract ideas, these claims are still not "directed to" a judicial exception
(abstract idea), and thus are patent eligible, if "the claim as a whole
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that
exception." See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a
practical application" include:
1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any
other technology or technical field - see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a);
2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a
particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b );
3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular
article to a different state or thing - see MPEP
§ 2106.05(c); and
4. Applying or using the judicial exception in some other
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(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a
practical application" include:
1. Adding the words "apply it" ( or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or merely include instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses
9
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see
MPEP § 2106.05(±);
2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception-see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use - see
MPEP 2106.05(h).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55 ("Prong Two").
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One 5
The Judicial Exception
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we begin our analysis by first
considering whether the claims recite any judicial exceptions, including
certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a) mathematical concepts,
(b) mental steps, and ( c) certain methods of organizing human activities.
Turning to the claims, we observe the preamble of independent
claim 5 recites: "A system of managing an electronic ticket, the system
comprising." We conclude the preamble of claim 5 recites an abstract idea,
i.e., a fundamental economic practice: an electronic ticketing system that
falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and commercial
interactions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. 6
5 Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
6 We broadly but reasonably construe the claimed "electronic ticket" as a
license to ride the train as a passenger between designated points on a given
train route. To the extent that such "electronic ticket" is sold, the sale is
merely the purchase of a license, and does not represent any ownership
interest in the train system.
10
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Moreover, we conclude the "identify," "scan," and "change" system
functions of claim 5 recite ticket-related transactional features, such as
identifying the ticket information and validity, scanning for the reservation
number, and changing the ticket status, destination, or fare. See Claim 5.
We conclude these claimed functions fall into the abstract idea subcategories
of sales activities and commercial interactions.
The remaining additional limitations merely recite generic computer
components (i.e., a computer, a bar code scanner, "a mobile device coupled
to the bar code scanner," and "a non-transitory controller-readable medium
storing the set of instructions"), except for the displaying function that we
conclude recites post-solution activity: "display an employee user interface
... including reservation information associated with the reservation number
including passenger name and ticket status." Claim 5 (emphasis added).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
We note remaining independent claims 14 and 24 recite similar
language of commensurate scope that we conclude also falls into the abstract
idea category of a fundamental economic practice, including the abstract
idea subcategories of sales activities and commercial interactions. Id.
Because we conclude all claims on appeal recite an abstract idea, as
identified above, under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong
Two.
2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two
Integration of the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application
Further applying the 2019 Revised Guidance, we consider whether
there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
11
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Reg. at 54--55. We have identified supra the additional non-abstract
elements recited in independent claim 5 as the generic "computer, bar code
scanner, mobile device coupled to the bar code scanner, and a non-transitory
controller-readable medium storing the set of instructions." Claim 5.
Appellants contend the claims amount to significantly more than an
abstract idea. See App. Br. 15. Under MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements
to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical
Field"), Appellants contend:
The elements recited in claim 5 contain many specific
limitations that improve an existing technological process
such as the recited operations to change the ticket status of a
valid ticket from unused to used and update a passenger
manifest based on the identification of the valid ticket; change
the ticket status of an invalid ticket from unused to used and
update the passenger manifest to include the passenger
information in the database associated with the invalid ticket;
and change at least one of a point of origin, a destination, a
ticket type or a fare paid, while the train on board which the bar
code was scanned is in motion after the train on board which
the bar code was scanned has departed the point of origin.
When considered as a whole, the claimed system comprises a
non-conventional arrangement of features that perform an
ordered combination of steps that improve the efficiency and
accuracy of a train ticketing validation system and process
by making it possible to update a passenger manifest, while a
train is in motion, and to update a ticket status in a database
remote from the a device on board a train, even for a ticket that
is for a different train, from unused to used.
App. Br. 15 (emphasis added).
12
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
However, we conclude Appellants' claims merely obtain and process
ticket information using the additional elements of generic computer
hardware, including "a bar code scanner," "a mobile device coupled to the
bar code scanner," "a controller," and a "non-transitory controller-readable
medium storing the set of instructions." Claim 5. For example, we find the
generic computer hardware, medium, and bar code scanning mobile device,
are depicted and/or described in Appellants' Specification, at Figures 1, 3, 8,
15a-d, and in paragraphs 5, 6, 11, 24, 35, 50, 60, 63, 66, 67, 69, 76, and 97.
Given the extensive description of the use of generic computer
components in the Specification (id.), we agree with the Examiner's
findings:
[t]he additional elements ... are "known and conventional
generic computing elements ("computer," "database," "server,"
"mobile device," "non-transitory controller readable medium,"
"controller " "scanner " "user interface " "touchscreen " various
' ' ' ' common network connections). Apart from being instructed to
perform the abstract idea itself they only serve to perform well-
understood functions (e.g., receiving user input; collecting,
transmitting, updating, and storing data; scanning bar codes to
retrieve data ( similar to the OCR scanning that was already
known in Content Extraction)).
Final Act. 4.
The Examiner concludes "The scanning of the bar code is mere data
gathering, and using a routine component in its ordinary fashion ...
Similarly, Appellant's claims merely apply the routine bar code scanning
functionality in the abstract context of updating a ticket status and passenger
manifest." Ans. 5.
13
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Applying the guidance ofMPEP § 2106.05(a), we agree with the
Examiner:
The generic computer components are merely employed
to improve the performance of the abstract idea
(managing/updating the ticket and manifest), rather than the
steps of the invention improving the efficiency of the computer.
Improving the performance of the abstract idea by using a
computer as a tool is not considered significantly more under
part two of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
Appellants advance no arguments applying the Bilski machine-or-
transformation test to any claims on appeal. Nor on this record have
Appellants established that the recited "computer" and "mobile device
coupled to a bar code scanner" ( claim 5) are "particular" machines under
MPEP § 2106.05(b). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
MPEP § 2106.05(e) "Other Meaningful Limitations."
The Examiner concludes: "The claims do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the
exception into a patent eligible application." Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added).
Appellants reproduce the Examiner's statement (id.) in the Appeal
Brief (14). However, Appellants advance no substantive arguments in the
Briefs specifically addressing the Examiner's conclusion that "there are no
14
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible
application." Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). To the extent that Appellants
argue the elements recited in claim 5 contain many specific limitations that
improve an existing technological ticketing process, we have addressed these
arguments supra.
Nor do the claims present any other issues set forth in the 2019
Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional
generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, we conclude the claims
on appeal merely use instructions and generic elements to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform
an abstract idea. Id.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a}-(c) and (e}-
(h)), we conclude claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. Therefore, we proceed to
Step 2B, The Inventive Concept.
The Inventive Concept - Step 2B
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, 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 adds a specific limitation
beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine,
conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
15
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
Berkheimerv. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
We note Berkheimer was decided by the Federal Circuit on
February 8, 2018. The Examiner's Answer was mailed on February 9, 2018
and Appellants filed a Reply Brief on April 9, 2018. On April 19, 2018, the
USPTO issued the Memorandum titled: "Changes in Examination
Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)" (hereinafter "Berkheimer
Memorandum"). 7
The Berkheimer Memorandum provided specific requirements for an
Examiner to support with evidence any finding that claim elements ( or a
combination of elements) are well-understood, routine, or conventional. In
reviewing the prosecution history, we note Appellants had constructive
notice of the Federal Circuit Berkheimer decision two months in advance of
the date the Reply Brief was filed. Thus, Berkheimer (881 F.3d at 1369) was
a controlling case authority at the time the Reply Brief was filed. However,
the Reply Brief is silent regarding any mention of Berkheimer. We note that
arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Regarding the use of the recited generic "computer" and "mobile
device coupled to the bar code scanner" ( claim 5), the Supreme Court has
held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S.
208, 223. Our reviewing court provides additional guidance, including in
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
7 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-
berkheimer-20180419 .PDF.
16
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
2016) ("the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user
interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter"), and OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d
1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages
over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to
automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to
potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine
conventional activit[ies ]'" by either requiring conventional computer
activities or routine data-gathering steps (alteration in original, internal
citation omitted)).
This guidance is applicable here. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that, without more,
The additional elements recited in the independent and
dependent claims beyond further refinements of the abstract
idea identified above (and its attendant insignificant extra-
solution data-gathering and outputting functions) are known
and conventional generic computing elements ("computer,"
database " "server" "mobile device " "non-transitory controller
' ' ' readable medium " "controller " "scanner " "user interface "
' ' ' ' "touchscreen," various common network connections).
Final Act. 4 ( emphasis added).
Accordingly, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that
claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29 add a specific limitation, beyond the
judicial exception, that is more than what was "well-understood, routine, and
conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the 2019 Revised
Guidance, that each of Appellants' claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28, and 29,
considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is
17
Appeal2018-004895
Application 13/692,385
not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive
concept. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28,
and29. 8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25, 28,
and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception,
without significantly more.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 5-7, 9-14, 17-25,
28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8 To the extent that Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
18