Ex Parte Singer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2018

12789349 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121789,349 05/27/2010 Joel Singer
132326 7590 06/01/2018
Thompson Hine LLP
10050 Innovation Drive
Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45342-4934
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
PT1005USOO 8456
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONY A S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2018 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):
ipdocket@thompsonhine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOEL SINGER and ROMAN RUBSAMEN
Appeal2017-002396
Application 12/789,349
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JASON M. REPKO,
Administrative Patent Judges.
REPKO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-22. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 8, 9, and 12
are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Amadeus S.A.S. (Biot,
France). App. Br. 3.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Non-Final Rejection ("Non-
Final") mailed August 27, 2015; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
February 12, 2016; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 6,
2016; and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed November 2 8, 2016.
Appeal2017-002396
Application 12/789,349
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention manages data sharing between airlines.
Spec. 1: 11-13. According to the Specification, independent airlines group
together to form an "alliance" to take advantage of the individual airlines'
different geographical and network capabilities. Id. at 1: 17-20. As part of
this alliance, the airlines' inventory systems may be interconnected.
Id. at 1: 16-20. The inventory systems use algorithms for monitoring and
managing real-time flight availability. Id. at 1: 16-17. These algorithms
must access data from multiple databases belonging to multiple airlines in
the alliance. Id. at 1 :20-22. Existing access methods involve providing a
dedicated interface between systems or duplicating data in multiple systems.
Id. at 1 :25-31. But these methods suffer from network latency issues that
make real-time access unachievable. Id. at 2:1-16.
The invention addresses this issue by managing access to a partition
of another airline's flight-inventory database. Id. at 2:29-3: 15. In
particular, one embodiment uses centralized access rules to dynamically
manage interactions between airlines using parameters or events---e.g., time,
advanced reservations, traffic conditions, and reciprocal agreements.
Id. at 6:20-31.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for managing a plurality of flight inventory
databases each associated with one of a plurality of airlines, the
method comprising:
receiving, at a server from a reservation client
module of a first airline, a first customer request to access
a flight inventory database of a second airline;
querying, by the server, a repository of access rules
to retrieve first access rules defining a partition of the
2
Appeal2017-002396
Application 12/789,349
flight inventory database of the second airline that can be
accessed by the first airline;
verifying, by the server, whether the first access
rules authorize the first airline to access a portion of data
in the flight inventory database of the second airline that
is necessary to satisfy the first customer request;
responsive to the authorization being verified,
connecting, by the server, to the partition of the flight
inventory database of the second airline;
retrieving, by the server, the portion of data from the
partition of the flight inventory database of the second
airline;
transmitting, by the server, the portion of data
retrieved from the partition of the flight inventory database
of the second airline to the reservation client module of the
first airline; and
disconnecting, by the server, from the partition of
the flight inventory database of the second airline.
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-223 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final 3--4.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court's two-step framework guides the eligibility
analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l,
3 Although the rejection omits claims 21 and 22 from the heading (Non-
Final 3), Appellants treat these claims as rejected in the "Argument" section
of the principal Brief (App. Br. 6), and the Examiner lists claims 21and22
as rejected in the Advisory Action mailed on February 29, 2016. We,
therefore, treat claims 21 and 22 as rejected.
3
Appeal2017-002396
Application 12/789,349
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). According to step one, "[w]e must first
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept," such as an abstract idea. Id.
If the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims are analyzed
under step two to determine whether the limitations, when considered both
"individually and 'as an ordered combination,"' contain an "inventive
concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application. Id. at 2355-58. "For the role of a computer in a
computer-implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of
this analysis, it must involve more than performance of 'well-understood,
routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry."'
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776
F.3d 1343, 1347--48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359).
"Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a
skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination."
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881F.3d1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claims as a whole (1) are directed to "multiple recognized
judicial exceptions" and (2) do not provide meaningful limitations sufficient
to transform the claimed exceptions into a patent-eligible application. Non-
Final 3--4.
Regarding step one of the analysis, Appellants argue that the
Examiner does not adequately support the conclusion that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. App. Br. 6-7. Regarding step two, Appellants
argue that the claimed method adds significantly more to the computer than
performing well-understood and routine functions. Id. at 10; Reply Br. 5---6.
4
Appeal2017-002396
Application 12/789,349
In particular, according to Appellants, the claims recite features that allow an
airline to access another airline's flight-inventory database in real-time.
App. Br. 10. Appellants contend that the Examiner does not explain why the
additional limitations do not amount to significantly more than the
exception. Id. at 11.
Turning to the Examiner's rejection, we note that, apart from listing
multiple concepts, the Examiner does not identify specific claim limitations
that the Examiner believes may be an abstract idea. Non-Final 3--4. For
example, the rejection lacks any discussion of the recited server queries,
verification, rules, or other claimed features. See id. The Examiner then
proceeds to Alice step two, stating the following:
The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims
other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than the
recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform
generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent
industry.
Id. Because the Examiner does not specifically identify any claim
limitations in Alice step one, it is not apparent which elements and functions
are regarded as additional under Alice step two, let alone why they are well-
understood, routine, and conventional. See id.
Nevertheless, in the Answer's "Response to Arguments" section, the
Examiner does provide some additional reasoning. See Ans. 3--4. For
example, the Examiner determines that claim 1 's server, processor, and
repository of access rules, collectively, serve to perform generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Id. Yet, the
Examiner does not provide any factual statements or explanation to support
this position.
5
Appeal2017-002396
Application 12/789,349
The recited rules and corresponding functions, however, contribute to
the invention's alleged improvement over the prior art, according to
Appellants. App. Br. 10. For example, Appellants explain that the invention
uses the repository of access rules to dynamically manage interactions
between airlines using parameters or events. Id. (citing Spec. 6:20-31 ).
Without factual statements or explanation concerning the access rules and
the recited server functions, the Examiner's determination that this purported
improvement was well-understood, routine, and conventional activity
(Ans. 3--4) is in error. On this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Because we find Appellants' arguments regarding Alice step two
persuasive (App. Br. 8-11; Reply Br. 5-7), we need not reach the merits of
Appellants' remaining arguments (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-5).
The remaining claims were rejected under the same rationale. Non-
Final 3--4. Because we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 as
being directed to ineligible subject matter, we also do not sustain the
rejection of independent claims 10 and 11, which recite similar limitations,
and dependent claims 2-7 and 13-22 for the same reasons.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 10, 11, and 13-22.
REVERSED
6