Ex Parte GILL et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 20, 2018

14020132 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/020,132 09/06/2013
125224 7590 12/25/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C._CoreLogic
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22033
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert GILL
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.
CORLOG.016US 6794
EXAMINER
KING JR., JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/25/2018 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
meo@mg-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT GILL, JEFF MACCARRON, MANGESH RISBUD,
and RICHARD TERBRACK1
Appeal2017-008943
Application 14/020,132
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the final
rejection of claims 1--4, 7, and 21-26 which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is CoreLogic Solutions,
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008943
Application 14/020, 132
THE INVENTION
The Appellants' claimed invention is directed to methods for
automatically identifying data items, such as taxes, for real estate properties
(Spec., para. 18). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A computer-implemented process comprising:
(a) receiving, through a network channel, an input associated
with a real estate property, said input comprising multiple elements of
information;
(b) performing, by one or more data processors, validation of
the received input, wherein performing the validation comprises
executing a matching algorithm that compares the elements of
information to data obtained from a plurality of property data sources,
wherein the matching algorithm generates matching scores for each of
a plurality of properties and uses the matching scores to attempt to
identify a single real estate property corresponding to the input;
( c) searching, by the one or more data processors, property data,
aggregated public assessor data, and historical transaction data to
identify one or more tax agencies that are associated with the received
input and have assessed and will assess taxes, wherein the property
data, the aggregated public assessor data and the historical transaction
data are obtained from different respective data sources;
( d) determining, by the one or more data processors, a
respective confidence score for each of the one or more identified tax
agencies;
( e) storing, by the one or more data processors, information
specifying the one or more identified tax agencies and each respective
confidence score in a data repository; and
( f) outputting, by the one or more data processors, the
information identifying the one or more tax agencies associated with
the received input and the respective confidence score for
each of the one or more tax agencies;
wherein steps (a)-(f) are performed by a computerized analytics
system that comprises one or more computing devices.
2
Appeal2017-008943
Application 14/020, 132
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1--4, 7, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence2.
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Appellants argue that the rejection of claim 1 is improper because
the claim is not directed to an abstract idea and also argue that the claim is
"significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea (Appeal Br. 4--8, Reply
Br. 2-6).
In contrast, the Examiner has determined that the rejection of record is
proper (Final Act. 2-8, Ans. 3-8).
We agree with the Examiner. Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is
patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however,
has long interpreted § 101 to include an implicit exception: "Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. Alice Corp. Pty
Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
2 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
( explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
3
Appeal2017-008943
Application 14/020, 132
In judging whether claim 1 falls within the excluded category of
abstract ideas, we are guided in our analysis by the Supreme Court's two-
step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 2355 ( citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1296-97
(2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine whether the
claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible abstract idea. If so, we then
consider the elements of the 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 of the abstract idea. Id.
This is a search for an "inventive concept" an element or combination of
elements sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to "significantly more"
than the abstract idea itself. Id. The Court also stated that "the mere
recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. at 2358.
Here, we determine that the claim is directed to the concept of
determining for a real estate property which tax agencies are associated with
it. This is a method of organizing human activities or a fundamental
economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, and is an
abstract idea beyond the scope of§ 101. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (where collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying results from certain results of the collection and
analysis was held to be an abstract idea).
We next consider whether additional elements of the claim, both
individually and as an ordered combination, transform the nature of the
claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea, e.g., whether the
claim does more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the
4
Appeal2017-008943
Application 14/020, 132
abstract idea using generic computer components. We conclude that it does
not. The Specification at Paragraph 60 for example describes using generic
computer components for their known functions.
Considering each of the claim elements in tum, the function
performed by the computer system at each step of the process is purely
conventional. Each step of the claimed method does no more than require a
generic computer to perform a generic computer function.
The Appellants have also cited to Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to show that the claim is not abstract but the
claims in that case were not similar in scope to those here in contrast and
were in contrast directed to a self-referential data table.
The Appellants have also cited to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) but the claims in that case
are distinguished from this case in being directed to rules for lip sync and
facial expression animation.
The Appellants cite to DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and argue that the claim solves a problem in a
particular technological environment (App. Br. 6). We disagree as the
Appellants have not shown how the claimed subject matter is rooted in
technology given that the Specification describes only the use of generic
computer equipment used in routine, conventional, and generic manner.
We reach the same conclusion as to independent system claim 26.
Here, as in Alice, "the system claims are no different in substance from the
method claims. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a
generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
5
Appeal2017-008943
Application 14/020, 132
2351. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an
abstract idea 'while adding the words "apply it'" is not enough for patent
eligibility." Id. at 2358 ( quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1--4, 7, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7, and 21-26 is sustained.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6