Ex Parte Shipon

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2016

13560232 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/560,232 07/27/2012
26171 7590 03/01/2016
FISH & RICHARDSON P,C (DC)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jacob A. Shipon
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.
39334-0002001 2122
EXAMINER
GILKEY, CARRIE STRODER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2016 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JACOB A. SHIPON
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,2321
Technology Center 3600
Before, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
SHEILA F. MCSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 112-123. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We REVERSE.
1 Appellant identifies the inventor, Jacob A. Shipon, as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a "method and system for teleconferencing to permit
a service provider to provide a service to a user at a remote location." Spec.
1:14--15.
Claim 112 reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter
on appeal.
112. A superv1s10n network system for efficiently
handling requests from multiple end users across multiple
industries, the supervision network system being implemented
on a private enterprise intranet over a high-speed network that
includes fiber optic and wireless segments, and the supervision
network system comprising:
(I) a managed, authentication module comprising (i)
an authentication server, (ii) a directory server, and (iii) an
application server, wherein the authentication module is
configured to:
authenticate, using the authentication server, end users,
including at least (i) supervisor end users, (ii) supervisee end
users, and (iii) data-providing end users, through a certificate
authority process in which the authentication server provides a
public key and a private key to each end user, wherein the
authentication server has a non-routable, private intranet IP
address that is identifiable through a National Address
Translation framework, and
in response to receiving single sign-on requests that are
initiated from wireless and wired devices belonging to end
users:
identify, using the directory server, data, from among at
least five independent channels of data, to which each end user
has rights to access, and
with the application server, provide access to the
identified data, wherein the single sign-on requests are received
through a single firewall, and wherein the directory server has a
non-routable, private intranet IP address that is identifiable
through the National Address Translation framework;
2
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
(11) a managed, machine module compnsmg a Java-
enabled machine that is configured to communicate with
multiple different systems, wherein the machine module is
configured to:
receive data from authenticated users,
separate the data from the authenticated users into the at
least five independent, managed data channels, including:
(i) a first data channel of audio or video data,
(ii) a second data channel of record data,
(iii) a third data channel of real-time diagnostic data,
(iv) a fourth data channel of treatment data, and
(v) a fifth data channel of administrative data,
standardize, in XML, the received data that is not already
in XML, and
provide the received data associated with the data
channel that is already (i) separated into the at least five
independent data channels, and (ii) in XML, to a respective
intelligent router that is associated with each data channel to be
routed to a respective switch associated with the data channel;
(III) a managed, control central database module
comprising (i) central application programmatic interfaces, (ii)
a central server, (iii) a central database, and (iv) a redundant
backup database, wherein the control central database module is
configured to:
receive, by the central application programmatic
interfaces and from the switches that are associated with the
data channels, the data that is (i) separated into the at least five
independent data channels, and (ii) in XML, and
store, by a central server that is associated with the
central application programmatic interfaces, the data in
chronological order and synchronized to the end users, both (i)
in the central database and (ii) in the redundant backup
database, wherein the central server has a respective non-
routable, private intranet IP address that is identifiable through
the National Address Translation framework;
(IV) a network management module comprising (i)
Simple Network Management Protocol (SNMP) agents and (ii)
an analytics module for generating alerts and guidelines based
on real-time diagnostic data indicating an abnormal condition,
3
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
wherein the analytics module comprises an online analytical
processing server, a data mining server, or a neural network
server with forward chaining, wherein the network management
module is for managing the supervision network system,
including the authentication module, the machine module, the
control central database module, the analytics module, and the
at least first through fifth independent data channels, and
wherein the network management module is configured to:
in response to receiving one or more inputs from one or
more administrator users that are monitoring the supervision
network system to eliminate network problems, using statistical
information exposed by the SNMP agents:
adjust a respective right of each end user to access the
data of the at least first through fifth independent data channels,
filter the received data that is separated into the at least
five independent data channels; and
(V) a supervision graphical user interface module that is
configured to output a visual representation of data that each
end user has rights to access, in a respective, pre-designated
user interface region that is reserved for each of the at least five
independent data channels, wherein the alerts, the guidelines,
and any output of the analytics module are output in the user
interface region that is reserved for the fifth data channel of
administrative data.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
David
Cooper
Anagol-Subbarao
Schmidt
us 5,441,047
US 2002/0029350 Al
US 2004/0221001 Al
US 2005/0073964 Al
Aug. 15, 1995
Mar. 7, 2002
Nov. 4, 2004
Apr. 7, 2005
The following rejections are before us for review.
4
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
Claims 112, 114--116, 118-120, 122, and 123 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cooper, David, Frank J. Derfler,
How Networks Work, (6th ed.) (hereinafter "Derfler"), and Anagol-
Subbarao.
Claims 113, 117, and 121 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Cooper, David, Derfler, Anagol-Subbarao, and
Schmidt.
Claims 112-123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 112-123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection-The Examiner found that the claims
[ 112-123] contain subject matter which was not described in the
Specification. (Answer at 7-9.)
2. 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection-The Examiner found:
(Id. at 5).
The claims [ 112-123] do not recite limitations that
are "significantly more" than the abstract idea
because the claims do not recite 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.
5
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
Each of independent claims 112, 116, and 120, recites, in pertinent
part:
in response to receiving single sign-on requests that are initiated from
wireless and wired devices belonging to end users:
identifYing, using the directory server, data, from among at least five
independent channels of data, to which each end user has rights to access,
and
with the application server, providing access to the identified data,
wherein the single sign-on requests are received through a single firewall,
and wherein the directory server has a non-routable, private intranet IP
address that is identifiable through the National Address Translation
framework;
The Examiner found that Cooper discloses this limitation (hereinafter
referred to as the "subject limitation") at "[003 7] [0041] [0221 ]-[0227][0296]-
[0299]." (Final 9.)
Appellant however argues that,
Specifically, while the cited passages generally
describe the steps taken to establish an "exemplary
session," and particularly to the initiation of a
"new consultation" between a "user" and a
"consultant," the Appellant submits that nothing in
these passages requires that requests be "initiated
from wireless and wired devices," or that the
identification of data, from among at least five
independent channels of data, occur "in response
to single sign-on requests," as recited by
independent claim 112. See Cooper, ~ [0222],
[0224].
6
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
(Appeal Br. 28).
We agree with Appellant.
Referring to the portions of Cooper which were cited to by the
Examiner, we find Cooper deficient because:
paragraph 37 only generally discloses a VPN within a system
configuration having an exemplary list of servers, including a source server,
a firewall server, a web server, an archive server, an e-mail server, and a
certificate server;
paragraph 41 only generally discloses a firewall of "standard software
and hardware technology notoriously well known in the art";
paragraphs 221-227, only generally disclose an exemplary session of
connecting a user with a consultant, but nothing is disclosed or made
apparent as to how this session example meets in whole or in part the subject
claim limitation;
paragraphs 296-299 only disclose the use of a Public Email Terminal
(PET) wherein the users are authorized by a NAP server, but nothing is
disclosed or made apparent as to how the use of a PET meets in whole or in
part the subject claim limitation.
Accordingly, we agree with the Appellant that the Examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness given that the record does not
show how Cooper meets at least the subject claim limitation shown in our
analysis above.
Since claims 113-115, 117-119, and 121-123 depend from claims
112, 116, and 120 and because we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 112,
116, and 120, the rejection of claims 113-115, 117-119, and 121-123
likewise cannot be sustained.
7
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 112-123 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
We disagree with the Examiner that these claims are patent ineligible.
The Examiner found, inter alia, that such ineligibility exists because
the claims are drawn to "(i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a
computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to
perform generic computer functions that are well understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry." (Final Act. 3.)
We disagree with the Examiner.
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts. First, [] determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. []If so, we
then ask, "[ w ]hat else is there in the claims before us? [] To
answer that question, [] consider 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. [The Court] described
step two of this analysis as a 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."
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014)
(citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 132
S.Ct. 1289 (2012)).
8
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
We find that the claims themselves and the Specification provide
enough information to inform one as to what they are directed to, which, in
this case, are articles of manufacture.
That is, we find that the claims are directed to a computer system and
methods of using same, and not an abstract idea. We find that the claims are
inextricable tied to very specific system articles of manufacture/ devices
recited in the claims, for example: a Java-enabled machine that is configured
to communicate with multiple different systems; at least five independent,
managed data channels, and, a managed, control central database module
comprising (i) central application programmatic interfaces, (ii) a central
server, (iii) a central database, and (iv) a redundant backup database.
We further disagree with the Examiner's finding (FF. 2), and instead
find that the computer network system elements are so inextricably tied
together by the claim language to perform the given task of efficiently
handling requests from multiple end users across multiple industries, that an
improvement to another technology or technical field, is clearly manifest.
Here, an improvement to computer system technology is manifest, and not
an abstract idea. Thus, we find that the claims cover more than a generic
computer. "[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2359. In this case they do.
9
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
35 U.S.C. § 112 REJECTION
We will not affirm the rejection of claims 112-123 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph because we disagree with the Examiner's findings for
making the rejection. (FF. 1 ).
Instead, we agree with the Appellant for the reasons Appellant has
presented on pages 1 7 and 18 of the Appeal Brief citing to page and line
numbers in the Specification, showing as to why the claimed subject matter
under which this rejection was made was described in the specification with
sufficient written description to convey with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in
possession of the invention as now claimed. Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar,
935 F.2d 1555, 1563---64 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 112-123 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 112-123 under
35 U.S.C. § 112.
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 112-123 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 112-123 is reversed.
10
Appeal2015-008128
Application 13/560,232
REVERSED
11