Ex Parte Mankani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 17, 2017

12190950 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 17, 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.
12/190,950 08/13/2008 Amol Mankani 10022/1307 9824
28164 7590
BGL/Accenture - Chicago
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
POBOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
11/17/2017 EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/17/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMOL MANKANI, ANANT BUOY BHAGWATI,
PRATIMA DONDE, and ANKUR VOHRA
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL W. KIM, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10-15, and 18-26 which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants state the real party in interest is Accenture Global Services
Limited. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
THE INVENTION
The Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system
for planning workforce requirements for an organization (Spec., para. 4).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer implemented method for determining
workforce requirements for an organization, wherein the
organization is organized into functional areas, comprising:
receiving, on a computer network interface, an input of a
workforce supply for the organization, the workforce supply
comprising a quantity of employees within each of the functional
areas of the organization;
determining, by a computer processor in communication
with the computer network interface, a workforce demand for
each of the functional areas of the organization based on:
productivity metrics for each of the functional areas
of the organization, the productivity metrics comprising a target
revenue or a target volume production for each of the functional
areas of the organization; and
a productivity level or a span of control for each of
the functional areas of the organization, the span of control being
determined based on a number of employees to be managed by
each supervising employee in each of the functional areas of the
organization;
wherein the workforce demand for each of the functional
areas of the organization is calculated as a quantity of employees
for achieving the target revenue or the target volume production
within a predetermined period of time for each of the functional
areas and the workforce demand is determined for the
predetermined period of time;
creating a workforce pyramid, where the workforce
pyramid is divided into functional sections corresponding to the
functional areas of the organization, and each functional section
is divided into tiers corresponding to levels in an organizational
hierarchy for each of the functional areas of the organization;
2
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
determining, by the computer processor, a total workforce
gap for each of the tiers of each of the functional sections of the
workforce pyramid by calculating a difference between the
workforce demand to the workforce supply for each of the levels
in the organizational hierarchy for each of the functional areas of
the organization;
displaying in each tier in each functional section of the
workforce pyramid the determined total workforce gap for that
one tier of that one functional section of the workforce pyramid
in a hierarchical format corresponding to the levels of the
organizational hierarchy;
receiving, on the computer network interface, an input of
a selected functional section of the workforce pyramid
corresponding to a selected functional area of the organization;
determining, on the computer processor, in response to the
input of the selected functional section of the organization,
recommended fulfillment mechanisms for the selected functional
area of the organization, where the recommended fulfillment
mechanisms are determined based on the total workforce gap for
the selected functional section of the workforce pyramid
corresponding to the selected functional area of the organization.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10-15, and 18-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is improper (App. Br. 8-21, Reply Br. 2-7). The Appellants argue
that the claim is not directed to an abstract idea, that the claim is not directed
to a method of organizing human activities, that based on DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) the claim is not
directed to an abstract idea, that the claim provides “significantly more” than
the abstract idea, and that the claim is not in conflict with Alice or the
Interim Guidance (App. Br. 8-21, Reply Br. 2-7). The Appellants have also
filed a Supplemental Brief, on Sept. 8, 2017, that presents additional
arguments that the rejection of record under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is improper
based on recent decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and
the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the Office’s Guidance on Subject
Matter Eligibility.
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection is proper
(Final Rej. 2-5, Ans. 2-9). The Examiner has determined that the claim is
directed to the abstract idea of planning workforce requirements for an
organization, and the organization of activities associated with a business
practice, and is a method of organizing human activities (Ans. 2, 5). The
Examiner has also determined that the claim elements fail to transform the
abstract nature of the claim into significantly more than the abstract idea
itself (Ans. 5). The Examiner has cited to Alice, the Interim Eligibility
Guidance, and additional case law in reaching these determinations (Ans. 2-
9).
We agree with the Examiner. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is
patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
4
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however,
has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g.,
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
In judging whether claim 1 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court’s two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is “directed to” a patent-ineligible abstract idea. Id. If so, we then
consider the elements of the 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 of the abstract idea. Id.
This is a search for an “inventive concept”—an clement or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more”
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that “the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 2358.
Here, we are in agreement with the Examiner, and determine that the
claim is directed to the abstract concept of determining workforce
requirements for an organization. Ans. 2. The individual steps of
independent claim 1 generally appear to be those that would be logically
performed in determining workforce requirements for an organization, i.e.,
receiving, determining, and matching workforce supply and demand. See
also Spec. para. 2 (“Generally a system, method and tool is described for
planning for workforce needs of an organization, and more particularly for
5
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
projecting anywhere from short to long term workforce needs, and taking
corrective actions such as staffing increases or decreases, redeployment,
and/or retraining.”); para. 4 (“A method, system and tool are disclosed for
planning workforce requirements for an organization, where the organization
is organized into functional areas.”); para. 34 (“A system, computer
implemented method and tool, hereinafter referred to generally as a tool, is
disclosed that may be used to forecast a required size and makeup of an
organization's workforce.”).
We are also in agreement with the Examiner that this is a method of
organizing human activities that is an abstract idea beyond the scope of
§101. See also Ans. 5 (“The claims are directed to the abstract ideas of an
idea of itself (e.g., collecting and comparing known information; comparing
new and stored information and using rules to identify options; using
categories to organize, store and transmit information; organizing
information through mathematical correlations), organizing human activity
(e.g., structuring a sales force or marketing company; concepts relating to
interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships or
transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior), and
mathematical relationships/formulas.”).
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not.
6
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
Considering each of the claim elements in turn, the function
performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely
conventional. Indeed, as best as we are able to discern, the steps of
independent claim 1 relate primarily to receiving, organizing, and
calculating data. Such steps of the claimed method do no more than require
a generic computer to perform a generic computer function.
We have fully considered the arguments presented in the
Supplemental Brief filed Sept. 8, 2017, as well, but these arguments are also
not deemed persuasive. Here, the claim is not rooted in technology, but
rather in the abstract concept of determining workforce requirements for an
organization. The claimed limitations fail to transform the abstract nature of
the claim. For example, while Appellants identify creating a workforce
pyramid as being a computer based technical solution, we are unclear as to
why it is not merely creating a generic hierarchical structure, which is not
computer based. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 1, and its
dependent claims which were not separately argued, is sustained.
We reach the same conclusion as to independent system claim 14 and
its dependent claims. Here, as in Alice, “the system claims are no different
in substance from the method claims. The method claims recite the abstract
idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful
of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea.”
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2351. “[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. Stating an abstract idea ‘while adding the words “apply if” is not
enough for patent eligibility.” Id. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at
1294).
7
Appeal 2016-004507
Application 12/190,950
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as listed in the Rejection
section above.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 10-15, and 18-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is sustained.
AFFIRMED
8