Ex Parte DEMPSKI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 18, 2018

13688958 (P.T.A.B. May. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/688,958 11/29/2012
25537 7590 05/22/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David Raymond DEMPSKI
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.
20120633 2299
EXAMINER
HATCHER, DEIRDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/22/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID RAYMOND DEMPSKI, JAMES JOSEPH SETTO JR.,
SANDRA LEE FLOWERS, CHERYL MATTHEWS RAKESTRAW,
SAMIR TA YEM, and FRASER G. BOWIE
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOHN D.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-10, 19-21, and 23-28. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention automatically links a Device Forum (DF) and a
Quality Center (QC). Specifically, the invention improves efficiency of
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Verizon Communications
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
device vendors reviewing and resolving support issues by capturing support
issues in the DF and automatically importing the captured issues into the
QC. See generally Abstract; Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a Data Forums (DF) server of a mobile communication
network provider, data representative of a support issue provided by a
user of a mobile device through an interactive support channel of the
mobile communications network provider;
establishing, via a DF web service running on the DF server, a DF
support case based on the support issue;
displaying a portal to facilitate management of a plurality of DF
support cases including the DF support case;
determining whether the DF support case has been viewed more than
a threshold number of times within a predetermined time period;
determining, at the DF server, that a criticality field of the DF support
case is marked as a new product launch;
adjusting, at the DF server, the threshold number of times of views
within the predetermined time period downwards to a lower threshold
of view times upon determining that the criticality field of the DF
support case is the new product launch;
forwarding the DF support case from the DF server to a Quality
Center (QC) server of the mobile communication network provider
upon determining that the criticality field of the DF support case is
marked as the new product launch and the lower threshold of view
times is exceeded by automatically transmitting an extensible markup
language (XML) message to the QC server that instructs the QC
server to handle the support issue, the XML message having a
description of the DF support case along with replies associated
therewith and a plurality of fields including a device manufacturer and
a device model;
2
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
automatically creating, at the QC server, a QC support case in
response to receiving the XML message from the DF server
instructing the QC server to handle the support issue by accessing a
field-mapping table through an application programming interface
(API) that pairs the plurality of fields of the DF support case with the
QC support case;
communicating from the QC server to a device vendor server via a
network the QC support case for resolution; and
in response to the QC support server communicating the QC support
case to the device vendor server for resolution, communicating from
the QC server back to the DF server the resolution to the DF support
case from the device vendor server.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7-10, 19-21, and 23-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Ans. 24--
29_2,3
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 7-9, 4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shroff (US 2008/0040427 Al; Feb. 14, 2008),
Fan (US 2011/0072312 Al; Mar. 24, 2011), Boston (US 2008/0263077 Al;
2 The Examiner withdrew an earlier § 101 rejection of claims 1--4, 7-10, 19-
21, and 23-28, but entered a new ground of rejection under § 101 for those
claims. Compare Ans. 20 with Ans. 24. Accord Reply Br. 2
(acknowledging this new ground of rejection). Therefore, only the new
ground of rejection under§ 101 is before us.
3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to ( 1) the Appeal Brief filed April 7,
2016 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed November 4, 2016
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 15, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
4 Although the Examiner includes cancelled claim 6 in the statement of this
rejection, we nonetheless omit that claim here for clarity, and treat the
Examiner's error in this regard as harmless.
3
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
Oct. 23, 2008), Hecox (US 2014/0068330 Al; Mar. 6, 2014), and Fisher (US
2008/0172574 Al; July 17, 2008). Ans. 2-11.
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Shroff, Fan, Boston, Hecox, Fisher, and Hawes (US 2014/0052645 Al;
Feb. 20, 2014). Ans. 11-12.
The Examiner rejected claims 10, 19, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Shroff, Fan, Boston, Hecox, Fisher, and Bryan
(US 2010/0325560 Al; Dec. 23, 2010). Ans. 12-15.
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shroff, Fan, Boston, Hecox, Fisher, and Hibbets (US
2009/0043882 Al; Feb. 12, 2009). Ans. 15-17.
The Examiner rejected claims 25-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Shroff, Fan, Boston, Hecox, Fisher, and Kennis (US
2006/0212486 Al; Sept. 21, 2006). Ans. 17-20.
THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner finds that the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea, namely resolving customer support issues, which is said to be
a method of organizing human activity and an idea of itself. Ans. 24--27, 37.
According to the Examiner, the claimed elements do not add significantly
more to the abstract idea because, among other things, the claims recite
generic computing functionality that implements the recited abstract idea.
Ans. 27-29, 31-36. Based on these findings, the Examiner concludes that
the claims are ineligible under § 101.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea, but rather specific methods involving specific network
4
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
handshakes between a DF server, QC server, and a device vendor server
based on XML message exchanges. App. Br. 6. According to Appellants,
these network communications transmit specific XML message structures,
and are not directed to a mathematical algorithm or fundamental economic
or longstanding commercial practice. App. Br. 8-9.
Appellants also contend that even if the claims somehow implicate an
abstract idea, when considered as an ordered combination, the recited
limitations add significantly more to that idea by relying on specific
technological operations of a DF server, a QC server, and a device vendor
server using a specific XML message structure with the four recited
parameters. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5-7. Appellants add that the claims
do not preempt an entire field, nor does the recited XML message protocol
merely gather data. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 7.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1--4, 7-10, 19-21, and 23-
28 by concluding that they are directed to ineligible subject matter under
§ 101? This issue turns on whether the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea and, if so, whether the claim's elements----considered
individually and as an ordered combination-transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea.
ANALYSIS
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, we apply
the Supreme Court's two-step test articulated in Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd.
v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, we determine
5
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2354--55. If so, we then
proceed to the second step and examine the claim's elements-both
individually and as an ordered combination-to determine whether the claim
contains an "'inventive concept"' sufficient to transform the claimed abstract
idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357.
Alice Step One
Applying Alice step one, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's finding that the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea,
namely referring and resolving customer support issues, which not only is a
fundamental business practice, but also fundamentally organizes human
activity as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 25, 37.
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, that a DF server
(1) receives data representing a support issue, 5 (2) establishes a DF support
case6 based on that issue, (3) determines that the DF support case's
"criticality field" is marked as a new product launch, and, if so, ( 4) lowers
the threshold number of views within a predetermined time period, and
(5) forwards the DF support case to a QC server if the lower threshold is
exceeded. According to claim 1, this forwarding automatically transmits an
5 A "support issue" may represent and/or include any complaint, inquiry,
request, comment, critique, concern, controversy, matter, problem, or other
issue provided by a customer through an interactive channel of a mobile
communication network provider. Spec. ,r 21.
6 A "DF support case" may include compiled information related to a
support issue upon which the support case is based and/or to a user who
provides the support issue. Spec. ,r 22.
6
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
XML message to the QC server instructing that server to handle the support
issue, where the message has (1) a DF support case description,
(2) associated replies, (3) a device manufacturer field, and (4) a device
model field.
Claim 1 further recites that the QC server automatically creates a QC
support case 7 responsive to receiving the message from the DF server by
accessing a field-mapping table through an API that pairs the DF support
case fields with the QC support case. According to claim 1, the QC support
case is then communicated from the QC server to a device vendor server via
a network for resolution. The QC server8 then communicates the resolution
from the device vendor server back to the DF server.
In essence, claim 1 's method resolves a user's support issue through a
series of referrals of an associated support case and its resolution between
three servers. That is, the associated support case is referred (1) from the DF
server to the QC server, and then (2) from the QC server to the vendor
server. The resolution of that case is then referred (1) from the vendor
server to the QC server, and then (2) from the QC server to the DF server.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 4--8; Reply
Br. 2-5), we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an abstract
7 A "QC support case" may include, among other things, information
regarding the manufacturer and model number of the device associated with
the QC support case and/or any additional information recommended or
necessary for device vendors to address the QC support case or provided by
the vendors responsive to the QC support case. Spec. ,r 23.
8 Although claim 1 's last clause refers to the QC support server, there is no
antecedent basis for "the QC support server." Nevertheless, given the term's
context in the claim, we presume that the "QC support server" refers to the
QC server.
7
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
idea, namely referring and resolving customer support issues, which not only
is a fundamental business practice, but also fundamentally organizes human
activity as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 25, 37. Such fundamental
economic and business practices are often held to be abstract. See, e.g.,
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356 (holding the concept of intermediated settlement is
an abstract idea directed to a "'fundamental economic practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce"') ( citation omitted); see also
buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing
cases where contractual relations at issue constituted fundamental economic
practices, and noting that forming or manipulating economic relations may
involve an abstract idea); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining
that claims directed to "the mere formation and manipulation of economic
relations" and "the performance of certain financial transactions" have been
held to involve abstract ideas).
Furthermore, it well settled that collecting information is within the
realm of abstract ideas----even when the information is limited to particular
content. Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). It is also well settled that analyzing information by steps people
go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are
essentially mental processes within the abstract idea category. Id. at 1354.
And merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.
Id.
8
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
Similar to the claims at issue in Electric Power, the claimed invention
here gathers, manipulates, analyzes, and presents information of a specified
content, but does not use any particular inventive technology for performing
those functions. Cf Easyweb Innovations, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., 689 F.
App'x 969, 969--71 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (unpublished) (holding claims reciting
message publishing system that (1) converted part of a received message to a
different format, and (2) published the converted portion were directed to the
abstract idea of receiving, authenticating, and publishing data).
In essence, the claimed invention is directed to referring and resolving
customer support issues-a fundamental business practice that also
fundamentally organizes human activity as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 25,
37. Notably, these issue referral and resolution functions are analogous to
those performed by technical support staff at a conventional help desk. See
MICROSOFT COMPUTER DICTIONARY 250 (5th ed. 2002) (defining "help
desk" in pertinent part as "[t]echnical support staff who help solve users'
problems with hardware or software systems or refer such problems to those
who can solve them.") ( emphasis added).
Appellants' reliance on McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) on pages 4 and 5 of the Reply
Brief is misplaced. McRo' s claimed process used a combined order of
specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied
to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d
at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters
using particular information and techniques-an improvement over manual
three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract
idea. Id. at 1316.
9
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
But unlike McRo, the claimed invention here resolves a user's support
issue through a series of referrals of an associated support case and its
resolution between three servers. Although referring and resolving support
issues as claimed may be beneficial, a claim for a useful or beneficial
abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379--80 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Alice Step Two
Nor do the recited elements----considered individually and as an
ordered combination-transform the nature of claim 1 into a patent-eligible
application of the abstract idea to ensure that the claim amounts to
significantly more than that idea. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
That the method involves exchanging data between a DF server, a QC
server, and a device vendor server under the recited conditions does not
change our conclusion. As the Examiner finds, the claimed invention
merely uses generic computing components to perform the recited abstract
idea. Ans. 28-29, 33. Indeed, these generic computing components merely
do that which can be performed mentally or with a pen and paper-
exclusive functions ineligible for patent protection under § 101. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
Even assuming, without deciding, that the recited components add
efficiency, any speed increase comes from the capabilities of the generic
computer components-not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP,
10
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
LLC v. Iatric Systems, Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Bancorp Services, LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2012) ("[T]he fact that the required calculations could be
performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the
patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.")). Like the claims in
Fair Warning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in computer
processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use
generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095
( citations and quotation marks omitted).
In short, merely reciting these generic computing components cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Id. at 2358. In other words, merely reciting an abstract idea while adding the
words "apply it with a computer" does not render an abstract idea non-
abstract; there must be more. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359. Nor does the
claimed invention improve the computer processor device's functionality or
efficiency, or otherwise change the way that device functions. Cf Enfzsh
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
That the claimed invention forwards data from one server to another
via a network does not change our conclusion. Cf Dealertrack, Inc. v.
Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1332-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (holding ineligible
computer-aided method that sent application data sequentially to plural
remote funding source terminal devices); see also Audatex North America,
Inc. v. Mitchell Int'!, Inc., 703 F. App'x 986, 987-90 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(unpublished) (holding ineligible method for obtaining automobile insurance
claim valuation report by transmitting the report from a valuation server to a
web server before transmitting the report to the client computer). See also
11
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 ("That a computer receives and sends the
information over a network-with no further specification-is not even
arguably inventive.").
Nor does the recited XML message structure with (1) a DF support
case description, (2) associated replies, (3) a device manufacturer field, and
( 4) a device model field add significantly more to the abstract idea. Cf
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that companies have frequently employed
XML documents in routine business transactions, and that reciting XML
documents specifically, at best, limits the invention to a technological
environment for which to apply the underlying abstract concept). To the
extent Appellants contend that the particular content of the XML message,
namely the four recited data elements noted above, somehow adds
significantly more to the abstract idea (see App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 7), we
disagree.
Appellants' reliance on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.Com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) on page 9 of the Appeal Brief is unavailing.
There, instead of a computer network operating in its normal, expected
manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website apparently
connected with a clicked advertisement, the claimed invention in DDR
generated and directed the visitor to a hybrid page that presented ( 1) product
information from the third party, and (2) visual "look and feel" elements
from the host website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1258-59. Given this particular
Internet-based solution, the court held that the claimed invention did not
merely use the Internet to perform a business practice known from the pre-
12
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
Internet world, but rather was necessarily rooted in computer technology to
overcome a problem specifically arising in computer networks. Id. at 1257.
That is not the case here. As noted previously, Appellants' claimed
invention resolves a user's support issue through a series of referrals of an
associated support case and its resolution between three servers. In short,
this functionality is directed to a fundamental business practice that also
fundamentally organizes human activity-an abstract idea.
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claims do
not preempt an entire field. App. Br. 10. Where, as here, the claims cover a
patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are fully addressed and
made moot" by an analysis under the Alice framework. See Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
For the foregoing reasons, then, the recited elements----considered
both individually and as an ordered combination----do not contain an
"inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 2--4, 7-10, 19-21, and 23-
28 not argued separately with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER SHROFF, FAN, BOSTON,
HECOX, AND FISHER
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Shroff
discloses, among other things, ( 1) receiving data representing a support issue
at a DF server, namely a server operating a community forum module, and
(2) establishing a "DF support case" at that server, namely by posting an
issue to which results, feedback, and updates are attached as shown in
13
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
Shroff's Figure 6. Ans. 2-3. This "DF support case" is said to be forwarded
to a "QC server," namely recipients enlisted to respond to a given posting,
by automatically transmitting an associated instructional message to those
recipients based on the posting's priority. Ans. 3--4. According to the
Examiner, a "QC support case" is not only created automatically at the QC
server responsive to receiving this message, but is also communicated from
this server to a device vendor server associated with a product manager for
resolution. Ans. 4--5. Shroff's QC server is said to communicate this
vendor-server resolution back to the DF server. Ans. 5.
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Shroff does not forward
the DF support case to the QC server upon determining that (1) the DF
support case's criticality field is marked as a new product launch, and (2) a
lower threshold of view times is exceeded, the Examiner cites Hecox for
teaching, among other things, notifying engineers of support issues for new
products, and Boston for teaching classifying service tickets as including
"critical" problems that need immediate attention. Ans. 7. The Examiner
reasons that because these critical problems require immediate attention,
they lack a threshold requirement and, therefore, Boston teaches the recited
threshold adjustment. Id.
The Examiner also acknowledges that although Shroff' s transmitted
message includes a DF support case description and associated replies in
Figure 9, the message is nevertheless not an XML message that also includes
fields including the device's manufacturer and model. Ans. 4, 8. The
Examiner, however, cites Fisher for teaching these fields, and further notes
Shroff' s system can use XML to exchange data over a network. Id. The
Examiner also cites Fan for teaching that various recited elements, including
14
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
the QC server, are associated with a mobile communication network
provider. Ans. 5---6.
In light of these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that
claim 1 would have been obvious. Ans. 2-8.
Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest
forwarding the DF support case from the DF server to a QC server as
claimed. App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 7-9. According to Appellants, the cited
prior art does not automatically transmit the claimed XML message structure
with the four recited parameters, let alone do so upon determining that (1)
the DF support case's criticality field is marked as a new product launch,
and (2) the lower threshold of view times is exceeded as claimed. Id.
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Shroff, Fan, Boston, Hecox, and Fisher collectively would have taught
or suggested forwarding the DF support case from the DF server to a QC
server upon determining that ( 1) the D F support case's criticality field is
marked as a new product launch, and (2) the lower threshold of view times is
exceeded, where this forwarding automatically transmits the claimed XML
message with the four recited data elements to the QC server?
ANALYSIS
As noted above, a key aspect of the claimed invention is that the DF
support case is forwarded to a QC server by automatically transmitting an
XML message with four data elements, namely (1) a DF support case
15
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
description, (2) associated replies, (3) a device manufacturer field, and (4) a
device model field.
In the rejection, the Examiner maps the recited DF server to the server
202 that operates a community forum module in Shroff's Figure 2. See Ans.
3. The Examiner also maps the recited QC server to recipients enlisted to
respond to a given posting in Shroff's paragraph 69. Ans. 4. We see no
error in this mapping, for skilled artisans would understand that these
recipients would be at least associated with a server to facilitate
communication with the server 202 via a network, or that such a server
would have been at least an obvious variation.
Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 11-13), we
see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Shroff for at least suggesting
transmitting a message from a DF server to a QC server, where the message
has two of the four recited data elements, namely the DF support case
description and its associated replies, particularly in light of this
communicated information in Shroff s Figures 6, 8, and 9. As shown in step
508 of Shroff s Figure 5, alert-based messages are sent to certain recipients
(whose servers correspond to the recited "QC server" under the Examiner's
mapping) based on the associated postings' priority. See Shroff,I 69.
Even assuming, without deciding, that these messages are not XML
messages, we nevertheless see no reason why they cannot be so formatted,
particularly in light of Shroff' s teaching that XML can be used to exchange
data over a network in paragraph 27 as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 4.
Indeed, the Federal Circuit has acknowledged the frequent and routine use of
XML documents in electronic transmissions as noted previously. See
Intellectual Ventures I, 850 F.3d at 1340. In short, such an enhancement
16
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
uses prior art elements predictably according to their established functions-
an obvious improvement. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007).
Although Shroff' s messages contain only two of the four recited data
elements, namely the DF support case description and its associated replies,
we nevertheless see no error in the Examiner's reliance on Fisher for at least
suggesting that fields for a device's manufacturer and model number could
also be included in the transmitted message, particularly in light of Fisher's
teaching that a service ticket can include these fields in Figure 32. See Ans.
8 ( citing Fisher ,r 216). As the Examiner explains, including these fields in
the transmitted message would provide more information to technicians and
agents to assist them in troubleshooting an associated problem-a
predictable result. See Ans. 8. Although Appellants contend that Fisher
does not transmit these fields, but merely displays them (Reply Br. 8-9), this
argument is not germane to the limited purpose for which Fisher was cited,
namely merely to show that it is known to include such fields in a service
ticket, and that providing such fields in addition to the DF support case
description and associated replies in Shroff s transmitted message would
have been obvious to provide more information for troubleshooting as noted
above. See Ans. 8, 42--43. In short, Appellants' arguments regarding
Fisher's individual shortcomings in this regard do not show nonobviousness
where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references' collective
teachings. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Shroff does not forward
the DF support case to the QC server upon determining that the DF support
case's criticality field is marked as a new product launch and a lower
17
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
threshold of view times is exceeded, we nonetheless see no error in the
Examiner's reliance on ( 1) Hecox for teaching, among other things,
notifying engineers of support issues for new products, and (2) Boston for
teaching classifying service tickets as including "critical" problems that need
immediate attention. Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons that because these
critical problems require immediate attention, they lack a threshold
requirement and, therefore, Boston teaches the recited threshold adjustment.
Id. On this record, we find that the Examiner's articulated basis for this
combination is reasonable, and the proposed combination uses prior art
elements predictably according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants' contentions regarding
the alleged shortcomings of the cited references (App. Br. 11-16) are
unavailing, for these arguments attack the references individually, and do
not persuasively rebut the Examiner's obviousness rejection that is based on
the cited references' collective teachings.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3, 4, 7-9, and 20 not argued separately with
particularity.
THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 2,
10, 19, 21, and 23-28. Ans. 11-20. Because these rejections are not argued
separately with particularity, we are not persuaded of error in these
rejections for the reasons previously discussed.
18
Appeal2017-002829
Application 13/688,958
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1--4, 7-10, 19-21, and
23-28 under§§ 101 and 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 7-10, 19-21,
and 23-28.
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
19