Ex Parte Wagner et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 2018

13798081 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/798,081 03/13/2013 26379 7590 09/05/2018 DLA PIPER LLP (US ) 2000 UNIVERSITY A VENUE EAST PALO ALTO, CA 94303-2248 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Cory Wagner 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. 388938-991183 6440 EXAMINER KANAAN, MAROUN P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/05/2018 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): PatentDocketing US-PaloAlto@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CORY WAGNER, CHAD SALLEE, MATTHEW R. PERKINS, WEI GENG, and BRIAN WICKS Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 Technology Center 3600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-18.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is A warepoint Corporation. App. Br. 1. 2 Appellants indicate they are unaware of any other related appeals. See App. Br. 1. However, we have determined that Appeal 2017-006180 (Application 13/798,138) and Appeal 2017-006075 (Application 14/253,833) are related to this appeal and are directed to the same underlying inventions and issues. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(ii). Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to a system and method utilizing context aware location tracking (Spec. ,r 1 ). Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A system for improving tracking object movement usmg workflow context information m an indoor healthcare environment, the system comprising: a location tracking system comprising a plurality of sensors located in a facility for infrastructure-based real-time location tracking of persons and/or objects in the indoor health care environment, each sensor of the plurality of sensors communicating with other sensors of the plurality of sensors utilizing a medium range wireless communication format; a plurality of communication devices, each of the plurality of communication devices associated with an object or a person, each of the plurality of communication devices configured to transmit a signal to at least one of the plurality of sensors utilizing a short-range communication format; and a context-aware location engine in communication with the location tracking system, the context-aware location engine configured to receive from the location tracking system a plurality of initial location estimations for the plurality of communication devices and the context aware location engine configured to generate a plurality of filtered location estimates for the plurality of communication devices based on a standard workflow, specific usage information for a plurality of objects in the facility, and information from a plurality of communication interactions for interactions between the plurality of communication devices; wherein the medium range wireless communication format comprises ZIGBEE communication format, Bluetooth communication format, Low-Power BlueTooth communication format, WiFi communication format, Low-Power WiFi communication format, Ultra Wide Band communication 2 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 format, Ultrasound communication format or Infrared communication format; wherein the short range wireless communication format comprises near-field communication format, low frequency communication format, a magnetic field communication format, a magnetic induction communication format, 9kHz communication format, <125kHz communication format, 125kHz RFID communication format, 13.56 MHz communication format, 433MHz communication format, 433 MHz RFID communication format, or 900MHz RFID communication format. REJECTIONS Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 as not being directed to patent-eligible subject matter. See Final Act. 3-5. Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the invention. See Final Act. 5-6. PRINCIPLES OF LAW The Supreme Court has set forth "a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73 (2012)). According to this framework, a determination is made to consider whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts (i.e., laws 3 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). See id. If so, a further determination must be made to consider the elements of each claim both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the claim" into a patent-eligible application. Id. "The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact." Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred, and we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner. See Final Act. 2-8; see also Ans. 3-7. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Rejection Under 35 U.S. C. Â§ 1 OJ Independent claim 1 recites a system for improving tracking object movement using workflow context information in an indoor healthcare environment, and is, therefore, directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentability enumerated by 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Applying the first part of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the claims are directed to the abstract idea of predicting a location of an object based on an initial location and known elements. See Ans. 3--4; see also Final Act. 3. As found by the Examiner, the recited steps correspond to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as comparing new and stored information and using 4 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 rules to identify options as seen in SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Laboratories, SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950, 954--55 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See Final Act. 3--4; see also Ans. 3--4. Applying the second part of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. See Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 4--5. More specifically, as found by the Examiner, the recited sensors, location engine, communication devices, and communication formats are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. See Final Act. 4--5; see also Ans. 4--5. 3 Beginning with the first step of the Alice analysis, we must determine "whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts," including abstract ideas. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. In performing this determination, we ask whether the focus of the claims is on a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an "abstract idea" for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59). Appellants contend the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. See App. Br. 5. Instead, Appellants argue the claims recite operations that are an 3 Although the Examiner's findings are explicitly directed to claim 1, the Examiner further finds the additional claim elements of dependent claims 2- 18 fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See Final Act. 5. 5 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 improvement of other technology (i.e., a location tracking system with sensors, different short and medium range communications protocols and location determining capability) and further recite claim elements (i.e., a location tracking system comprising sensors, communication devices, each configured to transmit a signal to at least one of the sensors utilizing a short- range communication format and a context-aware location engine in communication with the location tracking system) that are clearly not directed to any abstract idea. See App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue the claimed elements represent a modem technology that is necessarily dependent on computer systems and technology and an idea that did not exist before the time of computers, similar to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). See App. Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments. Considering the recited elements of the claims in light of Appellants' Specification, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the claims are directed to collecting information (i.e., receiving location estimations) and comparing information in order to estimate a location (i.e., generating filtered location estimates for communication devices based on a standard workflow). See Ans. 3. The recited steps can be performed mentally, and thus, the claims are directed to "an idea of itself," one of the four types of abstract idea set forth in Alice. See Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2355 ("[a]n idea of itself is not patentable."). Based on the recited elements, the claims are directed to a concept which is similar to abstract ideas previously identified by courts. See Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims drawn to 6 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing the recognized data in memory are directed to an abstract idea); see also Automated Tracking Solutions LLC v. Coca-Cola Company, 723 Fed. Appx. 989, 993 (holding that claims directed to systems for locating, identifying and/or tracking of an object using RFID components are directed to an abstract idea). We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims recite operations that are an improvement of an underlying technology (i.e., a location tracking system with sensors, different short and medium range communications protocols and location determining capability). Although Appellants argue the claims are directed to an improvement in technology, the claims fail to recite the technical details that describe how a computer system realizes an operational improvement via the claimed functionality. Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertion, the claims fail to recite the improvement to the computer system that Appellants argues the claims are directed to. Further, Appellants' argument that the claims are similar to the claims in DDR Holdings, is not persuasive. Appellants provide no technical reasoning or analysis as to why the claims are similar to the claims at issue in DDR Holdings. In DDR Holdings, the court determined that the claims at issue were necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to address the Internet-centric problem of how to provide user access to computer- implemented applications over the Internet. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257. In contrast, the functions performed by the claimed system (i.e., receiving location estimations and generating filtered location estimates for 7 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 communication devices based on a standard workflow), are not necessarily rooted in computer technology, as the aforementioned functions could also occur outside the context of computer technology (e.g., if the aforementioned functions were implemented using pen and paper). Because we conclude that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we tum to the next step of the Alice analysis. In step two, as previously discussed, we consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as 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 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78). Here, Appellants argue the claims recite various elements that show the claims are directed to significantly more than an alleged abstract idea. See App. Br. 8. As argued by Appellants, the claims do not recite any mathematical concept or mental process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See App. Br. 9. Instead, Appellants argue, the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in alerting techniques and does not recite any other judicial exception. See App. Br. 9-10. Appellants further argue that the claims, when viewed as an ordered combination, provided improvement to the functioning of a computer system, and are more than routine or fundamental functions, and more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See App. Br. 10. We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Considering the recited elements of the claims in light of Appellants' Specification, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the claims recite, at a high level of 8 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 generality, a tracking system, sensors, communication devices, and a context-aware location engine that apply a well-understood process of tracking object movement. See Ans. 4--5. Evidence supporting the Examiner's findings that the recited computer functions performed by the claimed tracking system, sensors, communication devices, and context- aware location engine are well-understood, routine and conventional (see id.) is found in Appellants' Specification, which discloses that the prior art includes various tracking systems and uses of near-field communication devices, and further includes examples of the claimed system components (e.g., sensors). See e.g., Spec. ,r,r 4--18, 55, 57, 60, 63. We also agree with the Examiner's findings that the claimed short range communication format and medium range communication formats were conventional communication formats at the time of the claimed invention. See Ans. 4. Evidence supporting the Examiner's findings that the claimed communication formats are conventional communication formats is found in Appellants' Specification, which discloses that the short range communication format is "preferably IEEE Standard 802.15.4" and that the medium range communication format can be a "BLUETOOTH ... communication formats." Spec. ,r 59. Therefore, considering the elements of the claims both individually and in combination, we conclude there are no additional elements that transform the nature of the claims into a patent- eligible application. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. Regarding Appellants' argument that the claims are necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in alerting techniques, this argument is not persuasive. As previously discussed, the functions performed by the claimed system (i.e., receiving 9 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 location estimations and generating filtered location estimates for communication devices based on a standard workflow), are not necessarily rooted in computer technology, as those functions could also occur outside the context of computer technology (e.g., if the aforementioned functions were implemented using pen and paper). Appellants additionally argue the claims do not "tie up" the alleged abstract idea of "predicting a location of an object based on an initial location and known events," or any other judicial exception, and are therefore patent-eligible for this additional reason. See App. Br. 6-7. This argument is not persuasive either, as the Federal Circuit has made clear that "the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility" of a claim. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In Appellants' Reply Brief, Appellants further argue the decisions in Ex parte Butler, Appeal 2016-006025 (PT AB July 11, 2016) and Ex parte Wegman, Appeal 2013-008168 (PTAB Sept. 22, 2015) require us to reach a conclusion that the claims are patent-eligible. This argument is also not persuasive. Even assuming arguendo that the present rejection is similar to the rejections at issue in the two aforementioned decisions, the decisions are not binding precedent on the Board. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding claims 1-18 reciting patent-ineligible subject matter. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. 10 Appeal2018-004901 Application 13/798,081 Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, Second Paragraph Appellants have not identified any errors in the Examiner's findings regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. See App. Br. 4--10. "If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue- or more broadly, on a particular rejection-the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection." Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 101. We summarily affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 11