Ex Parte Koretz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2017

11581728 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2017)

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.
11/581,728 10/16/2006 David A. Koretz 29606.0120 8950
11951 7590
LeClairRyan
70 Linden Oaks
Suite 210
Rochester, NY 14625
06/26/2017 EXAMINER
VETTER, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2017 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):
U S PTOinboxroc @ leclairryan.com
kelly.badum@leclairryan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID A. KORETZ, ROB CHAMBERLIN,
JAMES SIMPSON, and STEPHEN WONG
Appeal 2016-0085511
Application 11/581,728
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5—13, 16—22, 37, 38, and 40-46,
all of the claims pending in the application. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 Appellants identify Adventive, Inc., as the real party of interest. Br. 1.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 15, 2015, “Br.”), the Examiner’s
Answer (mailed May 12, 2016, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed July 7,
2015, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed October 16, 2006, “Spec.”)
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for scheduling a
reservation. See Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1, 12, and 37 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. A method for optimizing and facilitating real-time
reservations for events having a number of associated
dynamically available reservation options maintained by a
network-accessible data provider system, the method
comprising:
providing with a calendar application, by at least one
computing system, and via a communications network, at least
one real-time query comprising category criteria and date
criteria for a dynamic reservation event to a database hosted by
at least one data provider system which offers at least one of a
good or service corresponding to the category criteria, wherein
the real-time query is initiated in response to activation of an
enabled link by an input device of the computing system;
obtaining within the calendar application, by the
computing system, via the communications network, and in
real-time, reservation data comprising a dynamic set of a
plurality of reservation options for the dynamic reservation
event from the at least one data provider system which satisfy at
least the category criteria and the date criteria in the real-time
query;
automatically entering and displaying the dynamic
reservation options in a selectable form in a graphical display
for their respective details.
2
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
calendar of the calendar application, by the computing system
and on a display device of the computing system, based on a
date and time for each of the dynamic reservation options;
obtaining in the calendar application, by the computing
system, and subsequent to the displaying of the dynamic
reservation options, a selection of another enabled link
corresponding to at least one of the dynamic reservation options
displayed in the graphical display calendar by the input device
of the computing system; and
removing from the display calendar in the calendar
application, by the computing system any of the displayed
dynamic reservation options that satisfy at least the category
criteria and the date criteria in the real-time query that were not
selected by the input device of the computing system.
Rejection
Claims 1, 2, 5—13, 16—22, 37, 38, and 40-46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception to statutory subject matter.
Final. Act. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1,2, 5—13, 16—22, 37, 38,
and 40-46 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We
have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded that Appellants identify
reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in the
Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that the claims
recite non-statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. §101. We consider
3
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief,
pages 5—9.
Claims 1,2, 5-13,16-22,37,38, and 40-46:
Non-statutory, Abstract Idea
Appellants ’ contentions.
Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, that the
claims are not directed to the abstract idea of managing options for
reservations, which is a fundamental economic practice and a method of
organizing human activities. See Final Act. 3; Br. 5. Appellants argue their
claims are directed to “the more specific, significant, and meaningful
claimed invention of optimizing and facilitating real-time reservations in
electronic calenders [sic calendars] for events having a number of associated
dynamically available reservation options maintained by a network-
accessible data provider system, which is rooted in computer technology and
overcomes issues with prior reservation and electronic calendar systems.”
Br. 6. Specifically, Appellants argue limitations such as:
obtain within a calendar application, via a communications
network and in real-time, reservation data comprising a
dynamic set of reservation options for a dynamic reservation
event from the at least one data provider system;
automatically enter and display the dynamic reservation options
in a selectable form in a graphical display calendar of the
calendar application based on a date and time for each of the
dynamic reservation options; or
remove from the display calendar in the calendar application
any of the displayed dynamic reservation options that satisfy at
least the category criteria and the date criteria in the real-time
query that were not selected by the input device.
4
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
impose “significant and meaningful limitations” that are “clearly rooted in
computer technology” and are “not directed to the abstract concept of
managing options for reservations” or to any fundamental economic
practice. Id.
The Examiner finds the limitations argued by Appellants do not
qualify as “significantly more,” as they are “routine and conventional
computer functions.” Ans. 2.
Doctrinal framework.
“The statutory rule governing patent eligibility ... is found in § 101
of the Patent Act” which “provides that ‘whoever invents or discovers any
new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.’” Amdocs (Israel)
Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Notwithstanding this broad mandate, “judicial gloss on the law of patent
eligibility has long recognized that certain fundamental principles are not
included in that broad statutory grant. Though over the years these
principles have been described in differing terms, in today’s vernacular these
exceptions are called Taws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas.’” Id. (quoting Alice Corp. v CLS Bank Inti., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354
(2014)).
The Supreme Court has established a two-part test to distinguish
patents that claim one of the patent-ineligible exceptions to statutory subject
matter from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.
See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294, 1296—97 (2012). As directed
5
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
by the Federal Circuit, we begin with Step 1, whether the claims are
“directed to” a patent-ineligible concept. Rapid Litigation Mgmt. Ltd. v.
CellzDirect, Inc., 827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If so, we next
consider the various claim elements individually and in an ordered
combination to determine whether the additional elements ‘“transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355.
The Federal Circuit observes that there is no single test or definition to
distinguish a patent-eligible claim from an ineligible one. Amdocs, 841 F.3d
at 1294. Instead of a definition or test, the decisional mechanism applied by
the Federal Circuit is a comparison of the accused claims to those of prior
cases to determine how similar or parallel claims were decided. Id.', see
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Comparison of adjudicated claims.
Neither the Examiner nor Appellants recommend prior-adjudicated
claims for our guidance. We, therefore, conduct our own survey.
“Information as such is an intangible.” Electric Power Group, 830
F.3d at 1353 (citing Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451,
n.12 (2007). The Federal Circuit treats “collecting information, including
when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as
information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.” Id. Analyzing
information and presenting the results of such analysis are also abstract
ideas. Id. The present claims contain limitations directed to providing
various data streams to a calendar application and to the analysis and display
6
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
of information associated with those streams. We find such limitations are
directed to abstract ideas.
Claim 12, which is representative of the claims at issue in Electric
Power Group and is similar to the present claims, recites, inter alia,
A method of detecting events on an interconnected electric
power grid in real time over a wide area and automatically
analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power grid.
This claim contains limitations directed to receiving various data streams,
detecting and analyzing various events associated with the data streams, and
displaying information associated with the claimed data streams. The
Electric Power Court found these information-related limitations to relate to
abstract ideas. Id. at 1355.
Appellants contend their claims further contain “real-time” limitations
that are “clearly rooted in computer technology.” Br. 6. However, such
“real-time” limitations were held unavailing in Electric Power. See 830
F.3d at 1355. In Enflsh, the Federal Circuit distinguished improvements to
the functioning of computers, which rendered the claims patent-eligible,
from the mere use of computers as tools in aid of processes focused on
abstract ideas. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (citing Enflsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We are not persuaded the
present claims improve the functioning of the computational system, per se.
Thus, we find the claims are directed to non-patent-eligible abstract ideas.
7
Appeal 2016-008551
Application 11/581,728
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5—13, 16—22, 37, 38, and 40-46 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 is AFFIRMED.
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).
AFFIRMED
8