Ex Parte SUNG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 13, 2018

14692162 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/692,162 04/21/2015
66547 7590 09/17/2018
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 2IOE
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ju-yunSUNG
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.
784-82 DIV 1895
EXAMINER
EVANS, GARRETT F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3663
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/17/2018 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):
pto@farrelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JU-YUN SUNG, HEE-JEONG CHOO,
KEUM-KOO LEE, and JI-YOUNG KWAHK1
Appeal2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
Technology Center 3600
Before STEVEN D.A. McCARTHY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
LEE L. STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Office Action
rejecting claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13. See Appeal Br. 4. Claims 2 and 8 are
cancelled. Id. at 16, 17 (Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the applicant under 37
C.F .R. § 1.46, as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent with claim 1 reproduced below.
1. A server for managing information related to
moving paths of a plurality of devices connected to the server,
the server comprising:
a communication interface configured to receive first
information related to a moving path of a first device among the
plurality of devices and receive second information related to a
moving path of a second device among the plurality of devices,
wherein the first device is different from the second device; and
a controller configured to:
generate, integrated history information based on
the first information and the second information, and
provide, using the communication interface, the
integrated history information to at least one of the
plurality of devices,
wherein the plurality of devices are managed as a single
group in the server, and
wherein the controller is configured to authenticate the
plurality of devices in the single group, and register the
authenticated plurality of devices as devices among which the
integrated history information can be shared.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 are rejected as directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Subramanian (US 2009/0276154 Al; pub. Nov. 5, 2009)
and Goel (US 2010/0125411 Al; pub. May 20, 2010).
2
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13
Rejected as Directed to Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Initially, we determine that independent claims 1, 7, and 13 are similar
in scope. See Appeal Br. 13-14 ( arguing that claims 7 and 13 include
similar recitations as claim 1 and are allowable for the reasons provided for
claim 1). We thus select claim 1 as a representative claim for our analysis.
We analyze patent-eligibility under the two-step framework of Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) and Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012). First,
we consider whether claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible concept such
as a law of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355. If claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we consider the
elements of claim 1 individually and as an ordered combination to determine
whether there are additional elements that transform claim 1 into a patent-
eligible application. Id. This search for an "inventive concept" in the
second step of the Alice/Mayo two-step analysis involves a search for an
element or combination of elements "sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself." Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72).
Alice Step One
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is "directed to the concept of
gathering, integrating, and providing information which is an abstract idea."
Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that this concept is similar to collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results that were held to be
abstract ideas in Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Ans. 5.
3
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
The Examiner also finds that this concept of gathering, integrating,
and providing information involves steps that can be done by a human
analog ( either by hand or merely by thinking). Id.
The Examiner further finds that the limitations of claim 1 recite mere
instructions that implement the abstract idea on a generic computer that
performs generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities known in the industry and therefore bespeak the
abstract nature of the claimed server. Id.
Regarding the limitations recited in claim 1, the Examiner explains
that "a communication interface configured to receive first information ...
and receive second information" is a general purpose computer that
performs mere data gathering, which is an abstract idea. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner also finds that "a controller configured to: generate,
integrated history information based on the first information and the second
information" is directed to the abstract idea of integrating information using
mathematical techniques that are routine server functions. Id. at 2-3.
The Examiner finds that "a controller configured to: provide, using
the communication interface, integrated history information" is insignificant
post solution activity and routine server implementations. Id. at 3.
The Examiner further finds that "wherein the plurality of devices are
managed as a single group in the server" to involve routine server computing
of managing things in a group. Id.
The Examiner finds that dependent claims 2---6 and 8-12 also recite
routine server implementation functions like claim 1 and do not amount
significantly more than the abstract concept recited in claim 1. See Id.
We agree.
4
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
The Examiner's findings and determinations are in line with, and
supported by, the many decisions of our reviewing court on this topic. In
this regard, claim 1 recites a "server for managing information related to
moving paths of a plurality of devices connected to the server." Appeal Br.
16, Claims App. ( emphasis added). As the Examiner correctly finds, the
claimed communication interface is configured to receive first and second
"information" that is related to a moving path of a first and second device.
The controller then processes that received information to generate an
integrated history "based on" the first and second information and provide
the integrated history information to at least one of the devices. Id.
The decision in Electric Power makes clear that "[i]nformation as
such is an intangible." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. Thus, collecting
information, even when limited to particular content ( such as moving path
information) is an abstract idea. Id. Similarly, analyzing such information
by steps people go through in their minds or by mathematical algorithms,
without more, also are abstract ideas in the form of mental processes. Id. at
1354. Merely presenting the results of the abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information, without more, is abstract as an ancillary part of
the collection and analysis. Id.
Claim 1 merely recites abstract concepts of information gathering and
processing with subsequent presentation without explaining sufficiently how
to achieve these results in a non-abstract way with physical components that
do more than provide a generic environment to carry out the abstract idea.
See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Elec. Power, TL! Commc 'ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
5
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
Claim 1 broadly recites the abstract idea of receiving, processing (via
integration), and presenting information received from mobile devices via a
communication interface and controller. Sharing moving path information
among multiple people as an integrated history of movements is an abstract
idea involving mental processes and data processing of information. Absent
from claim 1 are technical details of how information is received, integrated,
or presented. See Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. Appx. 950,
956 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential) ("[T]he focus of claim 1 is not on
any technological advancement but rather on the performance of an abstract
idea 'for which computers are invoked merely as a tool."'); TDE Petroleum
Data Solutions, Inc., v. AKM Enterprise, Inc., 657 F. Appx. 991, 993 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) ("[C]laim 1 is the sort of data gathering and
processing claim that is directed to an abstract idea under step one of the
Alice analysis."); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims are directed
to abstract idea of data collection, recognition, and storage, which are well-
known and performed by humans); see also BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons,
2018 WL 3862646, No. 2017-1980, (Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims were directed
to the abstract idea of considering historical usage information while
inputting data rather than inventive database structures).
Reciting a generic controller configured to authenticate and register
devices at such a high level of generality also is an abstract concept. See
Prism Techs. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 696 F. App'x 1014, 1017 (Fed.
Cir. 201 7) ( claims were directed to abstract idea of "providing restricted
access to resources" by authenticating devices and determining their
authorization to access requested resources).
6
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
Providing tailored content to a user or group is an abstract concept as
well. See Evolutionary Intelligence LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp., 677 F.
App'x 679, 680 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (non-precedential) ("[T]ailoring of content
based on information about the user-such as where the user lives or what
time of day the user views the content-is an abstract idea.") ( citations
omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d
1363, 1369--70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (providing dynamic website navigation data
to a user by tailoring the content based on the viewer's location and time of
day is a fundamental practice long prevalent in our system).
Whether claim 1 recites a server that falls within a statutory category
of invention (see Appeal Br. 8) is not dispositive. See CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Regardless of
what statutory category ('process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter,' 35 U.S.C. § 101) a claim's language is crafted to literally invoke,
we look to the underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.").
Appellants' comparison of claim 17 of Enfish with claim 1 here shows
the abstract nature of the claimed server for managing information. Unlike
claim 1, Enfzsh claimed a data storage and retrieval system (database) with a
particularly claimed logical table that included logical rows having an object
identification number (OID) to identify each logical row and a plurality of
logical columns intersecting the rows and including an OID to identify each
column with a means for indexing data stored in the self-referential table
that functions differently than conventional relational databases. See Appeal
Br. 10; Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Here, claim 1 recites a communication interface and controller that
perform generic functions of receiving and processing information.
7
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
The claimed communication interface and controller implement the
abstract idea conventionally. Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com
Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1270-71 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Affinity makes no claim
that it invented any of those components or their basic functions, nor does it
suggest that those components, at that level of generality, were unknown in
the art as of the priority date of the '085 patent.").
Based on the foregoing, we determine that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea of information collection, processing, and presentation with
restrictions on access to members of a group. We agree with the Examiner
that the dependent claims are directed to this abstract idea. Final Act. 3. For
example, claim 3 recites "wherein the controller is configured to group the
plurality of devices as the single group." Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).
Claim 4 recites that the communication interface receives third information
and compares it with fourth information in the integrated history and updates
the fourth information. Id. Claim 5 recites that the controller is configured
to add the third information to the integrated history information. Claim 6
displays a moving path in the integrated history information on a screen of a
device. Id. Thus, the dependent claims recite further aspects of the abstract
idea of collecting and presenting information.
Alice Step Two
The Examiner further finds that the claims do not include additional
elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea or claim
improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, another technology,
or a technical field such as the Internet. Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 5. In this
regard, the Examiner finds that the claims recite generic computer elements
and routine server implementations. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. We agree.
8
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
Appellants argue only that claim 1 provides a server for managing
information related to moving paths of a plurality of devices connected to
the server" and the communication interface and controller are directed to
patent-eligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 8. Appellants also argue that "the
claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in
the technology of managing information related to moving paths of a
plurality of devices connected to the server." Id. at 12. Appellants do not
explain, however, which aspects of the claimed server represent an advance
in this technological field.
Appellants do not identify any advance in the configuration of the
communication interface in the way that it receives information from a first
device related to a moving path. Nor do Appellants identify any advance in
the manner that the controller generates "integrated history information" or
provides that information to a device. Appellants do not identify any non-
conventional or non-generic arrangement of the server, communication
interface, or controller such that an inventive concept can be found. Id. at 9
( discussing BASCOM). If there is some novelty or advance in the server, it
does not reside in the claims. See Automated Tracking Solutions LLC v. The
Coca-Cola Co., 723 F. App'x 989, 995 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (non-precedential)
( claims to system for locating, identifying, and tracking objects with radio
frequency identification (RFID) technology were directed to an abstract idea
of collecting and analyzing data; they did not recite any specialized RFID
components or non-conventional combination or arrangement, and the mere
recitation of concrete, tangible components did not confer patent eligibility
to the abstract idea where the components performed well-understood,
routine, conventional activities known in the industry).
9
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
Appellants acknowledge that claim 1 recites a server for managing
information of moving paths of devices. Appeal Br. 11-12. The type of
information does not confer patent eligibility. See Elec. Power, 830 F .3d at
1354--55. The Specification discloses that the system shares travel (moving
path) information generated by mobile devices among a plurality of users.
Spec. 2:6-18, 5: 19---6:4. Family members can share moving-path related
information after authenticating and registering their mobile communication
devices in a home server. Id. at 11 :20-12:2. Information about shortcuts
may be shared. Id. at 25:4--6. Devices used in the system are identified
schematically or generically. Id. at 9: 1-13:4, Figs. 1-3.
The Specification provides very little guidance as to the scope of the
claimed integration of history information. The term "integrate" is used
only in the Summary of Invention, the original claims, and the abstract. Id.
at 2:10-3:15 and 44:2--48:9.
Considering the limitations of claim 1 individually and as an ordered
combination, we determine that they do not recite an inventive concept that
is sufficient to elevate the claimed abstract idea to a patent-eligible status.
Claim 1 simply recites generic components that collect, process, and present
moving path information among mobile devices that are authenticated and
registered to share this information as a group. Appellants do not identify
any innovation beyond managing information. See Appeal Br. 8-14; Reply
Br. 4--6. Appellants are correct that our reviewing court admonishes us to
avoid analyzing the claims at too high a level of generality; however, here,
claim 1 recites an information management server, interface, and controller
at such a high level of generality and functionality as to be an abstract idea
that lacks an inventive concept to make it patent eligible.
10
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
Claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13
Rejected Over Subramanian and Goel
Appellants argue claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 as a group. See Appeal Br.
4--8 ( arguing that claims 7 and 13 are allowable for the reasons argued for
claim 1 and independent claims 3---6 and 9-12 are allowable based on their
dependency from claims 1 and 7, respectively). We select claim 1 as the
representative claim. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )(1 )(iv).
The Examiner relies on Subramanian to teach all features recited in
claim 1 except for generating and providing integrated history information.
Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner relies on Goel to teach this feature. Id. at 5.
Appellants argue that the Examiner errs in relying on item 403 of
Figure 4 of Subramanian to disclose a controller configured to authenticate
and register the plurality of devices as recited in claim 1, and Goel fails to
cure this defect. Appeal Br. 5-7. This argument is not persuasive.
First, merely reproducing Figure 4 of Subramanian and arguing that
the Examiner is incorrect to allege that item 403 discloses that the controller
is configured to authenticate and register a plurality of devices as recited in
claim 1 (Appeal Br. 5) does not apprise us of Examiner error in this regard.
Second, Subramanian discloses a system that manages a group of
mobile devices to obtain and share routing information. Subramanian ,r 36.
In step 403, communication links among group members are
authenticated, authorized, and encrypted to ensure that
communication of routing and destination information are
private and secure. Privacy and security are important because
group members may be sharing potentially sensitive
information such as group destination, preferred routes,
member locations, and member identities.
Id. ,r 37 (emphasis added).
11
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
We agree with the Examiner that Subramanian teaches authentication
and registration of mobile devices that are managed within a group so that
moving path information can be collected and shared among members of the
group via their mobile devices.
Appellants also argue that Subramanian teaches authentication of
"communication links among group members" rather than authentication of
"the plurality of devices in the single group" as claimed. Reply Br. 2
(emphasis omitted). We find this to be a distinction without a difference in
regards to claim 1.
A skilled artisan would understand a communication link to exist
between mobile devices joined in a group for sharing travel information.
See Subramanian ,r 17, Fig. 1. Therefore, authenticating a communication
link between mobile devices necessarily involves authentication of the
mobile devices that form the communication link. Stated another way, a
skilled artisan would understand that a communication link connects or links
communication devices together such that authentication of the link requires
authentication of the devices that are linked together. Subramanian confirms
this understanding by also disclosing that authentication and authorization
(registration) ensure that communication of travel information (between
devices) is private and secure. Id. ,r 37 ("Privacy and security are important
because group members may be sharing potentially sensitive information
such as a group destination, preferred routes, member locations, and member
identities."). Therefore, there are no defects in Subramanian for Goel to cure
in this regard. Appeal Br. 5-7.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13 as
unpatentable over Subramanian and Goel.
12
Appeal 2017-011441
Application 14/692, 162
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-13.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
13