The Boeing Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 30, 2020

14641992 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2020)

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.
14/641,992 03/09/2015 David J. Taylor B14-1912/M14-2044-US 7776
121171 7590 10/30/2020
McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP/BOEING
300 South Wacker Drive,
Suite 3100
Chicago, IL 60606
EXAMINER
JOSEPH, TONYA S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/30/2020 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 DAVID J. TAYLOR
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
Technology Center 3600
BEFORE JEREMY J. CURCURI, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion for the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge Curcuri.

Opinion Concurring filed by Administrative Patent Judge Busch.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 14–18, and 21–26. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The Boeing
Company. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
2
We REVERSE.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “the use of digital displays to improve a
seating arrangement in a venue, such as an airplane, a bus, a train, a stadium,
an amusement park, or other venue.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for configuring an aircraft, the method
comprising:
determining, using a processor and based on first
information, a first seating arrangement for an aircraft by
associating a plurality of seats in the aircraft with a plurality of
seat identifiers, wherein the first seating arrangement comprises
an association between each seat identifier and a respective one
of the plurality of seats;
providing a plurality of tickets to a plurality of
passengers in accordance with the first seating arrangement,
wherein each ticket comprises a respective seat identifier of the
plurality of seat identifiers thereby assigning the passenger to
the seat associated with the respective seat identifier in
accordance with the first seating arrangement;
after providing the plurality of tickets to the plurality of
passengers, receiving second information relating to at least one
of a distribution of weight in the aircraft or a fuel efficiency
variable for operating the aircraft;
responsive to receiving the second information,
determining, using the processor and based on the second
information, a second seating arrangement by modifying the
association between at least one seat of the plurality of seats
and at least one seat identifier of the plurality of seat identifiers;
and
responsive to determining the second seating
arrangement, outputting, by the processor, the plurality of seat
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
3
identifiers to an electronic display system in the aircraft to
cause the electronic display system to display, at each seat, the
respective seat identifier associated with the seat in accordance
with the second seating arrangement.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 14–18, and 21–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Final
Act. 2–3.
OPINION
The Judicial Exception Rejection of Claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 14–18, and 21–26
The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to “the abstract idea of
arranging seats in an aircraft which falls into the categories of: (b) certain
methods of organizing human activity, and (c) mental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind [] (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion).” Final Act. 2; see also Ans. 3–5. The Examiner further
determines the “processor and electronic display system” do not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application. Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 5
(“[T]he additional elements amount to no more than: mere data
gathering/post solution activity; mere instructions and generally linking the
use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or
field of use.”). The Examiner further determines “[t]he claims do not include
additional elements individually or in an ordered combination that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.” Final
Act. 3; see also Ans. 5 (“The ‘dynamic’ seating reassignment argued by
Appellant does not appear to occur while the vehicle is in motion nor does it
claim to continuously reassess the current arrangement and make changes.
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
4
The improvement described by Applicant is not a technical improvement so
much as it is a business improvement.”).
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 U.S. 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. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219
(“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. Kappos, 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 (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
5
252, 267–68 (1853))); 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
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 191 (“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 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. (citation omitted)
(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 turn 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 (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. (alterations in original) (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.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
6
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).2 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).3
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:

2 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
3 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84
Fed. Reg. 54–55.
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
7
(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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.
Are the claims patent-eligible?
Step 1
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of
35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 16 recites a system, which falls within the
“machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 24 recites a method, which
falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, we must
determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate
the exception into a practical application. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 54–55. If both elements are satisfied, the claim is directed to a
judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 is a method claim, which recites the following steps:
[i] determining, using a processor and based on first
information, a first seating arrangement for an aircraft by
associating a plurality of seats in the aircraft with a plurality of
seat identifiers, wherein the first seating arrangement comprises
an association between each seat identifier and a respective one
of the plurality of seats;
[ii] providing a plurality of tickets to a plurality of
passengers in accordance with the first seating arrangement,
wherein each ticket comprises a respective seat identifier of the
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
8
plurality of seat identifiers thereby assigning the passenger to
the seat associated with the respective seat identifier in
accordance with the first seating arrangement;
[iii] after providing the plurality of tickets to the plurality
of passengers, receiving second information relating to at least
one of a distribution of weight in the aircraft or a fuel efficiency
variable for operating the aircraft;
[iv] responsive to receiving the second information,
determining, using the processor and based on the second
information, a second seating arrangement by modifying the
association between at least one seat of the plurality of seats
and at least one seat identifier of the plurality of seat identifiers;
and
[v] responsive to determining the second seating
arrangement, outputting, by the processor, the plurality of seat
identifiers to an electronic display system in the aircraft to
cause the electronic display system to display, at each seat, the
respective seat identifier associated with the seat in accordance
with the second seating arrangement.
We determine steps [i]–[v] describe the idea of arranging and then re-
arranging seating in an aircraft, and are thus one or more of “observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
These recitations are thus the abstract idea of “[m]ental processes.” Id.
Claims 16 and 24 recite limitations similar to those discussed with
respect to claim 1. Thus, claims 16 and 24 also recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A—Prong Two
Because claims 1, 16, and 24 recite a judicial exception, we next
determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
In the “Background” section, Appellant’s Specification discloses the
following:
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
9
[O]n an airplane, a customer’s seat assignment stays the same,
regardless of the number of passengers on the plane, the weight
distribution of passengers, and changes in schedules. The present
arrangement causes loading and unloading/deplaning delays,
which cost the airline money. Furthermore, improperly
distributing passengers on the airplane may increase fuel costs.
Spec. ¶ 2 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s Specification further discloses “a display system in a
venue and a processor configured to modify a seat identifier associated with
a seat location and to display the seat identifier through the display system.
The display system comprises a plurality of display devices associated with
a plurality of seats.” Spec. ¶ 4. Appellant’s Specification further discloses
“[t]he display system may include a plurality of display screens. The display
screens may be, for example, LED or LCD screens, passenger display
screens on an airplane, or any other digital displays known in the art.” Spec.
¶ 21. Appellant’s Specification further discloses “[t]he display device 200
may be located above the seat in the aisle of the airplane and could replace
standard seat ordering (i.e., a sign showing row numbers and seat letters).”
Spec. ¶ 32 (emphasis added).
With respect to applying the idea of arranging and then re-arranging
seating in an aircraft to configure the aircraft, claim 1 recites “outputting, by
the processor, the plurality of seat identifiers to an electronic display system
in the aircraft to cause the electronic display system to display, at each seat,
the respective seat identifier associated with the seat in accordance with the
second seating arrangement” (emphasis added).
We conclude these limitations integrate the recited judicial exception
of mental processes into a practical application. Under the guidance, a
judicial exception may be integrated into a practical application where it
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
10
provides “an improvement to . . . any other technology or technical field.”
MPEP § 2106.05(a). Here, these additional limitations provide an
improvement to the technical field of configuring an aircraft by improving
weight distribution and/or fuel efficiency. See Claim 1 (“receiving second
information relating to at least one of a distribution of weight in the aircraft
or a fuel efficiency variable for operating the aircraft”). Thus, claim 1 is not
directed to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 16 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 1. See Claim 16 (“a distribution of weight in the
aircraft or a fuel efficiency variable for operating the aircraft . . . display, at
each seat, the respective seat identifier”). Thus, claim 16 is also not directed
to an abstract idea.
Independent claim 24 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 1. See Claim 24 (“an operational efficiency of the
aircraft . . . display, at each seat, the respective seat identifier”). Thus, claim
24 is also not directed to an abstract idea.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
claimed invention provides a technological improvement in aircraft design.
See Appeal Br. 11–14.
Step 2B
Turning to Step 2B of the Guidance, “[t]he second step of the Alice
test is satisfied when the claim limitations ‘involve more than performance
of []well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously
known to the industry.”’ Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (quoting Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and Alice, 573
U.S. at 225). “Whether something is well-understood, routine, and
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
11
conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual
determination.” Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1369.
We are also persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “aircraft
conventionally do not include an electronic display system that displays seat
identifiers at each seat, and/or a processor in communication with an
electronic display system for outputting specific seating identifiers to display
at each seat.” Appeal Br. 15.
The Examiner merely provides conclusory and high-level general
statements (Final Act. 3; Ans. 5), which are insufficient for meeting the
requirements to support a finding that claim 1’s “outputting, by the
processor, the plurality of seat identifiers to an electronic display system in
the aircraft to cause the electronic display system to display, at each seat, the
respective seat identifier associated with the seat in accordance with the
second seating arrangement” (emphasis added) was well-understood,
routine, and conventional. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d 1369–70.
Independent claim 16 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 1. See Claim 16 (“display, at each seat, the respective
seat identifier”). Thus, the Examiner has also not shown the similar
limitations of claim 16 were well-understood, routine, and conventional. See
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d 1369–70.
Independent claim 24 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to claim 1. See Claim 24 (“display, at each seat, the respective
seat identifier”). Thus, the Examiner has also not shown the similar
limitations of claim 24 were well-understood, routine, and conventional. See
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d 1369–70.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 16,
and 24.
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
12
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 3–5, 7–10,
14, 15, 17, 18, 21–23, 25, 26, which variously depend from claims 1, 16, and
24.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–10, 14–18, and
21–26 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–
10, 14–18,
21–26
101 Eligibility 1, 3–5, 7–
10, 14–18,
21–26
REVERSED

Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
13
Busch, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring.
I concur with the majority’s decision to reverse the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
I write separately because I disagree with the majority’s determination
that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under
Step 2A, Prong 2. I would conclude that the claims are directed to the mental
process of configuring seating and that the electronic displays merely
provide generic computer components on which the abstract idea is
generically implemented. See 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (explaining that merely
applying a judicial exception, including instructions to implement it on a
computer, or using computers as tools to perform the abstract idea, are
insufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application). I also
would determine that displaying the output of the reconfigured seating
arrangement merely outputs the result of the abstract idea and limits the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See 84 Fed. Reg. 50,
55 (explaining that insignificant extra-solution activity and merely linking
the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or
field of use are insufficient to integrate an abstract idea into a practical
application).
However, I agree with the majority that the evidence of record does
not establish that using a dynamic display at each seat in an airplane was
well-understood, routine, and conventional. As noted in the Specification,
these individual digital (dynamic) displays at each seat could replace a
plane’s conventional static seat numbering displays. Spec. ¶ 32. As the
majority notes, the Examiner fails to identify any evidence to support the
conclusion that the claimed display arrangement was well-understood,
Appeal 2020-003052
Application 14/641,992
14
routine and conventional. Accordingly, I agree that we must reverse the
rejection on this record.