Ex Parte Boyer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 12, 2017

11851828 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 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.
11/851,828 09/07/2007 Stanley Gene Boyer 023895/333594 1007
79901 7590 07/14/2017
Sabre/Travelocity and Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza
101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
CHEN, GEORGE YUNG CHIEH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2017 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 sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STANLEY GENE BOYER, JOSEPH ROBERT OFFUTT, and
KIMBERLY PATRICK FARROW
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,8281
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—13, and 23—25.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sabre Inc. (Appeal
Br. 1.)
2 The Examiner states that “[cjlaims 5 and 14—22 have been cancelled.”
(Final Action 2.) Therefore, we treat the statement that “[cjlaims 1—4, 6—13
and 22—25 is/are pending” as a typographical error. (See id. at 1.)
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to distributing information on a
network.” (Spec. 12.) More particularly, the claimed invention relates to
“providing an automated notification process that listens for events matching
an entity’s criteria and automatically notifies the entity of the event.” {Id.
at U 11.)
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method for notifying travelers of changes in travel
information in an integrated event notification system, the
method comprising:
monitoring travel information for changes and publishing
the changes in travel information upon occurrence of each of the
changes;
detecting when at least one of the changes in travel
information has been published based upon a previous
subscription to receive notification of changes in travel
information;
automatically initiating re-accommodation of travel with a
receiving system for at least one traveler in response to detecting
the change in travel information and without awaiting a request
from the at least one traveler, wherein automatically initiating the
re-accommodation of travel comprises notifying an airline
operating system of the change in travel information to complete
the re-accommodation for the at least one traveler without
awaiting a request from the at least one traveler; and
notifying the at least one traveler of the re­
accommodation, the at least one traveler having previously
subscribed to receive notification of changes in travel
information affecting the traveler’s itinerary.
2
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 6—13, and 23—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1—4, 6—13, and 23—25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable in view of Nelson (US 6,496,568 Bl, iss. Dec. 17, 2002); Ru L.
Bailey, Travel Hassles Were Expected by Northwest Airlines Ticketholders,
Knight-Ridder Tribune Business News (Detroit Free Press), Sept. 2, 1998
(hereinafter “Bailey”); and High-tech Writers, HP’s E-speak Software
Nominated for Computerworld Smithsonian Award; E-speak Recognized for
Leading the Next Evolution of the Internet, Business Wire, Mar. 27, 2000
(hereinafter “Business Wire”).
ANALYSIS
The §101 rejection
After the Final Action was mailed, the Supreme Court decided Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). Alice applies a
two-part framework, earlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355.
Under the two-part framework, it must first be determined if “the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. If the claims
are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract
idea, then the second part of the framework is applied to determine if “the
elements of the claim . . . contain[] an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to
3
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Id.
at 2357 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72—73, 79).
In the new ground § 101 rejection, the Examiner determines that the
claims “are directed to [the] abstract idea of organizing human activities for
travelers whose travel plans are changed.” (Answer 3.) The Examiner
further determines that the claims
do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount
to significantly more than the judicial exception because the
additional elements are (i) mere instructions to implement the
idea on a computer, and/or (ii) 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.
(Id.)
Appellants argue that “although the allegedly abstract concept is
‘organizing human activities for travelers whose travel plan are changed,’
this concept is not recited anywhere in the claim.” (Reply Br. 3.) Moreover,
Appellants argue, the rejection “fails to establish either [sic] where the
judicial exception is recited in the claims, and also fails to establish why it is
considered an exception.” (Id.)
Under part one of the Alice framework, we “look at the ‘focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a
whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DirectTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Thus, while we consider the claim as a whole, the “directed to” inquiry
focuses on the claim’s “character as a whole.” In short, there is no
requirement that the claim recites “organizing human activities” for the
4
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
Examiner to correctly find that the claim’s character as a whole is directed to
the “abstract idea of organizing human activities for travelers whose travel
plans are changed.” (Answer 3.)
Moreover, that Appellants’ invention is directed to an abstract idea is
further evidenced by the Specification that discloses that the invention
relates to “providing an automated notification process that listens for events
matching an entity’s criteria and automatically notifies the entity of the
event.” (Spec. 111.) See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1317—18 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that methods
of screening/listening for messages that correspond to particular rules and
taking further action based on the result of the screening/listening are
abstract ideas).
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to part two of the Alice framework, Appellants argue that
“the claims certainly recite significantly more than ‘organizing human
activities for travelers whose travel plans are changed.’ For instance,
independent claim 1 recites ‘monitoring travel information,’ and
independent claims 6 and 7 recite similar features. As noted above, this
claim feature is different from monitoring a traveler’s plans.” (Reply Br. 8,
footnote omitted.)
But Appellants do not persuasively argue why monitoring travel
information, as opposed to monitoring travel plans, transforms the patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2357. Nor does claim 1 recite a computer or computer system. Nor do
5
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
Appellants argue that claims 6 or 7 recite anything more than generic
computer hardware.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under § 101. Also, because claims 2-4, 6—13, and 23—25 are not
separately argued, they fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv)
(2014).
The £103 rejection
Appellants argue that
none of the cited references, taken alone or in combination,
teaches or suggests automatically initiating re­
accommodation of travel with a receiving system for at least
one traveler in response to detecting the change in travel
information and without awaiting a request from the at least one
traveler, as recited by Claims 1 and 6.
(Appeal Br. 8.)
We are not persuaded of error. Bailey discloses: “Jim Faulkner,
Northwest Airlines spokesman, said, ‘We automatically start to rebook
passengers’ once flights are canceled. ‘And we call (passengers) and tell
them what their new flights are.’” (Bailey 1,18.) In view of this, the
Examiner finds, and we agree, that
it is clear from Bailey’s disclosure that a flight cancelation was
detected and rebooking was then initiated as a result of the flight
cancellation. Such act is done with a receiving system because
traveler’s new flight is booked, which means some system
capable of receiving the rebooking request must be involved so
that traveler may receive [a] new ticket to board the new flight.
Therefore, Bailey teaches the limitation.
(Answer 12.)
6
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
Appellants further argue that “before applying the references to the
claimed invention, there must be some teaching or suggestion to combine
the references and to modify the references in light of the teachings of the
references.” {Id. at 9.)
However, the Examiner finds that
Nelson discloses that “travelers desire reliable, faster, and better
methods of receiving notification of airline schedule information
which affects their travel as well as easier methods for updating
their travel plans” (1: 26—[29]). Bailey describes that
Northwest’s method of handling affected passengers in addition
to the ample supply of workers has “helped to ease passenger
discomfort” (page 1, paragraph 9). Business Wire describes that
that using E-speak to automatically adjust travel plans would
have the advantage of “not need[ing] to change arrangements
with each vendor” (page 1, paragraph [4]). Therefore, all the
references are directed to a better customer experience when
there is a change in travel plan. As a result, there is teaching,
suggestion, and motivation to combine the references.
(Answer 13; see also Final Action 5—6.)
Moreover, in KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the
Supreme Court stated:
Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the
field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the
patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in the
manner claimed.
When there is a design need or market pressure to solve a
problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable
solutions, a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue
the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads
to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of
innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.
7
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
KSR, 550 U.S. at 420—21. Additionally, “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
In view of the Examiner’s findings, Appellants do not persuasively
argue why a person of ordinary skill would not have had good reason to
pursue these known options and why the claimed invention is not the
product of “ordinary skill and common sense.”
With regard to independent claim 7, Appellants additionally argue that
“[c]laim 7 explicitly requires that the receiving system detect the change in
travel information.” (Appeal Br. 11.) Appellants further argue that
Nelson does not teach or suggest that the notifier and updater
system detects when a change in travel information has been
published, as the notifier and updater system only receives or
polls for notification messages that may require notification to
the customer. In addition, the Examiner acknowledges that
Bailey does not teach or suggest who or what is detecting the
change in travel information. Thus, neither Nelson nor Bailey,
taken alone or in combination, teaches or suggests a system
comprising a receiving system that both detects when at least one
change in travel information has been published and
automatically initiates re-accommodation of travel in response to
detecting the change in travel information.
(Id.)
However, the Examiner finds that “[t]he specification does not even
define what a ‘receiving system’ is. In fact, it is unclear [] if such ‘receiving
system’ is an actual machine or mere software modules.” (See Answer 14.)
Nor is it clear whether the receiving system excludes other things, e.g.,
human interaction. (See Claim 7.) Therefore, the Examiner finds that
“Bailey discloses that such detection is performed” and that whatever
8
Appeal 2015-005238
Application 11/851,828
performed that detection in Bailey can be considered part of a receiving
system. (Answer 14.)
In short, Appellants do not persuasively argue why Bailey’s disclosure
of Northwest Airlines ’s system to automatically rebook passengers once
flights are cancelled does not disclose a system that detects a change in
travel information and automatically initiates re-accommodation/rebooking.
(See Bailey 1,18.)
Therefore, we are not persuaded of error.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—13, and 23—25 under
35U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—13, and 23—25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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
9