Richard Allen. Robbins et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 20202018002934 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 13/675,440 11/13/2012 Richard Allen Robbins 17845.00006 9437 136794 7590 05/29/2020 HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP ONE BATTERY PARK PLAZA NEW YORK, NY 10004 EXAMINER TOMASZEWSKI, MICHAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3686 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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 RICHARD ALLEN ROBBINS, JUSTIN MARK BROCKIE, JAMES MICHAEL KELLY, ASIF ALI, MOJAHEDUL HOQUE ABUL HASANAT, OMAR FARUQ, SAZZAD RAFIQUE, TAHSEEN MOHAMMAD, UMMY HABIBA, SURAIYA PARVEEN, and JEREMY IAN SCHULMAN ROBBINS ____________ Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,4401 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING Appellant has filed a Request for Rehearing (hereinafter “Req. Reh’g”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(3) of our Decision entered on February 25, 2020 (hereinafter “Decision”). 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Therap Services, LLC. Appeal Br. 6. Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 2 Our Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–4, 6–11, 101, and 103–106 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Decision 20. For the reasons identified below, we deny the Request for Rehearing. REQUEST FOR REHEARING ARGUMENTS Appellant asserts error because: Although the Board stated that it reviewed “all the arguments Appellant has submitted” (Decision at 13), the Board clearly overlooked Appellant’s Finjan arguments, as Finjan is neither addressed nor even cited, and the sections of Appellant’s Reply brief or the Hearing transcript raising those arguments are not specifically mentioned anywhere in the Decision. Decision at 1-20. Req. Reh’g 3. First, Appellant does not quote the full text of our statement. In fact, our statement also states, “We find that our analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which have been made.” Decision 13. Thus, we did notify Appellant that by our analysis, the substance of all arguments was covered, and, as is shown below, this did occur. Thus, we disagree with Appellant that any missing reference to Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018) in our Decision constitutes error. Appellant’s pinpoint cite to Finjan, Inc. is, “[s]tarting at step one [of the Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) two-step inquiry], we must first examine the ‘844 patent’s ‘claimed advance’ to determine whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1303 (citing Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Reply Br. 4–5. However, Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 3 Affinity Labs is now four years old. The further recited portion of the Finjan, Inc. opinion quotes Enfish, stating, “[i]n cases involving software innovations, this inquiry often turns on whether the claims focus on ‘the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.’” Finjan, Inc., 879 F.3d at 1303 (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Thus, the rule of law to be taken from Finjan is that of Enfish which we cited in our Decision on pages 6–7. Appellant did in fact argue Enfish on page 38 of the Appeal Brief, asserting, the claims “recite[] limitations that advance the prior art (as admitted by the Examiner) and includes ‘benefits’ that represent an improvement in the way video healthcare information is processed that was heretofore unknown.” (Appeal Br. 38.) And our Decision responded in kind to this argument finding, “[a]lthough the claims purport to improve the way video healthcare information is processed, our reviewing court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’ Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012).” Decision 17– 18. Notwithstanding, the Finjan, Inc. decision does not change the outcome of our Decision. The facts in Finjan, Inc. like those of Enfish, are incongruent with what is recited in claim 106 before us on appeal. In Finjan, Inc., the court held that the “method of claim 1 [of the ’844 patent] Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 4 employs a new kind of file that enables a computer security system to do things it could not do before.” Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305. By contrast, we applicably found: Claim 106 does not improve another technology, because neither storing an authorization profile nor blurring a portion of information, as recited in the claims, involves improving a technology. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). Because no more than a generic computer is required, the claim also does not define, or rely on, a “particular machine.” MPEP § 2106.05(b). Decision 10–11. Nor has Appellant provided evidence showing that the claim implements its process with other than from the ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer. Thus, nothing in independent claim 106 purports to improve computer functioning or “effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Appellant next states that, Appellant has not argued that the claimed improvement lies in increasing the speed or accuracy of an existing process. Rather, as set forth above, the claims provide an entirely new process that addresses an unsolved problem in preventing unauthorized access to video healthcare information. The Board’s mischaracterization of this improvement as a mere “speed and accuracy increase[]” indicates that the Board significantly misapprehended the “claimed advance” over the prior art, and rehearing is requested. Req. Reh’g 4–5. We disagree with Appellant that the board mischaracterized Appellant’s “new process” argument that “improv[ ing] the way video healthcare information is processed” (Decision 17), encompasses a “new process that addresses an unsolved problem in preventing unauthorized Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 5 access to video healthcare information.” Req. Reh’g 5. Regardless, Appellant’s argument is not determinative here because a novel and non- obvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent- ineligible. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 90 (2012); see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981) (“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.”). Appellant next argues, “[t]he Board’s ‘directed to’ analysis omits recited claim elements and fails to consider the claims ‘in light of the specification,’ and is thus both incorrect and an unpermitted oversimplification of the subject matter of the claim.” Req. Reh’g. 6. We disagree with Appellant. That claim 106 includes more words than the phrase the Examiner used to articulate the abstract idea, and that the Examiner, thus, articulates the abstract idea at a higher level of abstraction than would Appellant is, an insufficient basis to persuasively argue that the claim language has been mischaracterized or that the Examiner has failed to consider the claims as a whole. Although we, Appellant and the Examiner describe, at different levels of abstraction, to what the claims are directed, it is recognized that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does not, “impact the patentability analysis.” See id. at 1241. Appellant next argues, “caseloads are ‘non-conventional and non- generic’ (Appeal Br. 42–43) and are inventive programming. Thus, the Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 6 claims require computers to perform non-generic functions, including the unprecedented function of applying caseload analysis to video data.” Req. Reh’g 7. We disagree with Appellant. We found that the device limitations of claim 106 amount to only generically recited items, namely: “a video camera,” “a computer system having a memory and a processor,” and “a transmission link.” These components are described in the Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. 5:21–25, 6:1–17, Fig. 1. We fail to see how the generic recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates the judicial exception as to “impose[] a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. Decision 10. Our Decision further found that the definition of “caseloads” “specif[ies] which individuals and which programs the user is allowed to access information about. The actions a user is allowed to perform on that information in an embodiment of the system is specified by security access rules, or just rules.” Decision 18. Accordingly, we found that the term “caseloads,” by its definition is in fact an abstract idea. Authorization information and rules are mental processes. Id. In addition, as discussed above, the functions of the software are directed to abstract ideas and not technical improvements, and the functions are performed using a generic computer. As held in BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “[i]f a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” (Citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding claims lacked an inventive concept Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 7 because they “amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components”)). Concerning Appellant’s citations (Req. Reh’g 8–9) to “[r]ecent decisions of the Board,” we are not bound by a non-precedential decision of another panel of the Board. Citing inter alia to Berkheimer, Appellant again argues error because whether subject matter is “well-understood, routine, and conventional” is a question of fact, and the Examiner’s purported finding is entirely conclusory, is completely unsupported by evidence, and fails to address whether the claims, as a whole, include “well-understood, routine, and conventional” subject matter to a skilled artisan in the relevant field, i.e., in the ‘electronic healthcare record’ industry. Req. Reh’g 10 (emphasis omitted). We disagree with Appellant. According to Appellant’s reading of Berkheimer, evidentiary support would always be required for all Alice step two determinations. This simply is not what the Federal Circuit stated in Berkheimer. There, the Federal Circuit made clear that “not every § 101 determination contains genuine disputes over the underlying facts material to the § 101 inquiry.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368. In fact, the Federal Circuit in Berkheimer did not require evidentiary support for independent claim 1 because “[t]he limitations [of claim 1] amount to no more than performing the abstract idea of parsing and comparing data with conventional computer components.” Id. at 1370. Citing to the Specification at page 2, line 21 – page 4, line 4, Appellant argues the “Specification make[s] clear that blurring of video data based on access rules was neither routine, conventional, nor well- understood.” Req. Reh’g 11. Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 8 We disagree with Appellant. First, our decision made the relevant findings that: Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of process is purely conventional. Using a computer to record, transmit, store, determine, and apply decision criteria to data and modify the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354; see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Decision 12. Against this finding, Appellant in its Request directs us, inter alia, to the Specification at page 2, line 31 – page 3, line 1 which describes that “a staff can video an individual and then submit that video...,” further showing that the practice of videoing by staff of an individual was conventional. As to the blurring aspect of the video practiced by Appellant, we found in our Decision that the blurring of data, e.g., redacting, is an abstraction and the Specification does not limit blurring by a specific technology, but can be accomplished by “any and all means.” Decision, 9, 19. Concerning Mr. Robbins declaration,2 our decision found: Simply because the declarant concludes “[b]lurring video healthcare data was not a well understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the electronic healthcare record industry” (Appeal Br. 45), is not sufficient evidence as to why such is not a well understood, routine, conventional activity. The statement is itself conclusory. Moreover, the claim does 2 Declaration of Richard A. Robbins, dated May 25, 2017. Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 9 not recite how this blurring is accomplished. It only recites the idea of blurring by any and all means. Decision 18–19. Against this finding, Appellant in its Request cites to paragraphs 5–9 of the Declaration and asserts that its declaration “includes numerous details supporting Mr. Robbins’s cited statement.” Req. Reh’g 11. But, the only specific argument advanced by Appellant is that, the declaration explains why “there was ‘no practical way to review or analyze large amount[s] of video healthcare information containing the personal information of many individuals.’” Id. (emphasis omitted). But, this explanation does not tell us how the known use of blurring faces is not a well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Appellant’s other arguments, including those directed to now- superseded USPTO guidance, have been considered but are not persuasive of error. (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility- related guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R–08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”)).) CONCLUSION OF LAW For the reasons above, we are not convinced that Appellant has shown, with particularity, points believed to have been misapprehended or overlooked in our Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1) (2011). Outcome of Decision on Rehearing: Claims 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Granted Denied 2–4, 6–11, 101, 103–106 101 Eligibility 2–4, 6–11, 101, 103– 106 Appeal 2018-002934 Application 13/675,440 10 Final outcome of appeal after rehearing: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2–4, 6–11, 101, 103–106 101 Eligibility 2–4, 6–11, 101, 103– 106 REHEARING DENIED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation