Ex Parte Skocic

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

13492791 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/492,791 06/08/2012
33055 7590 12/14/2018
Law Offices of John D. Gugliotta, P.E. Esq., LPA
P.O. Box 506
Richfield, OH 44286
Ruth E. Skocic
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.
SK-3246 1017
EXAMINER
LULTSCHIK, WILLIAM G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/14/2018 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 RUTH E. SKOCIC
Appeal2017---005818
Application 13/492,791
Technology Center 3600
Before ANTON W. PETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Ruth E. Skocic (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a form of health care data management.
Specification para. 5.
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed February 17, 2015) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed September
29, 2015), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed July 31, 2015), and
Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 16, 2014).
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A health care data management system comprising a server
device including a processor device and at least one computer
storage medium, the at least one computer storage medium
storing a database and data instructions, wherein the data
instructions are executable by the processor device to:
[ 1] register a user with the server device by receiving user data
including a first biometric identifier;
[2] store the user data and the first biometric identifier in the
database at the server device,
the server device and the database being configured to
operate remote from the user;
[3] associate the first biometric identifier with the user data in
the database;
[ 4] receive health care information pertaining to the user and
store the health care information in the user data in the
database;
[ 5] receive from a mass transport vehicle computing system a
request including a second biometric identifier;
[ 6] search the database with the server device to identify the
first biometric identifier as a match to the second biometric
identifier;
[7] transmit at least part of the user data associated with the first
biometric identifier to the mass transport vehicle computing
system in response to the request;
[8] update a status of the user in the user data of the database to
indicate that the user is a passenger on a mass transport vehicle
associated with the mass transport vehicle computing system;
[9] conduct a search of the user data in the database to identify
user data that indicates that the associated user is a passenger on
the mass transport vehicle;
2
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
and
[10] associate the user data with a travel reservation of the mass
transport vehicle made by the user.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Huyn
Sehr
Skocic
US 2002/0035486 Al
US 6,926,203 B 1
US 2009/0070148 Al
BenYitschak US 2010/0305984 Al
Mar. 21, 2002
Aug.9,2005
Mar. 12, 2009
Dec. 2, 2010
SartinServices, Press Releases: Sartin Services, Inc. Creates Mobile
Evacuation Bus, March 29, 2007
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Skocic, SartinServices, and Sehr.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Skocic, SartinServices, Sehr, and Ben Yitschak.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Skocic, SartinServices, Sehr, and Huyn.
3
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Sehr
01. Sehr is directed to travel system and methods used throughout
the travel industry, including by passengers, providers of travel
services and transportation means, financial institutions and
transaction processors offering electronic payment means and
clearing of those payments, and by service providers of other
travel-related services. To facilitate the intended use, a portable
passenger card will be compiled and issued as a multi-application
means for storage and processing of data and information,
decision logic support and communications purposes, and
identification and authentication schemes; as well as for hosting a
traveler's pass, payment purse and a plurality of application-
specific traveling services. Sehr 1: 15-27.
02. A CARD STATION (1) allows a passenger, or any other
entity, to interact with or couple to the system while planning and
evaluating a particular trip or several travel itineraries, including
making the appropriate reservations and loading the related ticket
and travel information into the passenger card. The station can
further be used to download monetary value into the passenger
card, pay for travel-related services via the card-based means, and
upload the electronic payments to a service provider. The station
4
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
can also be used to compile the contents of the passenger card, so
as to serve multiple application needs while hosting the related
application modules in the same card. Sehr 4:33--49.
Skocic
03. Skocic is directed to health care data management. Skocic
para. 6.
04. Skocic describes patient information including health
information being associated with a biometric identifier of a
patient. The biometric identifier is used to access the patient
information. Skocic para. 6.
05. Skocic describes registering a user by receiving user data
including a first biometric identifier; storing the user data and the
first biometric identifier in the database and associating the first
biometric identifier with the user data in the database; receiving
health care information pertaining to the user and storing in the
user data in the database; receiving from a caregiver computing
system a request including a second biometric identifier; searching
the database to identify the first biometric identifier as a match to
the second biometric identifier; and transmitting at least part of the
user data associated with the first biometric identifier to the
caregiver computing system in response to the request. Skocic
para. 7.
06. Skocic describes reading a biometric identifier of the patient
(such as the patient's fingerprint) if the person is involved in an
emergency situation and emergency caregivers arrive on the scene
5
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
with an emergency vehicle computing system. The health records
associated with the patient's fingerprint are then obtained from a
server. As a result, the emergency caregivers are able to
positively identify the patient (particularly if the patient is unable
to identify herself) and review the health records of the patient
immediately (in "real-time") to assist them in providing proper
medical care to the patient. Skocic para. 37.
07. Skocic describes two periods-a preparation period and a
health care period, which are separated by a health care event.
The preparation period begins with operation to store a biometric
identifier associated with a patient. In some embodiments, the
operation is a user registration process. For example, a fingerprint
is scanned and a biometric identifier is generated based on unique
features of the fingerprint. The biometric identifier is then stored
in memory, such as on a server. Then patient information
associated with the biometric identifier is entered. For example,
the patient's name and date of birth are stored in a database record
associated with the biometric identifier. In some embodiments,
patient data is stored in the database and associated with the
biometric identifier. Skocic paras. 68-70.
08. Skocic describes an incoming patient's display allowing a
caregiver to quickly locate information regarding patients.
Searches may be by available status identifiers. Examples of
status identifiers include All, Arrived, Cancelled, In Transit, and
Patient Expired. The In Transit status identifier is associated with
6
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
a patient that is in transit to the health care facility. In transit
includes a patient that is being transported by an emergency
vehicle or a patient who is expected, such as because a telephone
call was received indicating that the patient is coming to the health
care facility. Skocic para. 92-93.
09. Skocic further describes an incoming patient's display
allowing a caregiver to quickly locate information regarding
patients. The Add new status record section is a section where a
caregiver can enter a new status record regarding the patient. A
status prompt includes a pull down menu that allows a user to
identify the current status of the patient as Arrived, Cancelled, In
Transit, or Patient Expired, for example. If the status is In Transit,
then Estimated Time of Arrival (ETA) prompt is provided for the
caregiver to enter the estimated time of arrival of the patient. In
some embodiments ET A is computed automatically based upon
the position of the patient in an emergency vehicle. For example,
a global positioning system (GPS) tracks the position of the
emergency vehicle relative to the caregiver facility. The estimated
transit time between the current position and the caregiver facility
is computed as the ETA. Skocic para. 126.
SartinServices
10. SartinServices is directed to a Mobile Evacuation Bus.
SartinServices First paragraph.
7
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
System claim 1 recites registering and storing user data, associating the
data with each other, receiving healthcare information, receiving a request
and searching and transmitting data in response, updating status data,
conducting a data query, and associating further data. Thus, claim 1 recites
receiving, analyzing, modifying, displaying, and transmitting data. None of
the limitations recite implementation details for any of these steps, but
instead recite functional results to be achieved by any and all possible
means. Data reception, analysis, modification, display, and transmission are
all generic, conventional data processing operations to the point they are
themselves concepts awaiting implementation details. The sequence of data
reception-analysis-modification-display-transmission is equally generic
and conventional. The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and
conventional. The remaining claims merely describe process parameters,
with no implementation details.
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, []
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. [] If so, we then ask, "[ w ]hat
else is there in the claims before us? [] To answer that question,
[] consider the elements of each 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an "'inventive concept"'-i.e., an
8
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
element or combination of elements that is "sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself."
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012)).
To perform this test, we must first determine whether the claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. The Examiner determines the
claims to be directed to comparing the second identifier to the stored
identifier and associating the user information with a travel information, i.e.
comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options.
Ans. 19-20.
Although the Court in Alice made a determination as to what the claims
were directed to, we find that this case's claims themselves and the
Specification provide enough information to inform one as to what they are
directed to.
The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a health care data management
system. The steps in claim 1 result in determining that a user is a passenger
on a mass transport vehicle and obtaining data about the user absent any
technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
The Specification at paragraph 5 recites that the invention relates to health
care data management. Thus, all this evidence shows that claim 1 is directed
to identifying and obtaining information about a passenger, i.e. data query.
This is consistent with the Examiner's determination.
It follows from prior Supreme Court cases, and Bilski (Bilski v Kappas,
561 U.S. 593 (2010)) in particular, that the claims at issue here are directed
to an abstract idea. The concept of data query is a fundamental data
9
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
gathering practice long prevalent in civilization. The use of data query is
also a building block of ingenuity in gathering information. Thus, data
query, like hedging, is an "abstract idea" beyond the scope of§ 101. See
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2356.
As in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., we need not labor to delimit the precise
contours of the "abstract ideas" category in this case. It is enough to
recognize that there is no meaningful distinction in the level of abstraction
between the concept of risk hedging in Bilski and the concept of data query
at issue here. Both are squarely within the realm of "abstract ideas" as the
Court has used that term. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2357.
Further, claims involving data collection, analysis, and display are
directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that "collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" are "a familiar class
of claims 'directed to' a patent ineligible concept"); see also In re TL!
Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis,
modification, display, and transmission and does not recite an improvement
to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims
not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation"). As such, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of
receiving, analyzing, modifying, displaying, and transmitting data.
10
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
The remaining claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude
that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the analysis
at Mayo step two.
the 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. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea "'to a particular technological environment."'
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words "apply it with a
computer" simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to "implemen[ t ]" an abstract idea
"on . . . a computer," that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of "additional
featur[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [ abstract idea] itself."
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2358 ( citations omitted).
"[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply
instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2359. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, modifying, displaying, and transmitting
data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval----one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., supra. Also see In re Katz
11
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.Cir.
2011 )("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms "processing,"
"receiving," and "storing," ... those functions can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming"). In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, "even if a process of
collecting and analyzing information is 'limited to particular content' or a
particular 'source,' that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract." SAP America Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant's claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
modification-display-transmission is equally generic and conventional or
otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F .3d
709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for
exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an
abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd.
v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017)(sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant's claims simply recite the concept of data
query as performed by a generic computer. To be sure, the claims recite
doing so by advising one to initially store data that may be useful later and
12
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
then retrieve the data when needed in a mass transport context. But this is
no more than abstract conceptual advice on the parameters for such data
query and the generic computer processes necessary to process those
parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation.
The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the
computer itself. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology
or technical field. The Specification spells out different generic equipment2
and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular
steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of data
query under different scenarios. They do not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, the claims at
issue amount to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the
abstract idea of data query using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. at 2360.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "the Examiner
alleges merely that the invention contains an abstract idea, i.e. comparing
new and stored date. The Examiner, however, fails to show that the
invention is itself merely an abstract idea, without significantly more."
Reply Br. 5. Appellant misstates the Alice test. Rather the test is whether
the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Electric Power, supra answers this
readily.
2 The Specification describes a laptop computer, a handheld computing
system, a tablet computer, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a cell phone,
and other computing systems. Spec. para. 46.
13
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "[r]ather than just an
idea, it further provides instructions on application and is further tied to a
particular machine or apparatus by changing medical information and date to
a 'different state or thing."' Reply Br. 6. Providing instructions is no more
than abstract conceptual advice. Changing data is exactly what generic
computers do, and does not transform a generic computer into a specific
machine. At bottom, the claims recite no technological implementation
details that alter machine operation, but instead recite conventional data
operations.
The claims here, in contrast, are not directed to an improvement
in the way computers operate, nor does FairWaming contend as
much. While the claimed system and method certainly purport
to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose
computer, rather than the patented method itself. Thus here, as
in Electric Power, "the focus of the claims is not on . . . an
improvement in computers as tools, but on certain
independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools."
FairWarning, 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016)(citations omitted)
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "the invention
clearly provides for improvements that direct a solution of a technological
problem, i.e. the acquisition and tracking of medical information data among
a group of passengers." Reply Br. 7. The acquisition and tracking of
medical information is a data management problem, not a technological
problem.
14
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
Claims 6 and 8 rejected under 35 USC§ l 12(b) as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention
Appellant does not argue but instead states that "the rejections under
§ 112 of claims 16 and 18 will be addressed after the present appeal process
has completed." App. Br. 6. Although Appellant then presents some
argument in the Reply Brief at 2, this is untimely. Accordingly we
summarily affirm the rejection.
Claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as
unpatentable over Skocic, SartinServices, and Sehr
With respect to the Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's
determinations and analysis from Final Action 4--16 and Answer 21-33 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that
The Examiner fails to give any weight to the context of the
present invention, i.e. a medical mass transportation vehicle
such as an ambulance. Rather, the Examiner bypasses such
functionality altogether. Associating the user data and the
travel reservation allows a caregiver using a health care data
management system of claim 1 to immediately determine
whether a person is a traveler that was present on a particular
plane or in a particular hotel.
Reply Br. 2-3. First, the Examiner gives substantial weight to the
medical context of the claims, evidenced by the determinations made at
Final Action 4--6 referring to patient healthcare information such as medical
history data, medical records, and treatment records. Appellant focuses on
the final limitation in claim 1 of "associat[ing] the user data with a travel
reservation of the mass transport vehicle made by the user." The problem
15
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
for the Appellant is that this limitation fails to refer to any medical context.
This limitation does not even recite any manner or implementation for such
associating and more critically, the remainder of the claim does not affect
and is not affected by this limitation. Appellant argues that the association
made by Sehr is not for the purpose Appellant envisions and contends.
Nevertheless, Sehr describes making such an association for a traveler, and a
traveler is a likely passenger on the mass transport vehicle recited in the
claims and also described in the other two references. Thus it is reasonable
to apply Sehr to the other two references. This is a classic instance of an
argument being not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that "[t]here is no
suggestion as to the desirability of any modification of the references to
describe the present invention." Reply Br. 4. The Examiner does not
modify Skocic, but only shows that one of ordinary skill would have seen
that the evacuation bus of SartinServices was a reasonable embodiment of
Skocic's vehicle, and that passengers using Sehr's medical data download
were reasonable embodiments of Skocic' s passengers.
Claim 14 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Skocic,
SartinServices, Sehr, and BenYitschak
With respect to the Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's
determinations and analysis from Final Action 16-17 and Answer 33-34 and
reach similar legal conclusions. This is not further argued in the Reply
Brief.
16
Appeal2017-005818
Application 13/492,791
Claim 19 rejected under 35 USC§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Skocic,
SartinServices, Sehr, and Huyn
This rejection is not separately argued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is uncontested.
The rejection of claims 1-13, 15-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Skocic, SartinServices, and Sehr is proper.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Skocic, SartinServices, Sehr, and Ben Yitschak is proper.
The rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Skocic, SartinServices, Sehr, and Huyn is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
17