Ex Parte Nagpal et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 8, 2019

12647421 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 8, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/647,421 12/25/2009 Abhinay R. Nagpal
82531 7590 05/08/2019
Lieberman & Brandsdorfer, LLC
802 Still Creek Lane
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
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.
AUS920090232US 1 1923
EXAMINER
HARRINGTON, MICHAEL P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2019 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 ABHINA YR. NAGP AL,
SANDEEP RAMESH PATIL, DHA VALK. SHAH, and
YANW. STEIN
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and20-23. Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 15,
18, and 19 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a method, system, and article for
management of travel with an intelligent travel planning tool that enables the
traveler to make smart decisions to mitigate exposure to an identified health-
related event. (Spec. ,r,r 24, 33). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method for travel management
by a smart system, comprising:
selecting, by a processor, a source and destination for
travel, including selecting departure and arrival dates;
generating, by the processor, a first set of crafts, wherein
the first set comprises one or more crafts to support the selected
source and destination for travel;
identifying, by the processor, a geographic area affected
by a first health related event;
comparing, by the processor, the identified geographic
area with each craft of the first set to produce a second set of
crafts, wherein the second set comprises one or more crafts
associated with the identified geographic area;
1 Appellants indicate that International Business Machines Corporation is the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 3).
2
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
converting, by the processor, the second set into a third set
of crafts, including comparing a travel history of each craft of the
second set to a first time threshold, wherein the third set includes
crafts from the second set that have travelled to the identified
geographic area in an amount of time exceeding the first time
threshold;
selecting, by the processor, a craft from the third set;
determining, by the processor, that a passenger having an
assigned seat in a vicinity of a seat option on the selected craft
had been exposed to a second health related event associated with
a second geographic area, wherein the determination is based on
a travel history of the passenger; and
converting, by the processor, the craft selection into an
option to mitigate exposure to the second health related event,
including comparing the travel history of the passenger to a
second time threshold, selecting the option in response to the
passenger having travelled to the second geographic area in an
amount of time below the second time threshold, and generating
an electronic communication reservation utilizing the selected
option.
REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20-23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more.
3
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014)
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75-77). In accordance with that framework, we
first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 218-19 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding ... rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,
192 (1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
4
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 192 ("We
view respondents' claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula."). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now
commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula
to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.").
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks
omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional
features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. ( quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
"[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id.
5
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Revised 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 activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes) ("Prong One"); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application ("Prong Two") (see MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-
(h)) (9th ed. 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, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.0S(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance.
With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 14, Appellants present
arguments directed to independent claim 1, and Appellants do not set forth
separate arguments for patentability of independent claims 8 and 14. As a
result, we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the
group and address Appellants' arguments thereto. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (2016).
6
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
Revised Guidance Step 1
Step 1 of the Revised Guidance asks whether the claimed subject
matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter. See Revised Guidance. Claim 1 recites "a computer
implemented method." Appellants do not argue the Examiner erred in
concluding claim 1 falls within the four statutory categories of patentable
subject matter. (App. Br. 10-11). We agree with the Examiner's conclusion
because claim 1 falls within the process category.
Revised Guidance Step 2A(i) ("Prong One'')
Under Step 2A(i) of the Revised Guidance, we determine whether the
claims recite any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes). See
Revised Guidance.
The Examiner maintains that independent claim 1 is directed to "the
organization of crafts2 into sets using comparisons with parameters, and the
determination of craft options by comparing stored travel history of crafts
with a parameter, which is an abstract idea." (Ans. 4).
We refine the Examiner's determination of the abstract idea to
identify that claim 1 recites the following limitations in the method for travel
management by a smart system, comprising:
2 See Spec. ,r 27 ("All travelers employ some form of transportation to travel
from a place of origin to a destination. Examples of forms of transportation
include, but are not limited to, aircraft, watercraft, train, bus, automobile,
etc. Hereinafter, the term craft will be employed as a generic term for the
form of transportation selected to support a travel itinerary.").
7
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
selecting, by a processor, a source and destination for
travel, including selecting departure and arrival dates;
generating, by the processor, a first set of crafts, wherein
the first set comprises one or more crafts to support the selected
source and destination for travel;
identifying, by the processor, a geographic area affected
by a first health related event;
comparing, by the processor, the identified geographic
area with each craft of the first set to produce a second set of
crafts, wherein the second set comprises one or more crafts
associated with the identified geographic area;
converting, by the processor, the second set into a third set
of crafts, including comparing a travel history of each craft of
the second set to a first time threshold, wherein the third set
includes crafts from the second set that have travelled to the
identified geographic area in an amount of time exceeding the
first time threshold;
selecting, by the processor, a craft from the third set;
determining, by the processor, that a passenger having an
assigned seat in a vicinity of a seat option on the selected craft
had been exposed to a second health related event associated
with a second geographic area, wherein the determination is
based on a travel history of the passenger; and
converting, by the processor, the craft selection into an
option to mitigate exposure to the second health related event,
including comparing the travel history of the passenger to a
second time threshold, selecting the option in response to the
passenger having travelled to the second geographic area in an
amount of time below the second time threshold, and generating
an electronic communication reservation utilizing the selected
option.
8
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
App. Br. 17 ( emphasis added). These limitations, under their broadest
reasonable interpretation, recite a method of providing or modifying a user
reservation, which is merely a contract for services at a specific date and
time using available information. We additionally note that the preamble of
independent claim 1 recites by "a smart system," but the method provides no
details of the "smart system" beyond reciting "a processor."
We find the language of independent claim 1 sets forth an embellished
method of generating a reservation based upon additional information that
traditionally may not have been readily available to the consuming public.
The claimed invention retrieves this additional information and uses the
information. 3 This is similar to the claims in Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL,
Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344--45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (concluding that "[s]tanding
alone, the act of providing someone an additional set of information without
disrupting the ongoing provision of an initial set of information is an abstract
idea," and observing that the district court "pointed to the nontechnical
human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the middle of a
meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic, longstanding
practice that is the focus of the [patent-ineligible] claimed invention").
Accordingly, we conclude claim 1 recites a method of managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, which is
3 We note that the language of independent claim 1 indicates that the selected
craft had been exposed to a second health-related event and the passenger
had been exposed, but the Specification does not indicate that any data on
actual exposures is available, but mere associations with an area. (Claim 1
states "a passenger having an assigned seat in a vicinity of a seat option on
the selected craft had been exposed to a second health related event
associated with a second geographic area," but not an actual exposure.
Therefore, we find there is merely a reduction in possible risk and not an
actual reduction in risk.)
9
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
one of the certain methods of human activities identified in the Revised
Guidance, and thus an abstract idea. Revised Guidance 52.
Claim 1 recites various limitations consistent with this
characterization. Additionally, the Specification further supports this
characterization:
The level of detail in booking travel plans vary among different
travel planning systems. More specifically, travel arrangements
may be implemented on a level that merely includes a place of
origin, a destination, and a mode of travel. It is common for the
travel arrangements to include the specifics of the carrier to
support the travel. Most carriers today identify a specific craft
and enable seat selection. The specificity of details for the travel
provides a window for tools to leverage the associated
information to support safer travel to mitigate the spread of or
exposure to contagious illnesses.
(Spec. ,r 24). The Specification also states:
There are different organization[ s] and government agencies that
monitor the spread of diseases in different parts of the world.
One example of a health care monitoring agency is the World
Health Organization (WHO). These government agencies are
known to track and monitor the spread of communicable
illnesses, and to produce information demonstrating areas around
the world and how such areas may be affected by or exposed to
an identified illness. In one embodiment, the information
produced is organized into one or more reports. A negative
response to the determination at step ( 104) will allow the traveler
to proceed with their travel planning without considering health
care issues (120). However, a positive response to the
determination at step (104) will provide the traveler with access
to one or more health care reports (106). In one embodiment, the
traveler may access a health report provided by the WHO.
Similarly, in another embodiment, the traveler may access a
health report provided by a government, a private office, or
another source.
10
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
(Spec. ,r 25). The Specification further states:
Once the travel arrangements are completed, one or more
reservations are generated. In one embodiment, reservations are
in the form of an electronic communication and or receipt (522)
retained in data storage (520). Similarly, in another embodiment,
a hardcopy of the reservation (not shown) is created.
Accordingly, an intelligent travel planning tool is provided that
enables the travel[ er] to make smart decisions to mitigate
exposure to an identified health related event.
(Spec. ,r 33).
The Specification further discloses multiple "modules" used in a
system and they may be in a single functional unit, in one system or
distributed across a network and may be "implemented as software tools,
hardware tools, or a combination of software and hardware tools for
managing the functionality of the planner in a distributed manner."
(Spec. ,r 34 ). From this high level of description in the Specification, we
find Appellants' Specification merely identifies the "smart system" as a
generic computer processor that performs the function of extracting data
from remote databases and interacting with a user to reduce a traveler's
possible exposure to health related events in future travel plans without any
substantive details thereof.
Under the Revised Guidance, judicial exceptions include certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). We find the Examiner has shown the claimed invention
is directed to organizing human activity as described in the Revised
Guidance. Moreover, we find the Examiner's analysis based on the
11
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
Examiner's statement of the abstract idea supports the Examiner's
conclusion of a lack of patent-eligible subject matter.
As a result, on the record before us, the invention as recited in
representative independent claim 1 is directed to certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a commercial or legal interactions and
managing personal behavior and thus is directed to an abstract idea.
We disagree with Appellants' argument that the claimed invention is
directed to patent-eligible subject matter. 4 Appellants argue that:
[T]he Examiner has erred in their interpretation of
Appellant's claims as the Examiner has oversimplified the
claims and has failed to account for all the elements of
Appellant's claims .... For example, the Examiner asserts that
Appellant's alleged recitation "selecting the option for craft
selection and complete a reservation" is a part of an abstract idea.
4 For example, we may opine that individuals since the beginning of time
have sought to limit individual exposure to illness by quarantining those
who are sick or limiting public access to areas or individuals. (Leper
colonies, family illnesses, hospital isolation, and quarantine, etc.). See Spec.
,r 104 citing "World Health Organization (WHO)"
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/2018/introduction/introduction-
to-travel-health-the-yellow-book :
HISTORY AND ROLES OF THE YELLOW BOOK
CDC Health Information for International Travel ("The Yell ow
Book") has been a trusted resource since 1967. Originally, it
was a small pamphlet published to satisfy the International
Sanitary Regulations' requirements and the International Health
Regulations (IHR), adopted by the World Health Organization
(WHO) in 1951 and 1969, respectively; the IHR were
completely revised in 2005. The purpose of the IHR is to ensure
maximum security against the international spread of diseases,
with minimum interference with world travel and commerce. A
copy of the current IHR and supporting information can be
found on the WHO website (www.who.int/csr/ihr/en).
12
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
. . . Appellant respectfully submits the verbatim recitation is
"converting, by the processor, the craft selection into an option
to mitigate exposure to the second health related event, including
comparing the travel history of the passenger to a second time
threshold, selecting the option in response to the passenger
having travelled to the second geographic area in an amount of
time below the second time threshold, and generating an
electronic communication reservation utilizing the selected
option."
(Reply Br. 2) (footnotes omitted).
In response, we conclude the claimed invention contains plural
abstract ideas and merely combining several abstract ideas does not render
the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855
F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea ... to another
abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-abstract."); see also
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1093-94 (determining the pending claims were
directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
Furthermore, we find the claimed limitations to be directed to use of
available information in the same manner as certain methods of organizing
human activity such as managing personal behavior in combination with a
commercial or legal interactions and that the data manipulation can be
performed in the human mind.
Revised Guidance Step 2A(ii) ("Prong Two'')
Under the Revised Guidance, if a claim recites a judicial exception,
in Step 2A(ii) we determine whether the recited judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying
whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception( s ); and (b) evaluating those additional elements
13
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application. If the recited judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application, the claim is not directed to the judicial
exception.
We find the steps of "selecting," "generating," and "identifying" to be
directed to insignificant extra-solution activity. The court also guides that
data gathering is a classic example of insignificant extra-solution activity.
These steps simply gather data for other method steps and is thus
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1370 ("We have held that mere '[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an
otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.'" (alterations in original) ( quoting In
re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989))); see also 2019 Eligibility
Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (identifying "add[ing] insignificant extra-
solution activity to the" abstract idea as an example of when an abstract idea
has not been integrated into a practical application).
Additionally, claim 1 recites the additional elements of "by a smart
system," "by a processor," and "generating an electronic communication
reservation."
We find that Appellants did not dispute any of these additional
limitations in the claimed invention with respect to the abstract idea, and the
Examiner made specific findings and conclusions in the Examiner's Answer
with regards to these additional elements as they relate to Step 2B of the
Alice analysis. (See Ans. 7-8). Considering the claim as a whole,
interaction of all the steps using the available data at an unspecified location
"by a processor" does not apply or use the abstract idea in a meaningful way
such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to
14
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
monopolize the exception. Thus, we determine that the abstract idea is not
integrated into a practical application.
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
provide limited arguments and contend the Examiner erred because the
Examiner fails to make a prima facie case. (App. Br. 10). Appellants
further contend that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception. (App.
Br. 11 ). Appellants contend that "[ e Jach specific step of Appellant[ s]'
claims follows a specific rule." (App. Br. 12). Appellants further contend:
Appellant[ s]' claims are not merely a generic assertion to
organize crafts, as asserted by the Examiner. Appellant[ s]'
claimed steps of generation of the first set of crafts, production
of the second set of crafts, conversion into the third set of crafts,
conversion into an option, and generation of an electronic
communication reservation from the option recite rules used in
the execution of the steps.
Appellant[ s]' claimed specific steps and specific rules
"mitigate[] exposure to the health related event by supporting a
change to the selected mode of transportation" during travel
management in a computer environment. In other words,
Appellant[ s ]' claims are directed at a travel solution that enables
modification or creation of an electronic communication
reservation based on specific steps. Accordingly, Appellant[ s]
ha[ ve] provided a specific method to intelligently, automatically,
and accurately control the spread of an illness by modification of
electronic communication reservation.
Like McRO, Appellant's claims provide a specific method (e.g.
rules) for improving the existing technology that does not cover
all permutations of controlling the spread of an illness. For
instance, operators in the prior art do not rely on objective rules
recited in Appellant's claims. Instead, operators in the prior art
rely on subjective determinations where "travelers were
frequently evaluated for illness and exposure to illness upon
arrival at a port of entry."[] The subjective determinations were
"a difficult task to implement."[] Appellant, instead, improves
the existing technology enabling a modification of an electronic
15
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
communication reservation, which also controls the spread of an
illness.
(App. Br. 12 (citing Spec. ,r 9) (footnotes omitted)).
We disagree with Appellants and find that Appellants' claimed
invention does not improve the technology, but uses technology in how
additional health related data and information is retrieved and may be used
by future travelers to use in judgments to either make or revise a reservation
for travel depending on the traveler's comfort level with regards to health-
related events. The claimed invention at most uses existing technology to
assist future travelers to make more informed decisions and be better-
educated travelers. We find the technology of the claimed invention would
be no different than providing the future traveler with information on either
future or past natural disasters (hurricanes, tropical storms and drought) in
combination with information on seats near travelers with small children
who may be disruptive. It is the mere availability of additional relevant
information and the traveler's selective use of whatever information is
available.
Appellants contend that the "claims morph information pertaining to
illnesses with technology employed for an intelligent travel system.
Appellant[ s]' claimed rules improve the electronic communication
reservation process by enabling 'more accurate control of the spread of an
illness caused by modem travel'." (App. Br. 13 (citing Spec. ,r,r 4, 40)). We
find Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the express
language of independent claim 1 because the claimed invention does not
specifically recite "morph[ing] information."
16
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
Additionally, Appellants contend that the claims are not like the
Fair Warning case5 implementing an old practice in a new environment
because Appellants' claimed process provides "an improvement to the
capability of the computer booking process. Appellant[ s]' claimed specific
steps and specific rules are used to generate an electronic communication
reservation which intelligently, automatically, and accurately controls the
spread of an illness." (App. Br. 13-14).
Revised Guidance Step 2B
Under the Revised Guidance, 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, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
Here, the Examiner maintains "merely because the Applicant has
recited the use of a generic computer element (a processor) to perform the
claimed invention, the Applicant has failed to disclose any data manipulation
that cannot be performed by the human mind. . . . This data manipulation
5 FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir.
2016), hereinafter Fairwarning (citing DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256);
see also OIP Tech., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015) ("relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or
more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible").
17
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
does not require a computer to be performed, nor is it impossible to perform
within a human mind." (Final Act. 13).
Appellants contend:
The claimed transformation of the craft selection and the manner
of transforming provides additional substantive limitations that
narrows, confines, or otherwise ties down the claim so that, in
practical terms, it does not cover the full patent ineligible abstract
idea, itself. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully submits that
similar to the claim limitations in PNC Bank v. Secure Axcess,
Appellant relies on a computer to generate the electronic
communication reservation, an action that cannot be performed
by a human mind.
(Reply Br. 4 (footnote omitted)). The Examiner maintains:
The claims do not include additional elements, taken
individually or in combination that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because the mere
reception of information (travel details and the actual selection
of a craft) and transmission of information ( options and
selections), is extrasolution activity that is routine, well-known,
and conventional in the field. In addition, the generic computer
elements (processor, computer, memory), recited in high
generality, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea, as
their implementation would be routine and conventional in any
computer implementation of the abstract idea.
(Ans. 7-8). The Examiner further maintains:
As noted and emphasized above, the Examiner explicitly
identified elements of the claims, taken individually and in
combination, that fail to add significantly more to the abstract
idea, besides the mere generic computer components.
Appellant has made a conclusory argument that the Examiner's
rejection fails to account for additional claim elements and the
non-generic arrangement of claim elements, however as shown
above, the Examiner conducted exactly this type of analysis.
18
Appeal2018-003658
Application 12/647,421
(Ans. 8).
We find that Appellants provide no argument with regard to any
specific limitation or activity beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-
understood, routine, conventional" in the field. (See generally App. Br. 10-
16). As shown above, the Specification provides a high-level description of
the functions being performed by no more than generic computer hardware.
(Ans. 5-10). As a result, Appellants have not provided specific arguments
for patentability, and have not shown that the Examiner erred in concluding
a lack of subject matter eligibility.
As a result, we sustain the Examiner's conclusion of a lack of patent-
eligible subject matter of independent claims 1, 8, and 14 and their
dependent claims not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting representative claim 1 based
upon a lack of patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and
claims 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20-23 not separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's patent eligibility
rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
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