Ex Parte Dearing et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 23, 201711524352 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 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. 11/524,352 09/21/2006 Stephen M. Dearing 08049.1048-00000 7938 22852 7590 08/25/2017 FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER LLP 901 NEW YORK AVENUE, NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413 EXAMINER FLYNN, KEVIN H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/25/2017 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): regional-desk @ finnegan. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte STEPHEN M. DEARING and GERALD J. JAMULA Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 Technology Center 3600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—4, 6—15, 18—22, 24—31, and 33—50. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to “methods and systems for providing a delivery service subscriber with the capability to analyze and evaluate mail flow and mail delivery statistics on an aggregate basis” (Spec. 12). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: obtaining, with a computer, data associated with a plurality of shipments, the shipments including one or more delivery items, the delivery items being associated with corresponding item identifiers, and the obtained data comprising: (i) first identifiers for the plurality of shipments captured at one or more physical locations within the item delivery system; and (ii) second identifiers for the plurality of shipments extracted from an electronic data file associated with the one or more delivery items, the electronic data file being obtained prior to an introduction of the plurality of shipments into the item delivery system; for at least one of the shipments, determining, with the computer, errors in the obtained data by analyzing a portion of the second identifiers corresponding to the at least one shipment; based on the determined errors, normalizing, with the computer, at least a portion of the obtained data in the item delivery system; receiving, with a data input device, a request for a set of item delivery statistics from a subscribed user of the item delivery system, wherein the request includes a specified subscriber identifier identifying the subscribed user and user-selected options specifying one or more aggregation criteria for generating the item delivery statistics; identifying, with the computer, a plurality of shipment identifiers identifying shipments having different originations or destinations, the plurality of shipment identifiers having the specified subscriber identifier in common; 2 Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 aggregating, with the computer, portions of the normalized data associated with the identified shipment identifiers into a single set of aggregated data; determining, with the computer, the requested set of item delivery statistics based on the single set of aggregated data and the user selected options; and generating, with the computer, a report including the requested set of item delivery statistics, the report including a graphic display section providing an aggregated view of the set of item delivery statistics and a user interface section allowing a user to filter the item delivery statistics, the aggregated view being automatically adjusted according to the filtered item delivery statistics. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1—4, 6—15, 18—22, 24—31, and 33—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6—15, 18—20, 22, 24—31, 33, 35— 42, 46, 49, and 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kadaba (US 2003/0236688 Al; pub. Dec. 25, 2003) and Ashaari (US 2004/0188522 Al; pub. Sept. 30, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 2, 21, 34, 43—45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kadaba, Ashaari, and Olsson (US 2004/0205184 Al; pub. Oct. 14, 2004). The Examiner rejected claims 47 and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Kadaba, Ashaari, and Underwood (US 6,259,354; iss. July 10, 2001). ANALYSIS Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (App. Br. 18—25). 3 Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 Appellants assert their invention is directed to statutory subject matter and is not an abstract idea (App. Br. 19), they do not preempt every application of “the alleged abstract idea of ‘aggregating statistics’” (App. Br. 21), the claims are “inextricably tied to computer networks rather than ethereal ideas or mental processes” (App. Br. 22), and their invention solves a technical problem using a technical solution (App. Br. 23). We do not agree. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own (see Final Act. 2—3; Ans. 2-4). Particularly, we agree with the Examiner Appellants’ claims merely perform various mathematical calculations using a generic processing unit and the mathematical calculations are directed to aggregating statistics (an abstract idea) (Ans. 2). Appellants’ arguments merely recite the claim limitations and state because they are directed to a computer-implemented method, item delivery system, analyzing and evaluating a flow of mailing pieces, and a computer readable medium, the Examiner has not and cannot provide any rational basis for asserting the claims are directed to a fundamental business practice much less an abstract idea (App. Br. 20-21 (citing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981)). We agree with the Examiner, however, that Diamond v. Diehr is not pertinent to Appellants’ argument as “Diehr resulted in a physical transformation, of which rearrangement of data does not quality” (Ans. 2—3). We agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying statistics, which is an abstract idea. See, e.g., FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1097—98 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“the practices of collecting, analyzing, and displaying data, with nothing more, are practices whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract ideas”) (quotation 4 Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 omitted); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“we continue to treat analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category”) (quotation omitted); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Merely requiring the selection and manipulation of information—provide a ‘humanly comprehensible’ amount of information useful for users — by itself does not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and analysis”) (citation omitted). Appellants argue their claims solve “a technical problem using a technical solution and is thus directed to statutory subject matter under § 101,” and include normalizing, aggregating, and automatically adjusting the aggregated data to be displayed (App. Br. 22—23). We do not agree. As the Examiner finds, determining errors, normalizing data, and creating a report are “part of the abstract idea, and are merely directed to mathematical manipulation of the underlying data set” (Ans. 3). That is, there is no technical problem being solved; rather, the claims are merely directed to data gathering and displaying the data (statistics)—basically, manipulating data from one form to another, and displaying the results. See In re Miller, 418 F.2d 1392 (CCPA 1969) (holding that claims directed to a mere arrangement of printed matter are patent-ineligible under § 101); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In reNgai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (holding that claims directed to conveying data or meaning to a human reader rather than establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and a computer system are patent-ineligible under § 101). 5 Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 Appellants also argue the claims amount to “significantly more” because “Appellants’ claims recite subject matter that distinguishes the prior art of record.” App. Br. 24. This improperly conflates the test for § 101 with the separate tests for §§102 and 103. E.g., Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. MerialL.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“under the Mayo!Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility”); Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188—89 (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”). Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4, 6—15, 18—22, 24—31, and 35—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 The Examiner finds claims 1—4, 6—15, 18—22, 24—31, 33—46, 49, and 50 obvious over combinations of Kadaba, Ashaari, and Olsson. Particularly, the Examiner finds Ashaari teaches, at stage 1220 of Figure 11, “the system attempts to match the encoded shipment identifier with the shipment identifier of previously received electronic mailing information” (Ans. 5). Thus, the Examiner finds Ashaari discloses “1) determining an error if a match is not found, and 2) in response to the error, initiating further processing to find a match, which results in proper processing,” thus normalizing “at least a portion of the obtained data” (id.). We do not agree. As Appellants contend, Ashaari attempts to match an encoded shipment identifier with a shipment identifier and generates an error when a 6 Appeal 2016-002552 Application 11/524,352 match is not found (App. Br. 26—27). However, Ashaari does not teach or suggest modifying any information in response to the generated error as asserted by the Examiner (App. Br. 27 (arguing Ashaari does not disclose determining errors, and based on those errors, normalizing a portion of the data, as claimed)). We therefore agree with Appellants. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6— 15, 18—20, 22, 24—31, 33, 35—42, 46, 49, and 50 as obvious over the combined teachings of Kadaba and Ashaari, and claims 2, 21, 34, 43—45, 47, and 48 over Kadaba, Ashaari, Olsson, and Underwood. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—15, 18—22, 24—31, and 33—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—4, 6—15, 18—22, 24—31, and 33—50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation