Ex Parte Klein

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 14, 2019

14544661 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 14, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/979,109 12/27/2010
21924 7590
ARRIS Enterprises LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
06/18/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brian V. Belmont
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.
9515 2456
EXAMINER
ELKASSABGI, ZAHRA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/18/2019 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):
ARRIS.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN V. BELMONT, WRGEN HATHEIER,
MICHAEL P. GORDISH, KISHOR G. YADA V,
and STEVEN CARDENAS
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979,109
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 3-6, 8, 9, 12-18, and 20. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is ARRIS Enterprises.
Br. 3.
2 Claims 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, and 19 have been canceled previously.
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants' Specification describes systems and methods for
scheduling work orders and predicting the amount of time needed to
complete a work order. See Spec. ,r 4.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 5 under appeal reads as follows;
5. A method for scheduling a task using field data,
the method comprising:
receiving and aggregating at a routing engine a plurality
of field data relating to completed tasks, the field data being
received from a plurality of mobile devices, where the
completed tasks are classified as a first job type;
dynamically computing at the routing engine a time
duration for future instances of a task to be scheduled based on
the field data received, wherein the task to be scheduled is
classified as the first job type; and
dynamically computing at the routing engine, for each
resource of one or more resources, a time duration for the
resource based on the field data received, wherein the time
duration for the resource comprises calculating average times
for each of a plurality of particular technicians from whom field
data is received to complete tasks classified as the first job type;
wherein the field data includes start time and completion
time for each of the one or more completed task, and wherein
computing a time duration for a task to be scheduled based on
the field data comprises computing
l;~~ ai1erage actual job duration(! 1,T i)
N
2
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
where average actual job duration(JJ, Tt) =
.z:,~7 actual job ditratton(J 1:ri,t.vo1.).
M '
i:t~~~ actual job duration(/1, Ti, vVOr<)
where ·
is the sum of the actual job duration for each of the one
or more completed task, WOk, for the first job type, JJ,
completed by resource, Tt;
where actual job duration(JJ, Tt, WOk) = job completion
time(JJ, Ti, WOk) - job start time(JJ, Tt, WOk) for work order,
wok, for job type, JJ, completed by the resource, Ti;
where M represents the number of completed tasks; and
where N represents the number of resources.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 3--6, 8, 9, 12-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
for being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 4--5.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the pending claims as a group. Br. 8-11. Therefore,
we decide the appeal based on claim 5. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to "a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more." Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds:
Claims 3-6, 8-9, 12-18, and 20 are directed to the abstract idea
of mathematical concepts, such as, calculations. Specifically,
the independent claims, as recited, are directed to using an
algorithm for computing the estimatedjob duration for a job
type, and the average proficiency for a job type utilizes
mathematical relationships or formulae, which is an abstract
3
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
idea. Specifically, each limitation utilizes mathematical
concepts and principles to perform the claimed functions.
Id. With respect to the additional elements and whether they amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception, the Examiner finds "other
limitations, such as, 'a routing engine, a routing server, mobile device,' do
not include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an
improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment." Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 3. Based
on these determinations, the Examiner concludes that the claims are
ineligible under § 101. Final Act. 5.
Appellants argue that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea. Br. 8-11. According to Appellants, because the Examiner
presented no rejection over the prior art, "the claims are not directed to
well-understood, routine, or conventional activities previously known to the
pertinent industry, at least because they are directed to subject matter that
has been found by the Office to be novel and non-obvious over the cited art"
and "taking the elements both individually and as a combination, the claims
as a whole are directed to 'significantly more' than an abstract idea." Id.
at 8. Appellants add the claims of the instant invention "recite
improvements involving traditional areas of computing technology, as will
be recognized by a person having ordinary skill in the art." Id. Appellants
further assert the claims "both implicitly and expressly require the use of
technology that is significantly more than a generic computing device" such
as "a processor device configured for a specific purpose, which then
performs the claimed steps for that purpose in accordance with the further
4
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
detailed and specific terms and limitations recited in the claims." Id. at 9
( emphasis omitted).
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof' is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
"'Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable."' Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216
(2014) (quotingAss'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). To determine whether a claim falls within one of
these excluded categories, the Court has set out a two-part framework. The
framework requires us first to consider whether the claim is "directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then
examine "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. at 217 (quoting
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 79, 78
(2012)). That is, we examine the claims for an "inventive concept," "an
element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 217-18 ( alteration in original) ( quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
5
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF p ATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Abstract Idea
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim's specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject-matter
6
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts 3; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity4; or ( c) mental processes. 5
Independent claim 5 relates to a method for scheduling a task and
includes the following calculations: aggregating a plurality of field data;
computing a time duration for future instances of a task; computing a time
duration for the resources based on the field data. The claim further defines
specific formulas for calculating the time duration based on average actual
job duration, actual job duration for a completed task, and the job
start/completion time. Thus, the claim recites the abstract idea of "mental
processes." See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing "[m]ental
processes----concepts performed in the human mind (including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)" as one of the "enumerated
groupings of abstract ideas" (footnote omitted)). The guidance explains that
"mental processes" include acts that people can perform in their minds or
using pen and paper, even if the claim recites that a generic computer
component performs the acts. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 ("If a
3 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
4 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
7
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in
the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is
still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be
performed in the mind."); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[W]ith the exception of
generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims
themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally
or with pen and paper."), quoted in 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52 n.14.
The method recited in claim 5 executes steps that people can perform
in their minds or using pen and paper. A person can perform the "receiving
and aggregating" and "dynamically computing" steps of claim 5 by using
their minds ( or pen and paper) in the claimed manner. For example, a
person can compute the time duration for each task or resource, using their
minds or pen and paper.
Here, apart from the "routing engine," every limitation of claim 5
recites an abstract idea, namely concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). This method of
aggregating data and computing a time duration does not require a machine,
let alone a particular machine, to implement-and fits squarely within the
mental processes category of the agency's guidelines. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing "[m]ental processes----concepts performed in the
human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)" as
one of the "enumerated groupings of abstract ideas"). Accordingly, claim 5
recites a mental process, and thus an abstract idea.
8
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
Although claim 5 recites an abstract idea based on these methods of
organizing human activity, we, nevertheless, must still determine whether
the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether
the claim applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more
than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55. We, therefore, (1) identify whether there
are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate
those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application. See id.
In the appealed claims, the routing engine and the mobile device are
the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional
elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when
reading claim 5 as a whole. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
claimed invention improves the computer or its components' functionality or
efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices function. In another
words, contrary to Appellants' assertion (Br. 8), the claimed invention here
merely uses generic computing components to receive and aggregate a
plurality of data fields and compute time durations for future tasks and
resources-a generic computer implementation that is not only directed to
mental processes, but also does not improve a display mechanism as was the
case in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Furthermore, the remaining elements recited in claim 5 do not
integrate these abstract ideas into a practical application. In addition to the
steps discussed above, claim 5 recites a "routing engine" and mathematical
9
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
formula for "computing a time duration for a task to be scheduled based on
the field data." The written description discloses that the recited routing
engine encompasses generic components such as a general-purpose
processor, memory and input/output devices. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 10, 12, 29,
Figs. 2--4 (Providing no specific definition for the term "routing engine"
other than listing the functions performed by the routing engine, which
includes a generic computer processor (a single-thread or multi-thread
processor) including processing instructions that are stored in a generic
memory or storage device). Simply adding generic hardware and computer
components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those ideas into a
practical application. See 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(identifying "merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea
on a computer" as an example of when an abstract idea has not been
integrated into a practical application).
Furthermore, the recited mathematical equations are used for
calculating an average duration based on the actual job durations which are
no more than mere transformation of data into other types of data. See Spec.
,r,r 15-27 (Estimatingjob duration, calculating the average actual job
duration for each resource, where the actual job duration is based on the job
start time and the job completion time). Accordingly, even in combination,
these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing
the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular machine ( except for
10
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
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).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 5 is "directed to" an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 5 recites an "inventive concept." The Examiner
determined claim 5 does not recite an inventive concept because the
additional elements in the claim do not amount to "significantly more" than
an abstract idea, or more specifically, the additional limitations "do not
include an improvement to another technology or technical field, an
improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful
limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment." See Final Act. 5.
We agree. The additional elements recited in the claim include "a
routing engine," "a routing engine server" (recited in independent claim 20),
and "mobile devices." The claim recites these elements at a high level of
generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are
generic computer components. See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 10, 12, 29. 6 Using
generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the
necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("[T]he mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
6 We observe that the original disclosure does not mention the term "routing
engine server" recited in claim 20.
11
Appeal2018-000416
Application 12/979, 109
idea into a patent-eligible invention."). Thus, these elements, taken
individually or together, do not amount to "significantly more" than the
abstract ideas themselves. As such, Appellants' claims can be distinguished
from patent-eligible claims such as those in McRO (see Br. 11 ), that are
directed to "a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology" (McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314).
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that
claim 5 is "directed to" an abstract idea and does not recite an "inventive
concept." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 and
the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 3---6, 8, 9, 12-18, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
12