Ex Parte Long

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2017

13610167 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 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.
13/610,167 09/11/2012 SAPHURA SAFAVI LONG 1002U001 3322
41461 7590
Charles A. Rattner
17379 BLUEBERRY DRIVE
BROOKINGS, OR 97415-9717
EXAMINER
SHORTER, RASHIDA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3681
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2017 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):
Charles. rattner @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAPHURA SAFAVI LONG
Appeal 2016-0013921
Application 13/610,1672
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision considers Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
June 15, 2015) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 12, 2015), as well
as the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 15, 2015),
Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,” mailed Apr. 10, 2015), and Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed Sept. 11, 2015).
2 Appellant identifies Saphura Safavi Long as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention “generally relates to electrical computers and digital
data processing systems in a network environment, and in particular it
relates to customer service and network-based communications between
vendors and customers.” Spec. 12. Claims 1, 12, and 16 are the
independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method, performed exclusively over a computer
network by at least one special purpose computer of a vendor,
the vendor having a number of employees, the method
comprising:
establishing a data communication interface having a
network address on the computer network for the at least one
special purpose computer of the vendor, the data communication
interface allowing communication devices of a plurality of
customers of the vendor to transmit data to and receive data from
the at least one special purpose computer of the vendor;
establishing a data connection between a transaction
database of the vendor and the at least one special purpose
computer of the vendor, for accessing stored historical
transaction data of purchase transactions between the vendor and
the plurality of customers, the stored historical transaction data
including an indication of employees involved with each
transaction between the vendor and the plurality of customers;
establishing a data template for presenting vendor-specific
data and customer-specific data from the at least one special
purpose computer of the vendor on displays of the
communication devices of the plurality of customers;
receiving at the data communication interface an
electronic request from a communication device of a customer to
access the at least one special purpose computer of the vendor,
the electronic request including an identification of the customer;
in response to the electronic request:
identifying from the transaction database, historical
purchase transactions between the customer and the
2
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
vendor, including those employees of the vendor involved
with the historical purchase transactions;
retrieving, from an employee database of the at least
one special purpose computer of the vendor, contact
information for only those employees of the vendor
involved with the historical purchase transactions of the
customer, the contact information for initiating direct
communications between the communication device of
the customer and those employees;
generating, from the data template, the vendor-
specific data, the customer-specific data, and the contact
information, a customer-specific data template for display
on the communications device of the customer via the
computer network;
displaying, on the communication device of the
customer, the customer-specific data template including
the selectable options for communicating with only those
employees of the vendor involved with the historical
purchase transactions of the customer, the selectable
options including the contact information for only those
employees;
receiving, from the communication device of the
customer, a selection of one of the selectable options; and
initiating a direct communication between the
communications device of the customer and at least one of
those employees using the contact information in
accordance with the selection.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
US 2006/0020477 A1
US 2011/0071950 A1
US 2012/0158549 A1
US 2013/0036001 A1
Retzbach et al. (“Retzbach”)
Ivanovic
Dapoz
Wegner et al. (“Wegner”)
Jan. 26, 2006
Mar. 24, 2011
June 21, 2012
Feb. 7,2013
3
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as non-statutory
subject matter.3
Claims 1—8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Retzbach, Wegner, and Dapoz.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Retzbach, Wegner, Ivanovic, and Dapoz.
ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Subject Matter
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to
non-statutory subject matter, the Examiner analyzes the claims using the
two-step framework set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296—97 (2012) and reiterated in Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014),
which considers, in the first step, whether the claims are directed to a patent-
ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, and then, in a second step, whether
the claims, individually and as an ordered combination, recite an inventive
concept—an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure the
claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and transform the
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible concept. Specifically, pursuant to
the first step, the Examiner finds the claims are directed to “improving
customer relationship management through an entity’s online community,”
3 The rejection references claims 1—24 (Final Act. 2; Ans. 3), yet only
claims 1—20 are pending in the application. As such, we understand the
rejection includes claims 1—20, and we consider the inclusion of claims 21—
24 to be a typographical error.
4
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
which is a method of organizing human activities and, therefore, an abstract
idea. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3. Under the second step, the Examiner finds the
claims do not include additional elements amounting to significantly more
than the abstract idea because the additional elements are generic computer
structures performing generic computer functions that are well-understood,
routine, and conventional activities previously known in the pertinent
industry. Final Act. 2; Ans. 3.
Appellant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea
pursuant to the first step of the patent-eligibility analysis because the claims
recite a system of interconnected physical devices that are implemented in a
specialized manner to control, display, and manage vendor-customer
communications, which, according to Appellant, is in stark contrast to the
recitation of a general computer performing generic computer functions to
carry out an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9-10. We disagree.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, there is no indication that the
claimed computing components are something other than generic, well-
known components. For example, the Specification explains that the
“servers, like any common personal computer, include well-known
processors, electronic memory, network communication hardware, user
interfaces, input/output devices, operating system software, and application
software suitable for accomplishing the functions described herein.”
Spec. 133. The Specification further explains that “[e]ach of the employee
computers 125 and the customer computers 130 may be any suitable
computing or communication device used to accomplish the processes
described herein ... for example, a personal computer, laptop computer,
notebook computer, mobile telephone, smartphone, tablet, personal digital
5
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
assistant or like device of the type commonly manufactured by IBM CORP,
DELL CORP. and APPLE CORP.” Id. 137. Lurthermore, apart from the
generic computing components, the claims recite the steps of: allowing
communication between customers and a vendor; accessing the vendor’s
stored historical transaction data, including an indication of employees of the
vendor involved with each transaction; establishing a data template for
presenting data to the customer; identifying historical purchase transactions
between the customer and the vendor; retrieving contact information for
only those employees involved with the historical purchase transactions of
the customer; generating a customer-specific data template from the data
template; displaying the customer-specific data template including selectable
options for communicating with only those employees involved with the
historical purchase transactions of the customer; receiving a selection of the
one of the selectable options from the customer; and initiating a direct
communication between the customer and at least one of the employees,
which are all steps for “improving customer relationship management
through an entity’s online community.” As such, we fail to see how the
claimed invention amounts to something other than the generic computer
implementation of the abstract idea of “improving customer relationship
management through an entity’s online community,” which is not patent-
eligible. See, e.g., Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (“[T]he mere recitation of a
generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention.”).
Appellant further contends that the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea because they recite a specialized system for controlling the
display and management of contact information and the initiation of direct
6
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
communications between a customer and specific personnel of a vendor,
and, therefore, do not preempt the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 10. This
argument does not apprise us of error.
Beginning with preemption, although preemption may be the concern
driving the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent-eligible subject matter,
preemption is not the test for eligibility. “The Supreme Court has made
clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions
to patentability” and “[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent
in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2354).
Moreover, even if we agree with Appellant that the claims recite a
specialized system for managing communications between a customer and
specific personnel of a vendor, the specific limitations do not separate the
claimed invention from the abstract idea of “improving customer
relationship management through an entity’s online community.” For
example, a method that, in response to receiving an electronic request from a
customer’s communication device, identifies historical purchase transactions
between the customer and the vendor, including those employees of the
vendor involved with the customer’s historical purchase transactions, and
displays, on the customer’s communication device, a customer-specific data
template including selectable options for communicating with only those
employees, is still a method for “improving customer relationship
management through an entity’s online community.” Rather than
distinguishing the claimed invention from the abstract idea, the specific
limitations are tied to the abstract idea and simply suggest that the
7
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
Examiner’s characterization is at a high level of abstraction, which is not
persuasive of error. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could
be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second
menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It
could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification,
taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.”).
Appellant also argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea because they recite specially programmed computer hardware and
software to generate information that is displayed to a customer, which is a
concrete and tangible result. Appeal Br. 11 (citing Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2013)).4 To the contrary, our
reviewing court has explained that information is an intangible and that
gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying
the results, without any inventive technology for performing these functions,
falls within the realm of abstract ideas. Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1353—54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). As set forth above, the claimed
computer components are generic, and Appellant’s reliance on the claimed
invention’s ability to display information via generic computer components
does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea.
4 The Supreme Court vacated this decision and remanded the case for further
consideration in light of Alice. WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial, LLC,
134 S. Ct. 2870 (2014).
8
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
Appellant additionally argues that “improving customer relationship
management through an entity’s online community” is not an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 10-11. According to Appellant, the concept of “improving
customer relationship management through an entity’s online community” is
not similar to any concept that the courts have recognized as an abstract
idea. Appeal Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 2—3. We disagree.
Here, the Examiner finds the concept of “improving customer
relationship management through an entity’s online community” is a method
of organizing human activities and, therefore, an abstract idea. Final Act. 2;
Ans. 3. Courts indeed have found certain methods of organizing human
activities, such as “mitigating settlement risk,”5 “transaction performance
guaranty,”6 and “budgeting”7 to be abstract ideas. Like these concepts, the
concept of “improving customer relationship management through an
entity’s online community” is a business practice. As such, we see no
meaningful distinction between these concepts held to be abstract ideas and
the concept of “improving customer relationship management through an
entity’s online community.” We, thus, are not apprised of error in the
Examiner’s determination that “improving customer relationship
management through an entity’s online community” is an abstract idea.
After considering Appellant’s arguments regarding the first step of the
patent-eligibility analysis, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
finding the claims are directed to the abstract idea. Accordingly, we turn to
5 Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2356.
6 buySAFEInc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1354—55 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
7 Intellectual Ventures ILLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1367-68 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
9
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
the second step. Pursuant to this step, Appellant argues the claims include
additional elements amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea
because the claimed invention results in improvements to a computer, is
performed on a particular machine, and adds unconventional steps.
Appeal Br. 13—15; Reply Br. 3—5. For the reasons set forth below, these
arguments do not apprise us of error.
In regard to the assertion that the claims recite unconventional steps,
Appellant specifically contends the leveraging of historical financial
transaction data such that only those employees of the vendor involved with
the historical purchase transactions are displayed in the customer-specific
data template of the online environment is not a conventional or routine step,
but rather a feature that distinguishes the claimed invention from the prior
art. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 3. This argument does not apprise us of error
inasmuch as it relies on the alleged novelty of the claimed invention. In
considering whether the claims amount to significantly more, the Federal
Circuit has held: “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
With regard to Appellant’s contention that the claimed invention is
performed on a particular machine, Appellant argues that the claimed
invention satisfies the machine-or-transformation test set forth in Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Appeal Br. 14—15. According to Appellant,
the claims are tied to specific hardware or software components of a
specially programmed vendor computing device interacting with other
devices over a communications network, and the claims result in a
transformation of data. Id.
10
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
At the outset, we disagree with Appellant that the transformation of
data satisfies the transformation prong of the machine-or-transformation test.
Our reviewing court has held that “[t]he mere manipulation or
reorganization of data . . . does not satisfy the transformation prong” of the
machine-or-transformation test. Cybersource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Moreover, even if the claimed
invention is tied to a machine, the recited machine, i.e., the claimed
computing components, are insufficient to confer patent-eligibility. The
Federal Circuit has explained that “satisfying the machine-or-transformation
test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all
transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible
claim with an inventive concept.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir, 2014) (quotations and citations omitted).
The Federal Circuit has also made clear that “after Alice, there can remain
no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an
otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” Id. (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2358). As discussed above, the recited computing components are generic
and conventional.
Lastly, with regard to Appellant’s assertion that the claimed invention
improves a computer, Appellant specifically contends that the claimed
invention improves network communications by leveraging stored historical
purchase transaction data to present a customer-specific data template
including selectable options for communicating with only those employees
of the vendor involved with the historical purchase transactions of the
customer. Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 2. According to Appellant, the claims
do not merely recite the performance of some business practice known from
11
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
the pre-Intemet world along with the requirement to perform it on the
Internet” or a computer, but rather are “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks.” Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 2 (both citing DDR, 773
F.3d at 1250).
Although the claimed invention may improve communications
between a vendor and its customers, we fail to see how the invention
improves computer network communications. Leveraging stored historical
purchase transaction information and providing options for a customer to
communicate with only those employees of the vendor involved with the
historical purchase transactions of the customer would improve
communications between a vendor and customers whether the vendor and
customers were communicating over a computer network or not.
Furthermore, the claims do not include any technical details describing how
the vendor computer retrieves the historical transaction data or how the
computer generates the customer-specific data template including the
selectable options for communicating with only the employees involved with
the customer’s historical purchase transactions. Accordingly, the claimed
invention is not deeply rooted in computer networks or an improvement to
computer networks. Rather, as the Examiner finds, the claims represent the
generic computer implementation of an abstract business practice, which is
insufficient to confer patent-eligibility. Ans. 3; see also DDR, 773 F.3d at
1256 (“[TJhese claims in substance were directed to nothing more than the
performance of an abstract business practice on the Internet or using a
conventional computer. Such claims are not patent-eligible.”).
12
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
In view of the foregoing, Appellant has not apprised us that the
Examiner erred in determining the claims are directed to non-statutory
subject matter. We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 1—20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Obviousness
In regard to independent claim 1, Appellant argues the cited
references do not render obvious the limitation reciting “displaying, on the
communication device of the customer, the customer-specific data template
including the selectable options for communicating with only those
employees of the vendor involved with the historical purchase transactions
of the customer.” Appeal Br. 19—20; Reply Br. 11. Appellant’s argument is
persuasive.
The Examiner finds Wegner teaches historical transaction data
including the employees of a vendor involved with the historical purchase
transactions of a customer. Final Act. 4 (citing Wegner 145). Indeed,
Wegner teaches that when consumers 600 use their loyalty program
accounts to purchase goods or services, transactional information 630 is
created, which includes the cashier of the goods or services purchased.
Wegner 145. The Examiner also finds Dapoz teaches selectable options for
communicating with an employee. Final Act. 5 (citing Dapoz 119). As set
forth in Dapoz, a salesperson’s profile includes the salesperson’s address, as
well as a direct link for the salesperson’s e-mail address or telephone
number (Dapoz 119) such that Dapoz teaches selectable options for
communicating with the salesperson.
13
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
Although we agree with the Examiner that Wegner teaches transaction
information including the employees involved with a customer’s historical
purchase transactions and that Dapoz teaches providing selectable options
for communicating with an employee, neither Wegner nor Dapoz teaches
including employee contact information on a customer-specific template that
is displayed to the customer. As Appellant points out, Wegner teaches that
the transaction information is transmitted to the consumer purchase
database 50 and is used to determine offer and reward eligibility.
Appeal Br. 20; Wegner 145. Dapoz teaches displaying the selectable
options for contacting a salesperson on a salesperson’s profile, not on a
customer-specific data template. Reply Br. 11; Dapoz 119. Consequently,
we fail to see how a person of ordinary skill in the art would have combined
teachings of Wegner and Dapoz to result in “displaying, on the
communication device of the customer, the customer-specific data template
including the selectable options for communicating with only those
employees of the vendor involved with the historical purchase transactions
of the customer,” as recited in independent claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 and claims 2—8, 10, and 11 depending therefrom.
Independent claims 12 and 16 also include the disputed limitation of
independent claim 1, and the Examiner’s rejection of these claims suffers
from the same deficiency as the rejection of independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 12 and 16 and dependent claims 13—15 and 17—20. Furthermore,
claim 9 depends from independent claim 1, and the Examiner does not rely
on Ivanovic in a way that would cure the deficiency of the rejection of
14
Appeal 2016-001392
Application 13/610,167
independent claim 1. We, thus, do not sustain the rejection of claim 9 for
the same reasons as independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
15