Ex Parte Montero et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13671413 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/671,413 11/07/2012
63649 7590 08/01/2018
DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.
C/0 FARJAMI & FARJAMI LLP
26522 LA ALAMEDA A VENUE, SUITE 360
MISSION VIEJO, CA 92691
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Candela Montero
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.
0260345 6925
EXAMINER
BYRD, UCHE SOW ANDE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
docketing@farj ami. com
farjamidocketing@yahoo.com
ffarj ami @farj ami. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CANDELA MONTERO, LEONARD J. MAZZOCCO,
ELAINE DEHOYOS, CHRISTIAN DEL MAESTRO, and ROBERT VOS 1
Appeal2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's decision rejecting claims 11-20. Claims 1-10 have been
canceled. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We have jurisdiction under35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, Disney Enterprises, Inc. is the real party in
interest. Appeal. Br. 2.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Nov. 7, 2012; Appeal
Brief filed Mar. 22, 2016 ("Appeal Br."); and Reply Brief filed Nov. 29,
2016 ("Reply Br."). We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action
mailed Nov. 9, 2015 ("Final Act."), and Answer mailed Oct. 3, 2016
("Ans.").
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
Appellants 'Invention
The invention generally relates to "the environmental performance
and impact of present and future product designs." Spec. 1 :5---6. More
specifically, the invention relates to methods of designing packaging
utilizing a Smart Packaging Initiative (SPI) application. The packaging
design process ( method) generates a scenario describing a packaging design
for a product and populates the scenario using data entry forms of a user
interface shown on the display. The method then calculates an SPI score for
the scenario, which describes an environmental impact of the packaging
design, including a waste-to-landfill ratio of the packaging design, which in
tum measures an amount of materials in a packaging that reach end-of-life in
landfills. The method displays the SPI score in a score report shown on the
display. A package is selected based on the SPI score of the packaging
design, and a package is produced using the selected design. See Abstract,
Spec. 2:1-2, 11:13-15, 12:4--19, 19:1-7, and21:7-22:18.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 11, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
11. A method comprising:
generating, using a processor executing a smart
packaging initiative (SPI) application stored in a
memory, a scenario for a project associated with a
product, the scenario describing a packaging design for
the product;
populating, using the processor executing the SPI
application stored in the memory, the scenario using data
entry forms of a user interface shown on the display;
2
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
calculating, using the processor executing the SPI
application stored in the memory, an SPI score for the
scenario, the SPI score describing an environmental
impact of the packaging design, wherein the SPI score
includes at least a waste-to-landfill ratio of the packaging
design, wherein the waste-to-landfill ratio measures an
amount of materials in a packaging that reaches end-of-
life in landfills;
displaying, using the processor executing the SPI
application stored in the memory, the SPI score in a score
report shown on the display; and
producing a package for the product, wherein the
package is selected based on the SPI score of the
packaging design.
Rejection on Appea/3
The Examiner rejects claims 11-20under35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
3 The Examiner objects to claim amendments made by the Appellants under
35 U.S.C. § 132(a) as introducing newmatter(see Final Act. 2-3}-
specifically the Examiner objects to the added claim 11 limitation
"producing a package for the product wherein the package is selected based
on the SPI score of the packaging design" (Final Act. 2) and the added claim
12 limitation "wherein the producing of the package includes toxicity
emissions" (Final Act. 3). Appellants respond to the objection, treating the
objection as a written-description rejection under pre-AIA 35 U.S. C. § 112,
frrst paragraph. See Appeal Br. 14--18. In their Reply Brief, Appellants
reiterate the arguments made in the Appeal Brief and contend the
Examiner's objection "erroneouslyrelied on35 U.S.C. 132(a),""which
should have been [ a rejection] based on ... 35 U.S. C. § 112, ,r 1." Reply Br.
2; see Reply Br. 2--4. As pointed out by the Examiner, no rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 112 is pending. Ans. 8. The Examiner's objection to the
Appellants' claim amendments under 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) is a petitionable
matter, rather than an appealable matter. See MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) §§ 1002.02(c)(l) and 1201 (9th ed.,
rev. 8, Jan. 2018)). Petitionablematters are not appealable to the Patent
3
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's fmdings and conclusions, the issue before us follows:
Did the Examiner err in determining Appellants' claims were directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101?
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claims 11-20 together as a group with respect to the
§ 101 rejection. See Appeal Br. 5-14. We select independent claim 11 as
representative of Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 11-20. 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants'
arguments, and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent fmdings and reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 4--5) and (2) the corresponding fmdings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. Ans. 3-8. We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and emphasize the following.
The Examiner rejects the claims as being directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter in that "the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
Trial and Appeal Board. See In re Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984--985 (Fed. Cir.
2002) (citing In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403 (CCPA 1971)).
Accordingly, we do not address this issue as it is not properly brought before
us. We note, however, in the event of further prosecution, Appellants
correctly argue that a lack of support for subject matter added to claims by
amendment is properly addressed by a rejection under 35 U.S. C. § 112, frrst
paragraph.
4
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
exception (i.e.[,] an abstract idea without significantly more[)]." Final
Act. 4; see Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner explains that Appellants' claim 11
describes an "idea[] of itself' that relates to "processes of organizing
information that can be performed mentally," such as "using categories to
organize, store and transmit[] information ( Cyberfone ), data recognition and
storage ( Content Extraction), and organizing information through
mathematical correlations (Digitech )," which are similar to abstract ideas
previously held ineligible. Ans. 4; see Ans. 3--4 ( citing Content Extraction
& TransmissionLLCv. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'lAss'n., 776F.3d 1343,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitechimage Techs., LLCv. Elecs.for Imaging,
Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Cyberfone Sys., LLCv. CNN
Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x 988, 992 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The
Examiner further explains that Appellants' claim 11 generates scenarios,
performs data recognition and storage, and organizes "information through
mathematical correlations (e.g. calculating SPI scores)." Ans. 4. The
Examiner additionally explains that claim 11 does not include additional
elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because Appellants' recited processor "is a generic computer
component that performs .... generic computer functions (i.e. generating
data, populating forms, displaying reports, outputting data, etc.) that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
the industry." Ans. 4.
Appellants contend that: ( 1) "the Office Action ignored ...
limitations of independent claim 11," namely, "producing a package for the
product, wherein the package is selected based on the SPI score of the
packaging design" (Appeal Br. 5); (2) "the purpose of independent claim
5
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
[ 11] is directed to ... producing a package for a product, where the package
is selected based on a smart packaging initiative (SPI) score of a packaging
design" (Appeal Br. 7), in other words, the claim utilizes the output of an
algorithm (SPI score calculation) to select a package design and produce a
package similar to patent-eligible claims in the USPTO's Guidance that "add
meaningful limitations to the use of [al mathematical relationship" to
"improve [a particular] technology (see Appeal Br. 7-9); (3) the claimed
invention meets the second step of the Alice analysis in that it "does not
preempt a significant amount of inventive activity" ( Appeal Br. 9); ( 4) the
limitations of the claim amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, in
that "claim 11 ... provides a solution that is necessarily rooted in
manufacturing/production technology" (Appeal Br. 12); and (5) the claim as
a whole "applies a specific algorithm for calculating the SP! score, which is
used for selection and production of a package." Appeal Br. 13-14; see also
Reply Br. 4--5.
Under 35 U.S. C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLSBanklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347,2354(2014)(quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathologyv. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569U.S. 576,589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77-80 (2012), "for distinguishing patents
that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those
6
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 23 5 5. Assuming that a claim nominally falls within one of the statutory
categories of machine, manufacture, process, or composition of matter, the
frrst step in the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts" (id.), e.g., to an abstract
idea. For example, abstract ideas include, but are not limited to,
fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an
idea ofitself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Id. at 2355-57. If
the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise,
the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements of the claims are
considered "individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 ( quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78-79). This second step is described as "a search for an
'inventive concept'-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is
'[] significantly more than ... the [ ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 23 5 5
(quoting Mayo, 566U.S. at72-73).
The Court acknowledged in Mayo that "all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We, therefore, look to whether the
claims focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant
technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the
abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery. See
Enfish, LLCv. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
7
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
The Production Ste~Producing a Package
The Examiner finds independent claim 11 is directed to the abstract
idea of transmitting, storing, and organizing information ( similar to
Cyberfone) and organizing information through mathematical correlations
( similar to Digitech) (supra). Conversely, the Appellants attack the
Examiner's fmdings contending the Examiner ignored a limitation of claim
11-"producing a package." See Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants misconstrue the Examiner's rejection, as well as the relevant law
and precedent. Here, Appellants conflate the Alice two-part analysis.
Further, the Examiner did not ignore the limitation. Indeed, the Examiner
directly addresses this issue and limitation with respect to the second part of
the Alice test. See Ans. 4--5. Much of Appellants' argument focuses on the
"production" step making the claim patent-eligible rather than abstract. We
disagree. The claim delineates a method that generates a scenario ( which is
a data structure) utilizing the SPI application, collects data to populate the
scenario utilizing data entry forms displayed in a user interface, and
calculates an SPI score for the scenario utilizing the SPI application. The
method then displays the SPI score. A package design is selected based on
the SPI score and a package is produced using the selected package design.
As explained by the Examiner, and in our detailed analysis (infra),
collecting, analyzing, and manipulating data is an "abstract idea." See
Ans. 4. The claim is directed to calculating an SPI score (a result of
organizing, analyzing, and manipulating data). The SPI score is then
utilized, ancillarily, to select a package design, which is in tum used to
produce a package (product packaging).
8
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
Indeed, only two sentences in the Specification relate to producing a
package. See Appeal Br. 3, 14--15 (citing Spec. 11:15, 12:6). Producinga
package, the main focus of Appellants' arguments, is merely extra-solution
activity. See In re Bilski, 545 F .3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ( en bane), aff'd
on other grounds, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). Merely presenting
the results ( displaying the SPI score) of abstract processes ( of collecting and
analyzing information-i.e., calculating the SPI score) and utilizing the
results to select a design and produce a package from the design (by
unknown and unclaimed processes) is abstract as an ancillary part of such
collection and analysis. See Elec. Power Grp., LLCv. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Alice Step 1 Analysis
Turning to the first step of the eligibility analysis, "the frrst step in the
Alice inquiry ... asks whether the focus of the claims is 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." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. "The abstract idea exception
prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or
machinery the result is accomplished."' McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting O 'Reillyv.
Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113 (1853)). "We therefore look to whether
the claims ... focus on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314.
9
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
Utilizing the above-identified characterization-that the claim is
directed to collecting, analyzing, and manipulating information-we analyze
whether claim 11 is directed to an abstract idea. Instead of using a fixed
definition of an abstract idea and analyzing how claims fit ( or do not fit)
within the definition, "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 (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F .3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54). As part of this
inquiry, we must "look at the 'focus of the claimed advance over the prior
art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a whole' is directed to excluded
subject matter." Affinity Labs of Tex., LLCv. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Here, Appellants' claims generally, and independent claim 11 in
particular, relate to organizing information by generating a data structure
(scenario), collecting information (populating the data structure), and
analyzing/manipulating information to calculate an SPI score. When the SPI
score is calculated, which is the purpose of the SPI application (see Spec.
1 :4--8, 2:2-3), the score is displayed (i.e., the information is communicated).
A package design is then selected (based on the SPI score) and a package is
produced (using the selected design). That is, Appellants' claims relate to
collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and communicating data utilizing un-
recited processes or algorithms to provide a result ( an SPI score). Therefore,
the claims broadly recite collecting, analyzing, manipulating, and
transferring information (data) relating to packaging design. See Abstract,
Spec. 1 :4--8, 2:2-3. This is consistent with how Appellants describe the
10
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 3 ( citing Spec. 21 :7-22: 18). Contrary to
Appellants' assertions (see Appeal Br. 5-14; see also Reply Br. 4--5), the
present claims are directed to an abstract idea, in that the instant claims are
analogous to a number of cases in which courts have identified similar
claims as encompassing abstract ideas.
Our reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering,
analyzing, and manipulating information. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3dat
1354 (Finding claims directed to a "combination of ... abstract-idea
processes .... of gathering and analyzing information" to be abstract.).
Similarly, our reviewing court has held that abstract ideas include gathering,
analyzing, and storing information. See Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Finding
claims directed to the functional results of accumulating, converting, and
monitoring records manipulate data "but fail[] to do so in a non-abstract
way."); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 1347 (Finding the "claims
generally recite ... extracting data ... [ and] recognizing specific
information from the extracted data" and that the "claims are drawn to the
basic concept of data recognition.").
Appellants contend claim 11 is analogous to an exemplary claim in
the USPTO's July 2015 Guidance on Subject Matter Eligibility
("Guidance") and also contend the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea. See Appeal Br. 7-9. We disagree.
In the exemplary claim cited by Appellants, an Exhaust Gas
Recirculation (EGR) valve is an element in a structure (an internal
combustion engine) and the position of the EGR valve is calculated based on
dynamic input from another engine element ( the position of the engine
11
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
throttle). The calculation of the EGR valve position improves the operation
of the engine. Thus, according to Appellants' interpretation of the example
from the Guidance (see Appeal Br. 8), the claim adds meaningful limitations
to the use of the position calculation ( mathematical relationship).
Appellants argue that claim 11 is analogous to the exemplary claim in
that "independent claim 11 provide[ s] an SPI score of a packaging design,
which is used to improve or optimize producing a package for a product.
where the package is selected based on the SP! score o{the packaging
design." Appeal Br. 9. Appellants, however, merely reiterate the production
claim limitation ("producing a package for the product ... based on the SPI
score of the packaging design" ( claim 11 )) and conclude the SPI score
improves or optimizes the process ( of producing a package). Appellants do
not explain how the undisclosed process is improved. While it may be true
that including SPI requirements in a product packaging design (by
calculating an SPI score) improves the package production process and/or
resultant package, the calculation of the SPI score is not part of that
undisclosed/unclaimed process. The calculation of an SPI score ( as recited
in claim 11) is a separate, distinguishable process. The production of the
package is merely extra-solution activity (supra). In the present claim, no
meaningful limitations are added to the resulting calculation (SPI score).
The claim merely recites additional limitations of generating a data structure,
collecting data to populate the data structure, displaying the resulting
calculated data (the SPI score), and the extra-solution activity of producing a
package (supra).
In summary, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants' claim 11
(and the other pending claims) are directed to patent-ineligible abstract ideas
12
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
or concepts. Here, the collection, analysis, manipulation, and
communication of information (data) are analogous to the abstract ideas of
collecting, analyzing, and manipulating information discussed in Electric
Power, Two-Way Media, and Content Extraction. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that the claims are directed to the abstract ideas of collecting,
analyzing, and manipulating information utilizing a computer.
Alice Step 2 Analysis
Having found Appellants' claims are directed to an abstract idea under
Alice's step 1 analysis, we next address whether the claims add significantly
more to the abstract idea. As directed by our reviewing court, we search for
an '"inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application."' McRO, 837 F.3d at 1312 ( quoting Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2355). The implementation of the abstract idea involved must be
"more than performance of'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional
activities previously known to the industry."' Content Extraction, 776 F.3d
at 1347--48 ( quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359). The "inventive concept"
"must be significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and cannot simply
be an instruction to implement or apply the abstract idea on a computer."
BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T MobilUy LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted).
Here, the Examiner determined that Appellants' claims do not add
significantly more. See Final Act. 4---6; see also Ans. 4--8. Appellants, on
the other hand, contend the claims are directed to significantly more than an
abstract idea because, inter ali a, "claim 11 ... applies a specific algorithm
for calculating the SP! score. which is used for selection and production o{a
package." Appeal Br. 9-14. Appellants further assert "claim 11 ...
13
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
provides a solution that is necessarily rooted in manufacturing/production
technology" in that "claim 11 recites 'producing a package for the product.
wherein the package is selected based on the SP! score o{the packaging
design.'" Appeal Br. 12.
Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner's rejection
with respectto the second Alice step. Although Appellants cite examples of
claims from the USP TO' s Guidance that were found to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea, Appellants merely reiterate the
claim limitations ( of claim 11) (see Appeal Br. 9) and provide conclusory
arguments with respect to the Alice step 2 analysis. See Appeal Br. 9-14.
With respect to Appellants' arguments invoking DDR Holdings (DDR
Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014))
(see Appeal Br. 6-7, 10-14}-in that calculating an SPI score is necessarily
rooted in manufacturing/production technology and improves the package
production process (supra}--we disagree. As we explained (supra), the
calculation of an SPI score is a distinct, separate process from producing a
package.
In DDR Holdings, the court held that a claim may amountto more
than an abstract idea recited in the claims when it addresses and solves
problems only encountered with computer technology and online
transactions, e.g., by providing ( serving) a composite web page rather than
adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of an Internet hyper link
protocol. See DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257-59. In contrast, claim 11
simply manipulates data using known, conventional computers and/or
equipment to produce an SPI score. The SPI score is then used to select a
design ("the package is selected based on the SP I score of the packaging
14
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
design" ( claim 11)) and produce a package for the product according to an
undisclosed process. See supra; compare Spec. 21:7-22:18 (calculating an
SPI score and displaying the score), with id. 11 :15, 12:6 (mentioning
package production). Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary
(analogizing their claims to those in DDR), nothing in the claim recites a
"solution that is necessarily rooted in manufacturing/production technology"
(supra (emphasis omitted)). The communication, analysis, and manipulation
of information to provide an SPI score by conventional means, and
ancillarily produce a package based on the SPI score, is not a solution to a
technical problem as discussed in DDR Holdings or a
manufacturing/production problem as described by Appellants.
Rather, considering SPI requirements and calculating an SPI score
address environmental issues and governmental regulations. Producing a
package based on the SPI score is a commercial solution to governmental-
compliance issues, not a technical solution to a computer problem or a
manufacturingproblem. Indeed, the claims do not delineate how the SPI
score affects the manufacturingprocess. As we previously explained, the
instant claims are more akin to the claims for analyzing and manipulating
information found to be abstract in Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353.
We agree with the Examiner that the additional limitations, separately,
or as an ordered combination, do not provide meaningful limitations (i.e., do
not add significantly more) to transform the abstract idea into a patent
eligible application. See, e.g., Ans. 4--8. The claim merely recites functions
(processes) for communicating, analyzing, and manipulating data using
known, conventional computers and/ or equipment to calculate and display
an SPI score in a conventional manner. Claim 11 then recites producing a
15
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
product package based on the analyzed and manipulated data-the SPI
score. None of the manufacturing processes are described in the claim. The
processes that are described in claim 11 are all routine and conventional and
well-understood computer functions of a general processor. The
Specification supports this view (see supra) in discussing the processes
implemented using known ( conventional) generic processors, servers, and
networks to perform the recited data collection, manipulation, and display
steps. See Spec. 4:11-5:20; 21:7-22:18. For example: "Client 110 and
server 120 may be any computing device, such as a desktop computer,
laptop computer, tablet, or another device" (Spec. 5:4---6); "Network 135
may be a private intranet or a public network such as the Internet" (Spec.
5:6-7); and the "user 130 may utilize web browser 116 executing on
processor 112 of client 110 to access web server host program 126 executing
on processor 122 of server 120" (Spec. 5: 13-14 ). Such conventional
computer and communication processes "do not alone transform an
otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256).
For at least the reasons above, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
in the rejection of claim 11 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 101. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of independent claim 11 as well
as dependent claims 12-20, which were not argued separately.
CONCLUSION
Appellants has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
11-20under35U.S.C. § 101.
16
Appeal 2017-002554
Application 13/671,413
DECISION
We affrrm the Examiner's rejection of claims 11-20.
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).
AFFIRMED
17