Ex Parte Chetuparambil et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 8, 201713316950 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2017) 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. 13/316,950 12/12/2011 Madhu K. Chetuparambil IN920110206US1 (790.142) 2880 89885 7590 06/08/2017 FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC 409 BROAD STREET PITTSBURGH, PA 15143 EXAMINER MANSFIELD, THOMAS L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/08/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MADHU K. CHETUPARAMBIL, KALAPRIYA KANNAN, and GEORGE T. JACOB SUSHIL ____________ Appeal 2016-006842 Application 13/316,9501 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before LARRY J. HUME, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13‒19 and 22‒25, which are all the claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business Machines Corporation. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 1‒12, 20, and 21 are canceled. App. Br. 21, 24 (Claims App.). Appeal 2016-006842 Application 13/316,950 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ application relates to obtaining market intelligence through social media. Spec. ¶ 17. Different sources of data are integrated and several types of business intelligence analysis are performed and made available to consumers on an on-demand basis. Id. Claim 13 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 13. An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith and executable by the at least one processor, the computer readable program code comprising: computer readable program code configured to input guidelines for deriving mercantile intelligence with relation to a product; computer readable program code configured to mine social content data with relation to the product, the social content data comprising user-generated content with relation to the product; computer readable program code configured to generate a map which reconciles the social content data with the guidelines, the social content data including language-based terms expressed in social content; computer readable program code configured to extract from the map elements related to mercantile intelligence, the elements comprising product-related features to which the social content language-based terms are mapped; and computer readable program code configured to output a mercantile intelligence report with relation to the product, via determining a product utility value; wherein to determine a product utility value comprises: Appeal 2016-006842 Application 13/316,950 3 determining a weighted sum of expected attribute utility values; and determining an exponential component for modeling a natural decay in a value of a product during its lifetime. The Examiner’s Rejection3 Claims 13‒19 and 22‒25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3‒5. Related Case The present application is the parent application under 35 U.S.C. § 120 of continuation Application Serial No. 13/598,987, which is also before this panel on appeal (Appeal 2016-006814). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional points. Appellants argue the Examiner erred because the rejection is lacking in meaningful detail and “little more than a hollow set of arguments without 3 The Examiner also indicated claims 1‒6 and 9‒12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter because they are directed to a processor to execute computer code and do not recite that the computer code is tangibly embodied on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium. Final Act. 5. However, as Appellants note (App. Br. 18), claims 1‒6 and 9‒12 are canceled. Appeal 2016-006842 Application 13/316,950 4 basis.” App. Br. 13. Appellants also argue the Examiner “over-interpreted claimed elements” and “mischaracterizes the currently claimed features.” App. Br. 14. Appellants argue the “embodiments of the invention, as broadly claimed, go well beyond a mere ‘abstract idea.’” Id. According to Appellants, there is a “level of sophistication in [the] single elements and the totality of elements that significantly transcend ‘mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, or . . . recitation of generic computer structure . . . .” App. Br. 16. Alice identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject matter is judicially-excepted from patent eligibility under § 101. Assuming that a claim nominally falls within one of the statutory categories of machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the first step in the analysis is to determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicial exceptions). Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). If so, the second step is to determine whether any element or combination of elements in the claim is sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible application, that is, to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Id. We agree with the Examiner that claim 13 recites “the abstract idea of generating a mercantile intelligence report relating to products.” Final Act. 3. Our reviewing court has explained: [T]he “realm of abstract ideas” includes “collecting information, including when limited to particular content.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir.2016) (collecting cases). We have also “treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within Appeal 2016-006842 Application 13/316,950 5 the abstract-idea category.” Id. And we have found that “merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As in FairWarning, the claims here “are directed to a combination of these abstract-idea categories.” Id. Specifically, the claims here recite steps of gathering information (social content data and guidelines for deriving mercantile intelligence), analyzing that information (generating a map to reconcile social content data with the guidelines), and presenting that information (outputting a mercantile intelligence report by determining a product utility value). And like in FairWarning, “[w]hile the claims here recite using one of a few possible rules to analyze the . . . data, this does not make them eligible under our decision in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., No. 15–1080, 837 F.3d 1299, 2016 WL 4896481 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 13, 2016), which also involved claims reciting rules.” FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1093–94. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 13 is directed to an “abstract idea.” Regarding step two, Appellants argue claim 13 recites “significantly more” because it uses “at least one processor . . . to carry out one or more steps that the Office might otherwise misinterpret as a mere ‘abstract idea’.” App. Br. 13. However, using a processor to perform a method embodied by computer readable program code on a computer readable storage medium— generic computer components— does not impart patentability. Our reviewing court “found similar claims to be ineligible despite the recitation of a general purpose computer or the Internet.” Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. Appeal 2016-006842 Application 13/316,950 6 SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (collecting cases). As in Versata, the claims here “do not improve some existing technological process or solve some technological problem in conventional industry practice.” Id. Similarly, the claims at issue are not rooted in computer technology to solve a problem specifically arising in some aspect of computer technology. Instead, the claims at issue are more like the claims we summarized in DDR Holdings as insufficient to reach eligibility—claims reciting a commonplace business method aimed at processing business information despite being applied on a general purpose computer. Id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the claims do not recite an “inventive concept” sufficient to transform the claims from an abstract idea to a patent eligible application. For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 as directed to nonstatutory subject matter. On this record, we, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 13. We also sustain the rejection of independent claim 14, which recites a computer program product of similar scope, and dependent claims 15‒19 and 22‒25, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 13‒18). DECISION We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13‒19 and 22‒25. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation