Ex Parte Buck et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 6, 2017

11999968 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 6, 2017)

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.
11/999,968 12/07/2007 Schuyler Buck 24746 US 15878A-000145 1746
98067 7590 06/08/2017
Harness; Diekev Rr Pierre fRnrheT
EXAMINER
5445 Corporate Drive, Suite 200
Troy, MI 48098-2683
CHNG, JOY POH AI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3686
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/08/2017 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):
rmills@hdp.com
pair_roche@firsttofile.com
troymailroom @hdp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCHUYLER BUCK, MORRIS J, YOUNG, JASON BUSCH,
CHRISTOPHER RICHARD BAKER and SCOTT W. LEAHY1
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and JOYCE
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through 18 and 49
through 59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Applicant is Roche Diabetes Care Inc.
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a method
for setting time blocks of a repeating time period as part of a healthcare
management software system. Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the
invention and reproduced below.
1. A method of adjusting durations of time blocks used in a
healthcare management software system, the method including the
steps of:
receiving, by the a computing device, a plurality of blood
glucose measures for a patient;
receiving, by the computing device, one input to identify a
plurality of time blocks for a repeating time period;
receiving, by the computing device, one or more duration
selections related to a duration for at least one of the time
blocks, each of the time blocks having a start time and an end
time, and the end time of each of the time blocks generally
defining the start time of a subsequent time block;
displaying, by the computing device, the repeating time
period on a graphical display of the computing device, where
the repeating time period is represented by a circle with time
block dividers emanating from a center of the circle and
extending beyond a circumference of the circle, thereby
dividing the circle into the plurality of time blocks, such that
each time period between two adjacent time block dividers
correlate to the duration selected for the corresponding time
block;
adjusting, by the computing device, duration of a given time
block in accordance with positions of the time block dividers,
where the adjustment occurs in response to user input on the
graphical display that changes position of at least one time
block divider; and
analyzing, by the computing device, the plurality of blood
glucose measures in accordance with the adjusted time blocks,
where the steps of displaying, adjusting and analyzing are
implemented by computer executable instructions executed by a
computer processor of the computing device.
2
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 3, 6 through 18 and 49
through 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed to non-statutory subject
matter. Final Action 2—3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejections, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s determination that the claims recite non-statutory subject matter.
The Supreme Court reiterated the framework set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services, v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S.Ct. 1289 (2012),
for “distinguishing patents that claim . . . abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., v. CIS
Bank International, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). Assuming that a claim
nominally falls within one of the statutory categories of machine,
manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the first step in the analysis
is to determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea (judicial exceptions). If so, the second step
is to determine whether any element or combination of elements in the claim
is sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent eligible
application, that is, to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more
than the judicial exception.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed October 29,
2015, Reply Brief filed July 1, 2016, Final Office Action mailed April 29,
2015, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 2, 2016.
3
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
Claim 1
With respect to the first step of the Alice analysis Appellants argue
that independent claim 1 “addresses the problem of intuitively and
accurately adjusting durations of time blocks on a graphical user interface”
citing the claim 1 limitation of displaying the repeating time period and that
the time blocks are used to analyze blood glucose measures. App Br. 11.
Appellants assert this is not a basic concept that is similar to any abstract
idea previously identified by the courts. Id. As such Appellants assert the
Examiner erroneously asserted the claim is directed to an abstract concept.
App. Br. 11-12.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 is directed to a series of functions
that define the abstract idea of using categories to organize, store and
transmit information. Answer 3. Specifically the Examiner finds claim 1
recites steps of receiving data (including duration selection), displaying data,
adjusting data (in response to a user input) and analyzing the data in
accordance with the adjusted data (adjusted with respect the user input).
Answer 3^4.
We concur with the Examiner that independent claim 1 is directed to
an abstract concept of using categories to organize, store and transmit
information. The Federal Circuit has explained that, in determining whether
claims are patent-eligible under Section 101, “the decisional mechanism
courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in which a similar or parallel
descriptive nature can be seen—what prior cases were about, and which way
they were decided.” Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d
1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit also noted in that decision
that “examiners are to continue to determine if the claim recites (i.e., sets
4
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
forth or describes) a concept that is similar to concepts previously found
abstract by the courts.” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1294 n.2 (citation omitted).
Our reviewing court has said that “merely presenting the results of abstract
process of collecting and analyzing information without more (such as
identifying a particular tool for presentation) is abstract as an ancillary part
of such collection and analysis.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstrom S.A.
830 F3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 1 recites receiving data
(glucose levels), (identification of time blocks for a period), (duration of
time blocks), displaying a representation of (the received time block data),
adjusting the data (adjusting the data of the time blocks based upon further
inputs) and analyzing the data (glucose levels, based upon the adjusted time
blocks). We note that claim 1 does not recite any use or function performed
when the blood glucose levels are analyzed based upon the adjusted time
block. We consider claim 1 to be directed to an abstract concept of
collecting and analyzing data similar to that held to be abstract in Electric
Power Group. We note that the use of symbols and graphics to represent the
data and to input the data is similarly an abstract concept as the use of
symbols and graphic interfaces are merely a means to convey data.
With respect to the second step of the Alice analysis Appellants argue
that independent claim 1 recites how time blocks are displayed and adjusted,
which are not conventional activities, and improves upon previously known
interfaces. App. Br. 12. As such, Appellants assert the limitations are
directed to significantly more than an abstract concept. App. Br. 12—13.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 does not recite significantly more
than the abstract concept as the system is merely recites a generic computer
which performs the abstract concept. Answer 5 (citing paragraph 50 of
5
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
Appellants’ Specification as stating that conventional computers can be used
to implement the invention).
We concur with the Examiner, and we do not find that the claim
recites significantly more than the abstract concept. Appellants’ arguments
directed to the graphic objects (symbols) used to adjust the time blocks have
not persuaded us that the claim recites significantly more than the abstract
comment. As discussed above, this is just a method of entering data.
Further, as our reviewing court has said, “claims that add the requirement
that the system include a ‘user interface’ for selection of a rule as well as a
microprocessor that analyze the audit log data” do not recite significantly
more to make claims patent eligible. Fairwarning IP, LLC v Iatric Systems,
Inc., 899 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Thus, the use of graphic objects
or symbols, part of a user interface, is not sufficient to transform the abstract
concept into patentable subject matter. Further, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments that rely upon Enfish v. Microsoft Corp. 822 F.3d
1327 (Fed Cir 2016). The claims in Enfish were directed to a specific
improvement to the way the computer operates, not to an improvement to
the abstract concept of collecting and analyzing information without more.
Accordingly, Appellants have not persuaded us that the claim passes the
second part of the Alice analysis, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, and 6 through 18, grouped
with claim 1.
Independent claims 49 and 54
With respect to claim 49, Appellants’ arguments identify limitations
from claim 49 and assert that “[f]or the same reasons as discussed above
6
Appeal 2016-006925
Application 11/999,968
with respect to claim 1, it is respectfully submitted that claim 49 recites
patent eligible subject matter.” AppBr. 13. Appellants make similar
statements and assertions with respect to claim 54. App Br. 13—14.
We do not consider these statements to present separate arguments.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim.”). Even if these statements were considered to be separate
arguments they present the same issues as discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Accordingly, we similarly sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claims 49 through 59.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 6 through
18 and 49 through 59.
AFFIRMED
7