Ex Parte Pachon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 18, 2018

11961579 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 18, 2018)

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.
11/961,579 12/20/2007 Julian Pachon 282957-2 6522
52082 7590 01/22/2018
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
EXAMINER
KAZIMI, HANI M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIAN PACHON, MARC ANDERSON, and DAVID STAHELI
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 21-35, which
represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to scheduling a resource for a
scheduled airline flight. Spec. ^ 6.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
September 16, 2015 (“Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 7, 2016
(“Ans.”), and the Final Rejection mailed March 25, 2015 (“Final Act.”).
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving, from a client device associated with a visual display
device, a notification of a user selection of a visual representation of a
flight pairing presented by the visual display device that identifies a
flight or a series of flights for which a flight crew resource or aircraft
resource is to be scheduled or changed;
in response to receiving the notification of the user selection of
the visual representation of the flight pairing, filtering, by one or more
processors, data files for flight crew resources or aircraft resources to
identify candidate resources that based on availability criteria,
authorization criteria, qualification criteria, or training criteria, are
appropriate to be scheduled for or changed to the selected flight pairing;
providing, to the client device, information related to the
identified candidate resources, wherein the information is used by the
client device for presenting by the visual display device and for each of
the identified candidate resources, a corresponding visual
representation of the candidate resource;
receiving, from the client device associated with the visual
display device, a notification of a user input that associates the visual
representation of the selected flight pairing with the visual
representation of a selected candidate resource;
in response to receiving the notification of the user input that
associates the visual representation of the selected flight pairing with
the visual representation of the selected candidate resource,
determining, by one or more processors, that a pairing assignment of
the selected flight pairing with the selected candidate resource violates
one or more predefined rules, and providing information related to the
determined violation of one or more predefined rules to the client
device, wherein the information is used by the client device for
displaying, by the visual display device, one or more visual indicators
of rule violations in association with the visual representation of the
selected candidate resource or the visual representation of the flight
pairing; and
updating, by one or more processors, a resource schedule to
indicate that the selected candidate resource is scheduled for or changed
to the flight pairing.
2
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1,3,4, 6, 7, and 21-35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-6.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Appellants do not proffer sufficient argument or evidence for
us to find error in the Examiner’s findings. For at least the reasons discussed
below, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in
the Final Action and Answer.
The Examiner finds the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea
of a fundamental economic practice of planning and conducting airline
operations. Final Act. 4. The Examiner also finds additional elements
recited in these claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract
idea itself. Id. at 4-5; Ans. 5-8. According to the Examiner, the claims
require no more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Id. at 5.
Appellants present several arguments against the 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection. Br. 13-16. Appellants contend the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea (Br. 13-15) and that the claims amount to significantly more
than an abstract idea. Id. at 15-16.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. Instead, we find the
Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants’ arguments
supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 3-9; see also Final Act. 2-
6. As such, we agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and
explanations provided therein. Id.
3
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
The Supreme Court has long held that “[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Assoc, for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013)). The
‘“abstract ideas’ category embodies ‘the longstanding rule that ‘[a]n idea of
itself, is not patentable.’” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quoting Gottschalkv.
Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
In Alice, the Supreme Court sets forth an analytical “framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.” Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-78 (2012)). The first step in the analysis is to
“determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-
ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Id.
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
step in the analysis is to consider the elements of the claims “individually
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-80). In other words, the
second step is to “search for an ‘inventive concept’—i.e., 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. (alteration in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-
73). The prohibition against patenting an abstract idea “cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular
technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution activity.’”
4
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610-11 (2010) (citation omitted).
After undertaking the first step of the Alice inquiry, we agree that
Appellants’ claims are directed to an abstract idea, as explained by the
Examiner. Final Act. 2-6. All the steps recited in Appellants’ claims are
abstract processes of receiving, filtering, providing, and updating data. Cf.
Elec. Power Grp. LLCv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis” is abstract); In re Salwan, Appeal No. 2016-2079,
2017 WF 957239 at *3 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 13, 2017) (affirming the rejection
under § 101 of claims directed to “storing, communicating, transferring, and
reporting patient health information,” noting that “while these concepts may
be directed to practical concepts, they are fundamental economic and
conventional business practices”); Cyberfone Systems, LLC v. CNN
Interactive Grp, Inc., 558 F. App’x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(nonprecedential) (“using categories to organize, store, and transmit
information is well-established”).
The second step of the Alice inquiry indicates that the limitations in
Appellants’ claims do not add anything “significantly more” to transform
into a patent-eligible application the abstract concept of planning and
conducting airline operations. Final Act. 4-6; Ans. 5-8; see also Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2357. We agree with the Examiner that the computer limitations of
claim 1 are not “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Ans. 7. These
limitations merely constitute ordinary steps in data analysis and are recited
in an ordinary order. Fimiting an abstract concept of receiving and updating
data to a general purpose computer having generic components, such as the
“client device” or “processors,” as recited in Appellants’ claims, does not
5
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
make the abstract concept patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
As recognized by the Supreme Court, “the mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; see id. at 2359 (concluding
claims “simply instruct[ing] the practitioner to implement the abstract idea
of intermediated settlement on a generic computer” are not patent eligible);
see also Accenture Global Servs., GmbHv. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728
F.3d 1336, 1344-45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims reciting “generalized software
components arranged to implement an abstract concept [of generating
insurance-policy-related tasks based on rules to be completed upon the
occurrence of an event] on a computer” are not patent eligible); Dealertrack,
Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333-34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[s]imply adding a
‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract concept, without
more, is insufficient to render [a] claim patent eligible” (internal citation
omitted)).
Appellants argue the claims “address a challenge that is particular to
commercial aviation, and necessarily rooted in computing and display
technology necessary to overcome the challenge.” Br. 15. This argument
overlooks that our reviewing court cautioned against Appellants’ position in
its DDR Holdings decision.
We caution, however, that not all claims purporting to address
Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent. For example,
in our recently-decided Ultramercial opinion, the patentee
argued that its claims were “directed to a specific method of
advertising and content distribution that was previously
unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” 772 F.3d
at 714. But this alone could not render its claims patent-eligible.
In particular, we found the claims to merely recite the abstract
idea of “offering media content in exchange for viewing an
6
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
advertisement,” along with “routine additional steps such as
updating an activity log, requiring a request from the consumer
to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and use of the
Internet.” Id. at 715-716.
DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258 (2014). The
claimed invention in DDR Holdings did not merely use the Internet, but,
rather, changed how interactions on the Internet operated. Appellants’
claims are not rooted in computer technology, as outlined in DDR Holdings.
With regard to Appellants’ argument that the pending claims are
patent eligible because there are no pending obviousness or novelty
rejections of the claims, (see Br. 15-16), Appellants improperly conflate the
requirements for eligible subject matter (§ 101) with the independent
requirements of novelty (§ 102) and non-obviousness (§ 103). “The
‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is
of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls
within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond
v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188-89 (1981); see also Genetic Techs. Ltd. v.
MerialL.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, “under the
Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature
(or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that
discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility”).
Because Appellants’ claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 21-35 are directed to a
patent-ineligible abstract concept and do not recite something “significantly
more” under the second prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to non-statutory subject matter in light of Alice and its progeny.
7
Appeal 2016-006459
Application 11/961,579
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 21-35
is affirmed.
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
8