Georgiev, Sergey et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2019

13411254 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2019)

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.
13/411,254 03/02/2012 Sergey Georgiev P107282 1020US.1 8495
160818 7590 12/23/2019
Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP/PROS
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Altanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONYA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2019 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGEY GEORGIEV, DIMITAR KAMENOV,
IVAN GOYCHEV, and BOYAN MANEV1
___________

Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the final rejection of claims 1, 5–10, and 13–16
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3–8. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Vayant Travel Technologies, Inc., as the real
party in interest. Appeal Brief 1.
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
2

Introduction
The invention is directed “to travel and, more particularly, relates to
estimating or refining trip prices and travel routing.” Specification 1.
Representative Claim
1. A system useful for improving travel technologies,
comprising:
a YQYR calculator configured to calculate a YQYR fee
using first and last allowed ticketing dates, which is added to a
base fare price to form the estimated trip price;
an IATA calculator configured to calculate an IATA fee
using first and last allowed travel dates, which is added to the
base fare price to form an estimated trip price;
a database slots file configured to store base fare prices,
YQYR fees, IATA fees, and estimated trip prices;
a routing database configured to store records regarding
lists of city pairs; and
routing selection hardware configured to receive a travel
query, finding suitable routes using the routing database based
on the estimated trip price, and executing a sorting process to
select a list of unique routing combinations based on the
estimated trip price so as to decrease a number of generated
routings which results in less computation processing, thereby
helping to improve the speed by which consumers receive
travel solutions over the Internet.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 5–10, and 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible subject matter
without significantly more. Final Action 5–6.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 15, 2017), the Reply Brief (filed
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
3

October 5, 2018), the Final Action (mailed July 14, 2016), and the Answer
(mailed August 8, 2018), for the respective details.
The Examiner determines “[t]he claims are directed to the abstract
idea of sorting routing combinations based on an estimated trip price” and,
therefore, is a method of organizing human activities. Final Action 5; see
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (describing the two-
step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts”).
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the USPTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Memorandum”). Under the Memorandum, the
Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. 2018).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
4

Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Memorandum
Step 2A, Prong One
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to the identified
abstract idea of “sorting routing combinations based on an estimated trip
price” or that “sorting routing combinations based on an estimated trip
price” is an abstract idea. Appeal Brief 11. Appellant contends, the “claims
contain at least twenty-two different claim limitations, so it is technically
ridiculous for the Examiner to boil all the claim limitations down to ‘sorting
routing combinations based on an estimated trip price.’” Appeal Brief 11.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner’s determination that the claims recite an abstract idea. Final
Action 2–6.
The Specification discloses:
[A] system form which recites a system for selecting routings
based on estimated trip prices. The system comprises a YQYR
calculator configured to calculate a YQYR fee, which is added
to a base fare price to form an estimated trip price. The system
further comprises a routing database configured to store records
regarding lists of city pairs. The system additionally comprises
routing selection hardware configured to receive a travel query,
finding suitable routes using the routing database based on the
estimated trip price, and executing a sorting process to select a
list of unique routing combinations based on the estimated trip
price.
Specification 1.
Claim 1 recites a “system useful for improving travel technologies”
wherein:
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
5

1. a YQYR calculator configured to calculate a YQYR fee using first
and last allowed ticketing dates, which is added to a base fare price to
form the estimated trip price;
2. an IATA calculator configured to calculate an IATA fee using first
and last allowed travel dates, which is added to the base fare price to
form an estimated trip price;
3. routing selection hardware configured to receive a travel query,
finding suitable routes using the routing database based on the
estimated trip price, and executing a sorting process to select a list of
unique routing combinations based on the estimated trip price so as to
decrease a number of generated routings which results in less
computation processing, thereby helping to improve the speed by
which consumers receive travel solutions over the Internet.
Accordingly, the claim recites the abstract idea of “[m]athematical
concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations,” as recited in limitations 1 and 2 above. See
Memorandum, Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see also SAP Am.,
Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that
claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on selected
information” are directed to abstract ideas); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that
claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical
correlations” are directed to an abstract idea); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(identifying the concept of “managing a stable value protected life insurance
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
6

policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” as an
abstract idea).2
Therefore, we conclude the claims recite an abstract idea pursuant to
Step 2A, Prong One, analysis of the Memorandum. See Memorandum,
Section III(A)(1) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial
Exception).
Step 2A, Prong Two (Integration into a Practical Application)
Under Prong Two of the Memorandum, we must determine “whether
the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical
application of the exception” it is noted that a “claim that integrates a
judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Memorandum, Section III(A)(2).
Appellant argues that the conventional technological process of
discovering flights on-line is riddled with problems, however the claimed
invention is “directed to an existing technology, namely, on-line discovery
of flights, lead to improvements in costs, computation processing, and
speed.” Appeal Brief 23–24. As the Federal Circuit has explained, a “claim
for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Even assuming the

2 See also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis” are “a familiar class of claims
‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible concept”); see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v.
Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
7

technique claimed was “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” that
would not be enough for the claimed abstract idea to be patent eligible. See
Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591
(2013).
In Thales, the claim recites “[a] system for tracking the motion of an
object relative to a moving reference frame, comprising:
[1] a first inertial sensor mounted on the tracked object;
[2] a second inertial sensor mounted on the moving reference frame;
and
[3] an element adapted to receive signals from said first and second
inertial sensors and configured to determine an orientation of the
object relative to the moving reference frame based on the signals
received from the first and second inertial sensors.
U.S. Patent No. 6,474,159 B1, 11:49–59 (bracketed numbering added). The
Federal Circuit determined that Thales’ claims “are not merely directed to
the abstract idea of using ‘mathematical equations for determining the
relative position of a moving object to a moving reference frame,”’ but
rather “are directed to systems and methods that use inertial sensors in a
non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the relative position
and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference frame.” Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348–49 (Fed. Cir. 2017). As
such, the Federal Circuit concluded that Thales’ claims are not directed to an
“abstract idea” under Alice step 1 of the Alice/Mayo analysis. Id.
We conclude none of Appellant’s claims is like the claims held
patent-eligible by the court in Thales, in which the claimed invention was
directed to the “us[ing] inertial sensors . . . to reduce errors in measuring the
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
8

relative position and orientation of a moving object.” Thales, 850 F.3d at
1348–49.
Further, we find Appellant’s claims are distinguished from those
claims that our reviewing court has found to be patent eligible by virtue of
reciting technological improvements to a computer system. See, e.g., DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving
“composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Visual Memory
LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that
claims directed to “an improved computer memory system” having many
benefits were patent eligible); see also Appeal Brief 27–28 and 42.
In McRO3, the Federal Circuit concluded that the claim, when
considered as a whole, was directed to a “technological improvement over
the existing, manual 3–D animation techniques” through the “use[] [of]
limited rules . . . specifically designed to achieve an improved technological
result in conventional industry practice.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit found that the claimed rules allow
computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial
expressions in animated characters that previously could only be produced
by human animators; and the rules are limiting because they define morph
weight sets as a function of phoneme sub-sequences. McRO, 837 F.3d at
1313.

3 McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1303 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
9

We find no evidence of record here that the present situation is like the
one in McRO, in which computers did not make certain subjective
determinations, i.e., regarding morph weight and phoneme timings, which
were made prior to the claimed invention by human animators. See Appeal
Brief 31–35. The Background section of the McRO ‘576 patent includes a
description of the admitted prior art method and the shortcomings associated
with that prior method. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303–06. There is no
comparable discussion in Appellant’s Specification or elsewhere of record.
Consequently, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive
because the claims utilize a calculator, a database, and generic routing
selection hardware without any improvement to the functioning of the
devices themselves. See Specification 1–2; see also Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e find it
relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to
computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea . . . the focus
of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or,
instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool.”). The claims do not recite an additional
element or elements that reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“In holding that the process was patent ineligible, we
rejected the argument that ‘implement[ing] a principle in some specific
fashion’ will ‘automatically fal[l] within the patentable subject matter of
§ 101.’” (Alterations in original) (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,
593 (1978))).
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
10

Moreover, we detect no additional element (or combination of
elements) recited in Appellant’s representative claim 1 that integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section
III(A)(2). For example, Appellant’s claimed additional elements (e.g.,
“calculator,” “database,” “routing selection hardware,” and “advanced
computation hardware”): (1) do not improve the functioning of a computer
or other technology; (2) are not applied with any particular machine (except
for a generic computer); (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular
article to a different state; and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Accordingly, we determine the claims do not integrate the recited
judicial exception into a practical application, and, thus, the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2) (Prong
Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the
Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application).
Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Memorandum
Step 2B
Because we determine that the claims are directed to an abstract idea,
we next determine whether the claim includes additional elements that
provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 72–73).
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
11

Appellant contends that the “proper Section 101 rejections of Claims
1, 5-10, and 13-16 were not established because the required factual basis
underlying the rejections was not provided.” Reply Brief 9 (citing
Berkheimer Memorandum4). The Examiner determines that “[t]he
additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the
abstract idea per se amounts to no more than the recitation of generic
computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that
are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known
to the pertinent industry.” Final Action 5.
Memorandum, Section III(B) (footnote 36) states (emphasis
added):
In accordance with existing guidance, an examiner’s
conclusion that an additional element (or combination of
elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must
be supported with a factual determination. For more information
concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional
activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO
Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum Section III(A) states when formulating
rejections, “[i]n a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing.” The
Berkheimer Memorandum5 provides four illustrations for the Examiner to

4 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.).” April 19, 2018.
5 Berkheimer Memorandum Section III(A) (1. A citation to an express
statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during
prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
12

utilize to provide support for the additional elements to be considered to be
well-understood, routine, or conventional. Appellant contends, the:
Final Office Action does not provide a citation to any statement
made by the applicant, by a court decision, or by a publication
that demonstrates the well-known, routine, conventional nature
of the claim elements, and does not provide an indication that the
Examiner is taking Official Notice of such facts.
Reply Brief 10; see Appeal Brief 25; Final Action 5.
Consequently, the Examiner’s findings that the additional claim
elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional are not properly
based upon a factual determination as specified in the Berkheimer
Memorandum, Section III(A)(1). We are constrained by the record whereby
upon revaluation of the additional claim elements in light of the insufficient
factual determination, the additional claim elements indicate that an
inventive concept is present and, therefore, the claims are patent eligible.
See Memorandum, Section III(B) (“If such reevaluation indicates that the
element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that an
inventive concept is present and that the claim is thus eligible.”).
Accordingly, on this record, we conclude claims 1, 5–10, and 13–16
recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea

nature of the additional element(s); 2. A citation to one or more of the court
decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood,
routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s); 3. A citation to a
publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional
nature of the additional element(s); and 4. A statement that the examiner is
taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the additional element(s).).
Appeal 2019-000227
Application 13/411,254
13

itself. We reverse the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1, 5–10, and 13–
16.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–10,
13–16
101 Eligibility 1, 5–10,
13–16

REVERSED