Ex Parte Pachon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

12243464 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/243,464 10/01/2008 Julian Pachon
52082 7590 10/26/2018
General Electric Company
GE Global Patent Operation
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
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.
12587-0123001 /
D08-124/0
1261
EXAMINER
VETTER, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
gpo.mail@ge.com
marie.gerrie@ge.com
lori.E.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JULIAN PACHON and STUART H. SMITH
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LARRY J. HUME, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 21--40, which are all claims pending in the application.
Appellants have canceled claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, GE Aviation Systems Taleris Ltd. and GE Flight
Services, Inc. are the real parties in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention "relate[] to
creating airline flight schedules." Spec. 1, 1. 3.
Exemplary Claim
Claim 21, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
21. A method of operating aircraft resources according
to an airline flight schedule, the method comprising:
generating, by a processor, a set of proposed aircraft
routings;
generating, by a permissible crew pairing generator, a set
of proposed crew pairings for at least a subset of the proposed
aircraft routings;
determining, by the permissible crew pairing generator, a
set of permissible crew pairings for the at least a subset of the
proposed aircraft routings, wherein determining the set of
permissible crew pairings includes applying a first set of crew
constraints to the set of proposed crew pairings for the at least a
subset of the proposed aircraft routings, and determining the
subset of the proposed crew pairings based on the first set of
crew constraints;
determining, by a permissible aircraft routing generator, a
set of permissible aircraft routings by linking the set of
permissible crew pairings with the set of proposed aircraft
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
Oct. 14, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Jan. 11, 2017); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 15, 2016); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed Oct. 8, 2008). We note Appellants did not file a
Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the
Examiner's Answer.
2
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
routings, applying a second set of aircraft constraints to the
linked set of permissible crew pairings and the set of proposed
aircraft routings, and determining the subset of the proposed
aircraft routings based on the second set of aircraft constraints;
determining, by the processor, a set of permissible airline
flight schedules by applying a third set of airline constraints to
the set of permissible aircraft routings and the set of permissible
crew pairings, and outputting at least a subset of the permissible
airline flight schedules to a user for selecting an airline flight
schedule to be flown by the aircraft resources; and
operating the aircraft resources according to the selected
airline flight schedule.
Rejection on Appea/3
Claims 21--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 11 ), we decide the appeal of
patent-ineligible subject matter Rejection RI of claims 21--40 on the basis of
representative claim 21. 4
3 We note the Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of the claims under 35
U.S.C. § 112(a). Final Act. 2.
4 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.3 7 ( c )( 1 )(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
3
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
ISSUE
Appellants argue (Br. 10-16) the Examiner's rejection of claim 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is
in error. These contentions present us with the following issue:
Under our governing case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, did the
Examiner err in concluding claim 21 is directed to a judicial exception, i.e.,
an abstract idea, specifically, a method of organizing human activity,
without significantly more?
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. To the extent Appellants have not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 21--40
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 21 for
emphasis as follows.
Alice Framework
Section 101 provides that anyone who "invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof' may obtain a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101.
4
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should
not extend to claims that monopolize "the basic tools of scientific and
technological work." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012);
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patent-eligible subject matter. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
The Supreme Court's two-part Alice framework guides us in
distinguishing between patent claims that impermissibly claim the "building
blocks of human ingenuity" and those that "integrate the building blocks into
something more." Alice Corp., 134 S.Ct. at 2354 (citation omitted). First,
we "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to [a] patent-
ineligible concept[]." Id. at 2355. If so, we "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." Id. at
2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 79). Although the two steps of the
Alice framework are related, the "Supreme Court's formulation makes clear
that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101
inquiry." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). We note the Supreme Court "has not established a definitive rule
to determine what constitutes an 'abstract idea"' for the purposes of step one.
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2357).
In Enfzsh, our reviewing court held claims directed to a self-referential
logical model for a computer database patent-eligible under step one of
Alice. Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1330 (Fed.
5
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
Cir. 2016). The disclosed technique enabled faster searching and more
effective storage of data than previous methods. Id. at 1333. The court
found the claims directed to "a specific improvement to the way computers
operate, embodied in the self-referential table" (id. at 1336), and explained
that the claims are "not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data,
but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer
database" that functions differently than conventional databases. Id. at 1337.
In McRO, the claims were not held to be abstract because they recited
a "specific ... improvement in computer animation" using "unconventional
rules that relate[ d] sub-sequences of phonemes, timings, and morph weight
sets." McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1302-
03, 1307---08, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In McRO, "the incorporation of the
claimed rules, not the use of the computer," improved an existing
technological process. Id. at 1314.
However, our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as directed to
an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display
information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by
humans. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting cases). At the
same time, "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. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice 134 S.Ct. at 2355-
57. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we
articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure
6
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 2354 ("[W]e tread carefully in
construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.").
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "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., LLC v.
DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citation omitted). If
the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the inquiry ends.
See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed.
Cir. 2017). If the concept is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, we
proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that second step we must "look
with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to determine
'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application of the
ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity Labs, 838
F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
Alice Step I -Abstract Idea
The Examiner concludes " [ t ]he claims are directed to the abstract idea
of optimizing an airline schedule based upon various factors in an optimal
routings algorithm (as shown in the recited functions of claims 21--40),
which is a method of organizing human activities involving mathematical
formulas." Final Act. 3. Similarly, in the Answer (2), the Examiner
concludes " [ t ]he claims are directed to a mathematical model for
determining planned airline routes."
Appellants generally contend, "the claimed subject matter is not an
abstract idea, and in any event includes additional elements necessary to
render the subject matter patent-eligible even if it were an abstract idea."
Br. 10.
7
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
More specifically, Appellants argue "[t]he The Examiner fails to
meaningfully complete the 'directed to' inquiry and describes the claims at a
high level of abstraction untethered from the language of the claims,"
because "[t]he Examiner has proceeded to summarize a nearly 2,000 word, 6
page, 20 claim set with multiple patentably-distinct independent claims into
a 13 word cursory conclusion that the claims are 'directed to optimizing an
airline schedule based upon various factors in an optimal routings
algorithm."' Br. 11. "The Examiner overlooks that the claim is directed to
an ordered method generating multiple sets of information, and application
of a set of specific constraints to output a selectable set of possible flight
schedules for operating aircraft resources." Id.
Appellants further argue:
Appellants can find no aspect of representative independent
claims 21, 3 5, or 3 8 that relates to the "optimizing an airline
schedule" or "an optimal routings algorithm," as described by
the Examiner. Neither the multiple sets of constraints nor the
different sets of information are explicitly defined as "optimal
routings," "optimal/optimizing algorithm," or described as
"optimizing the airline schedule." In fact, those "abstract idea"
terms are not used anywhere in the claim set at all, in explicit
contrast with the Examiner's allegations.
Br. 12.
In addition, Appellants argue the claims on appeal "are analogous to
the claims of Enfish," and "are not directed to the abstract idea of
'optimizing an airline schedule based upon various factors in an optimal
routings algorithm,' as concluded by the Examiner, but rather are directed to
a specific improvement in the operating aircraft resources according to an
8
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
airline flight schedule, as claimed and described in the specification."
Br. 13.
In response, the Examiner states "the additional details [ of the claims]
merely further describe the abstract idea of optimizing an airline schedule
using abstract factors (e.g., times, crew pairing, etc.) in algorithm," and
Appellants "appear[] to be conflating the specific words used in the claims
with their actual substance. The conclusion does not follow that the claims
are not directed to an optimization algorithm simply because the word
'optimizing' does not appear in the claims." Ans. 2. 5
With respect to Appellants' "Enfish" argument, cited supra, the
Examiner determined:
Enfish is easily distinguishable from the instant claims in that
the problem to be solved in that case was solely related to
technology-configuring memory in computers. The solutions to
the airline routing model argued in the Brief ( 13-14) inure
solely to organizing future human activities (i.e., flying airline
segments with their associated crew pairings) through explicitly
mathematical means, and not to any technical element. The
similarly involve business/financial improvements ("operational
efficiencies and cost savings"-Brief, 13) that exist in the
abstract rather than the technological realm.
Ans. 3.
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "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, 838 F.3d at
1257 (citation omitted).
5 The Examiner further points to Appellants' Specification, which discloses
the steps of the invention are "techniques for generating optimized flight
schedules for airlines." Ans. 3 (citing Spec. 2, 11. 4--5).
9
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
Turning to the claimed invention, claim 21 recites: " [a] method of
operating aircraft resources according to an airline flight schedule."
Claim 21 (preamble). Method claim 21 's limitations also require the steps
of:
(a) "generating ... proposed aircraft routings;"
(b) "generating ... a set of proposed crew pairings";
(c) "determining a set of permissible crew pairings [by]
applying ... constraints ... and determining the subset of the
proposed crew pairings based on the first set of crew
constraints·"
'
(d) "determining ... a set of permissible aircraft routings
... applying a second set of aircraft constraints to the linked set
of permissible crew pairings and the set of proposed aircraft
routings, and determining the subset of the proposed aircraft
routings based on the second set of aircraft constraints;"
( e) "determining ... a set of permissible airline flight
schedules by applying a third set of airline constraints to the set
of permissible aircraft routings and the set of permissible crew
pairings, and outputting at least a subset of the permissible
airline flight schedules to a user for selecting an airline flight
schedule to be flown by the aircraft resources;" and
( f) "operating the aircraft resources according to the
selected airline flight schedule."
Our reviewing courts have often identified abstract ideas by referring
to earlier precedent, e.g., by comparing a claimed concept to the concepts
previously identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, 822
F.3d. at 1334. For example, in Alice, the Supreme Court identified the
claimed systems and methods as describing the concept of intermediated
settlement, and then compared this concept to the risk hedging concept
identified as an abstract idea in Bilski. Because this comparison revealed
10
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
"no meaningful distinction between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and
the concept of intermediated settlement at issue here," the Court concluded
that the concept of intermediated settlement was an abstract idea. Alice, 134
S. Ct. at 2356-57. Similarly, the Federal Circuit in Amdocs compared the
claims at issue with "eligible and ineligible claims of a similar nature from
past cases" as part of its eligibility analysis. Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1295-
1300.
Under step one, we agree with the Examiner that the inventions
claimed in independent claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea, i.e., the
abstract idea of optimizing an airline schedule based upon various factors in
an optimal routings algorithm ( as shown in the recited functions of claims
21--40), which is a method of organizing human activities involving
mathematical formulas. See Spec 12-13. Because there can be considerable
overlap in the categorization of abstract ideas under our controlling
section 101 case law, we also conclude the claimed invention alternatively
may be considered as "an idea 'of itself."' See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v.
Elec.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (A process that
employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to
generate additional information is abstract.).
The Specification "relates to creating airline flight schedules"
(Spec. 1, 1. 3), and "describes systems and techniques for generating
optimized flight schedules for airlines." Spec. 3, 11. 4--5. 6 We find this type
6 See also Spec. 44 ("Abstract"):
The subject matter of this specification can be embodied
in, among other things, a method that includes receiving a
number Nm of optional flights available to fly a flight route. The
11
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
of activity, i.e., creating airline flight schedules taking into account crew
constraints, for example, includes longstanding conduct that existed well
before the advent of computers and the Internet, and could be carried out by
a human with pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("That purely mental processes
can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was precisely the
holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson."). 7
Our reviewing court has previously held other patent claims ineligible
for reciting similar abstract concepts. For example, while the Supreme
Court has enhanced the § 101 analysis since CyberSource in cases like Mayo
and Alice, the Federal Circuit continues to "treat[] analyzing information by
steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms,
without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea
category." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-
47 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354).
method also includes receiving a minimum number Im of the
optional flights to fly the flight route, receiving a maximum
number Um of the optional flights to fly the flight route, and
generating one or more constraints for 7 an optimization model
that are configured to cause the optimization model to a favor
the selection of at least Im flights and to favor the selection of at
most Um flights from the Nm optional flights to fly the flight
route. The method includes selecting, using the optimization
model, an optimized subset of the Nm optional flights, where the
selection is based on the one or more constraints.
7 CyberSource further guides that "a method that can be performed by
human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible
under§ 101." CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373.
12
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
In addition, our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas
include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Additionally, the collection of information and analysis of
information (e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset) are also
abstract ideas. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (Collecting information
and "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category"). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Also,
collecting and comparing known information has been determined to be an
abstract idea. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d
1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("Claim 1 of the '283 patent states the idea of
collecting and comparing known information"). Also, more recently, our
reviewing court has also concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing,
and editing data are abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Therefore, in agreement with the Examiner, we conclude claim 1
involves nothing more than identifying, collecting, storing, comparing, and
generating data, without any particular inventive technology- an abstract
idea. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. 8
8 Merely automating previously manual processing by using computers does
not qualify as an eligibility-rejection-defeating improvement. Credit
Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
13
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
Accordingly, on this record, and under step one of Alice, we agree
with the Examiner's conclusion the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Alice Step 2 -Inventive Concept
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
we must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply
describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into
patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any "additional
features" in the claims that constitute an "inventive concept," thereby
rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an
abstract idea. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357. Those "additional features" must be
more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo, 566
U.S. at 79.
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as
"significantly more" when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words "apply it" (or an
equivalent) with an abstract idea; 9 mere instructions to implement an
9 Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357-58.
14
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
abstract idea on a computer; 10 or requiring no more than a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. 11
Evaluating representative claim 21 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we agree with the Examiner that it lacks an inventive concept that
transforms the abstract idea of optimizing an airline schedule using crew
constraints into a patent-eligible application of that abstract idea. See Ans. 12
We note the patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of
fact. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, 11 [t]he question of whether a claim
element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact. 11
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
10 Id., e.g., simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical
machine, namely a computer ( citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84--85).
11 Id. at 2359: e.g., using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances,
and issue automated instructions.
12 The Examiner further concludes:
The rejection identifies additional elements such as a processor
and memory, and explains that aside from being instructed to
perform the abstract idea merely serve to perform routine and
conventional activities ( e.g., storing data). Final Rejection
mailed April 15, 2016, ,r 7. The additional step of operating the
aircraft is insignificant post-solution activity. The operation of
the aircraft is not improved in any way by the claimed
algorithm, it merely results in the aircraft being flown to, e.g., a
different location at a different time ( an abstract
business/human activity organization result). 11
Ans. 4.
15
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
As evidence of the conventional nature of the claimed system
components and processes, we note Appellants' Specification. For example:
FIG. 9 is a schematic diagram of a computer system 900.
The system 900 can be used for the operations described in
association with any of the computer-implement methods
described previously, according to one implementation. The
system 900 is intended to include various forms of digital
computers, such as laptops, desktops, workstations, personal
digital assistants, servers, blade servers, mainframes, and other
appropriate computers. The system 900 can also include mobile
devices, such as personal digital assistants, cellular telephones,
smartphones, and other similar computing devices. Additionally
the system can include portable storage media, such as,
Universal Serial Bus (USB) flash drives. For example, the USB
flash drives may store operating systems and other applications.
The USB flash drives can include input/output components,
such as a wireless transmitter or USB connector that may be
inserted into a USB port of another computing device.
The system 900 includes a processor 910, a memory 920,
a storage device 930, and an input/output device 940. Each of
the components 910, 920, 930, and 940 are interconnected
using a system bus 950. The processor 910 is capable of
processing instructions for execution within the system 900.
The processor may be designed using any of a number of
architectures. For example, the processor 910 may be a CISC
(Complex Instruction Set Computers) processor, a RISC
(Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processor, or a MISC
(Minimal Instruction Set Computer) processor.
In one implementation, the processor 910 is a single-
threaded processor. In another implementation, the processor
910 is a multi-threaded processor. The processor 910 is capable
of processing instructions stored in the memory 920 or on the
storage device 930 to display graphical information for a user
interface on the input/ output device 940.
Spec.32,1. 18-33,1.22.
16
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
We agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations may be broadly
but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and
techniques, particularly in light of Appellant's Specification, as quoted
above. 13
With respect to the Step 2 analysis, we agree with the Examiner
because, as in Alice, the recitation of a "method of operating aircraft
resources according to an airline flight schedule," using a "processor" and a
"generator" is simply not enough to transform the patent-ineligible abstract
idea here into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357
("[C]laims, which merely require generic computer implementation, fail to
transform [an] abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). 14
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the appealed claims
13 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
14 Appellants question the Examiner's findings concerning routine and well-
understand functions of claim 21 by querying, " [ d]oes the Examiner truly
believe that ( e.g., in claim 21) applying a first set of crew constrains [sic] to
a set of proposed crew pairings by a crew pairing generator is known and
conventional generic computing elements or a step of operating aircraft
resources in accordance with a flight schedule?" Br. 15. In response, we
note, under Step 2 analysis, the claim elements are directed to improving a
business process and not a technical or computer-system related problem.
17
Appeal2017-006531
Application 12/243,464
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent claim 21, and grouped
claims 22--40, not argued separately, and which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to patent-ineligible subject
matter Rejection RI of claims 21--40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we sustain
the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 21--40.
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
18