Ex Parte STARK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 5, 2018

12840527 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 5, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/840,527 07/21/2010 Melissa STARK
79340 7590 07/09/2018
MANNA VA & KANG, P.C.
3201 Jermantown Road
SUITE 525
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
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.
Dl 0-050-02279-00-US 1305
EXAMINER
DICKERSON, TIPHANY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /09/2018 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):
ASHOKM@MANNA V AKANG.COM
docketing@mannavakang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MELISSA STARK and CHARLES JANS
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
Technology Center 3600
Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
2, 7-9, and 15-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to future cost estimate forecasting for
technologies. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer system to transform information for a
technology into
an arrangement on a screen, comprising:
an input device to receive user inputs, wherein the
information for the technology includes the user inputs;
a processor;
a memory storing instructions for causing the processor to
execute:
a cost receipt unit to
receive, for the technology, a first cost point
identifying a starting cost of manufacturing the technology at a
first time period,
receive, for the technology, a second cost
point identifying a midpoint cost of manufacturing the
technology at a second time period that is later than first time
period, and
express the first cost point and the second
cost point as a percentage of potential improvement, and
calculate a third cost point for the technology
using the first cost point and the second cost point, wherein the
third cost point is a cost of manufacturing the technology at
maturity, and is a percentage of improvement at a time period
beyond the second cost point,
wherein the third cost point is determined by
subtracting the percentage of improvement for the third cost
point from 1.00 and multiplying a result of the subtraction with
a price parameter of the second cost point,
2
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
solve two logical distribution cumulative
distribution functions using the first and the second cost points
as inputs to derive mean and standard deviation values of the two
logical distribution cumulative distribution functions;
a base curve unit to translate the calculated third
cost point to a non-percentage value, and determine a base S-
curve from the first cost point, the second cost point and the third
cost point using the derived mean and standard deviation values,
the second cost point being the midpoint of the base S-curve;
a weighting unit to:
receive a plurality of cost reduction drivers,
for each of the cost reduction drivers,
determine whether the cost reduction driver is in a yield category
describing productive efficiency in a manufacturing process for
the technology, or is in a scale category describing production
volume of a product,
receive a plurality of weightings for each of
the cost-reduction drivers,
wherein the plurality of weightings for
each of the cost-reduction drivers includes at least a first
weighting representing an impact of the cost-reduction driver on
a manufacturing cost of the technology, and a category weighting
representing an importance of the yield category if the cost
reduction driver is in the yield category and an importance of the
scale category if the cost reduction driver is in the scale category
for the manufacturing cost of the technology, and the category
weightings vary depending on a type of the technology;
receive an adjusted midpoint of the base S-
curve; and
receive an indication as to which one of the cost-reduction
drivers is associated to the adjusted midpoint;
a base curve adjustment unit to:
create a new midpoint of the base S-curve by
multiplying the received adjusted midpoint by the plurality of
3
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
weightings for the cost-reduction driver associated with the
received adjusted midpoint, and
create an adjusted S-curve fitted to the first
cost point and the new midpoint to adjust the base S-curve based
on the plurality of weightings for each of the cost-reduction
drivers; and
a graphical user interface on a display, the graphical user
interface displaying the base S-curve and the adjusted S-curve on
the display and displaying a prompt for a user to enter the user
inputs including at least one of the weightings, the adjusted
midpoint and the indication using the input device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hertz
Buck
Dennard
us 7,584,156
US 2004/0030592 Al
US 2011/0131078 Al
Sep. 1,2009
Feb. 12,2004
Jun. 2, 2011
Mathias, S-shaped market adoption curve, Clear Lines Consulting LLC,
http://web.archive.org/web/20080803 l 923 l 5/http://www.clear-
lines.com/blog/post/S-sha ... (6/8/2008) (last visited 11/17 /2012)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
OPINION
Appellants argue that the claims are directed to a system and method
for transforming information for a technology into an arrangement on a
screen (App. Br. 13). Appellants assert that the claims are directed to an
4
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
apparatus and method, which are statutory categories of invention, and are
not directed to merely manipulating abstract mathematical equations and
performing conventional mathematical processes. Id. Appellants further
assert that the burden is initially on the Examiner to provide a prima facie
showing that the claimed invention constitutes an abstract idea, and without
such showing, the burden does not shift to Appellants to prove the claimed
invention does not constitute an abstract idea. Id. at 16.
Appellants further argue that the system of independent claim 1
includes structure such as an input device, a processor, a memory storing
instructions for the processor and a display, wherein the instructions cause
the processor to present a graphical user interface on the display, and a
prompt for a user to input required data using the input device. Id. at 17.
According to Appellants, the claimed system allows a user to manage the
automated creation of cost projections, by prompting the user for data
required for the specific recited calculations, calculating cost projections,
and enabling the user to visualize representations of the cost projections. Id.
at 18.
Appellants conclude that paragraph 22 of the Specification states that
the system provides "an improved, continued man-machine interaction, by
facilitating the acquisition, display and storage of data" and therefore, the
claims are directed to the technical solution of an improved man-machine
interface, which is not an abstract idea. Id. at 19.
Appellants also assert that the detailed steps of the claim weigh cost
reduction drivers and weigh cost reduction drivers, creating and adjusting an
S-curve, and thus, go far beyond the simple plotting of points of a graph. Id.
21.
5
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
Appellants assert that the claim features are directed to an improved
man-machine interface that facilitates adjusting a base S-curve in an
unconventional, novel and non-obvious manner to present data on the
improved man-machine interface in a manner that more accurately depicts
future manufacturing cost estimates for disruptive technologies. Id. 22
citing Spec. paras. 19, 20.
Finally, Appellants assert that the claims are drafted so that they do
not preempt the entire field of forecasting a future cost estimate for a
technology. Id. at 23-24.
We do not agree with Appellants' argument. The Supreme Court's
two-step framework guides our analysis. See Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). According to step one, we must
decide "whether the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible
concept," such as an abstract idea. Id. In this step, we consider the claims
"in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is directed to
excluded subject matter." Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc.,
790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We agree with the Examiner that the mere fact that a claim is directed
to one of the four statutory categories of invention is not a cure for it being
directed to an abstract idea, as argued by the Appellants. Ans. 3. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, the abstract elements of the claimed invention
include data gathering limitations, mathematical manipulation limitations
and a display limitation. Id. at 3--4.
"In a similar vein, we have treated 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."
6
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d at 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (emphasis added); see also In re TL! Comm 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That the claim is implemented by a generic
computer is not sufficient to show the claimed concept is patent-eligible.
See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (merely implementing an old practice in a new environment is
abstract).
Thus, implementing a mathematical calculation on a computer for
adjusting an S-curve on the display based on the plurality of weightings for
each of the cost-reduction drivers constitutes an abstract idea.
Because the claims are "directed to an abstract idea," we analyze the
claims to determine if the limitations, when considered both "individually
and as an ordered combination" contain an inventive concept sufficient to
transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355-58.
Here, we further agree with the Examiner that the additional elements
of a computer, input device, processor, memory and graphical user display
are used in a conventional and routine manner. Ans. 4.
"The written description is particularly useful in determining what is
well-known or conventional." Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the recited computer
system and network for executing the mathematical formula is conventional
as evidenced by Appellants' Specification stating "[i]t will be apparent to
one of ordinary skill in the art that other known electronic components may
be added or substituted in the computer system 700" (emphasis added).
Spec. i-f 54. We agree with the Examiner that the algorithm itself is the key
7
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
feature and once that is known, the claimed process could be performed in a
basic spreadsheet application such as Microsoft Excel using the charting
features. Id. Plotting points using received data points and derived by
solving a system of equations does not qualify as a transformation; instead, a
transformation involves changing a physical article into a different state or
thing. Id. The claims are similar to the claims of Electric Power, because
they do not require any nonconventional computer or network components,
or even a "non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces." See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355.
Lastly, Appellants' assertion regarding pre-emption is unpersuasive,
because "[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the
absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility ....
\Vhere a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject
matter under the /v{(~yo framework, as they are in this case, preemption
concen1s are fully addressed and made moot" Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding
"that the claims do not preempt a11 price optimization or may be limited to
price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract").
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for
the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 7-9, and 15-16 under 35 U.S.C
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2, 7-9, and 15-16 is affirmed.
8
Appeal2017-002373
Application 12/840,527
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).
AFFIRMED
9