Ex Parte Koretz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 22, 201711581728 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation