Ex Parte Arroyo et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 15, 2019

14272215 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/272,215 05/07/2014
75949 7590
IBM CORPORATION
C/0: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
03/19/2019
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jorge A. Arroyo
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.
RSW920140052US1 6260
EXAMINER
FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2019 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):
patents@fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JORGE A. ARROYO, STEPHEN P. KRUGER,
PATRICKJ. O'SULLIVAN and
LUCIANO MARTINS PEREIRA DA SILVA
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/272,215
Technology Center 3600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JASON V. MORGAN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 8, 9, and 11-27,
which constitute all the claims pending in this application, under 35 U.S.C.
§ 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
The invention is directed to:
A customer relationship management (CRM) system uses
techniques and methods to gather, organize, automate, and
synchronize sales, for marketing, customer service, and technical
support. The CRM system stores this information in a database.
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
Further, this information is retrieved from the database and
analyzed to allow a company to better target various customers.
Specification ,r 2.
Illustrative Claim
8. A system for notifying a user about relevant data for
opportunities, the system comprising a processor and memory
with instructions for the processor to implement:
an obtaining engine to obtain, from a database,
opportunities, each opportunity corresponding to a record
structure in the database with a number of fields of metadata;
a determining engine to determine a maturity level for
each of the opportunities;
an analyzing engine to analyze the metadata associated
with the opportunities including comparing the metadata from
different opportunities to identify patterns for the opportunities;
an identifying engine to identify, based on the patterns,
correlations for the opportunities in which data from a more
mature opportunity is determined to be relevant to a less mature
opportunity;
an applying engine to apply a weight to the metadata
associated with each of the opportunities to determine relevant
data that is used to notify a user;
a notifying engine to notify the user, based on the
correlations, about the relevant data for the less mature
opportunity; and
an updating engine to update the database with the
correlations and the relevant data associated with the less
mature opportunity.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 8, 9, and 11-27 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of
nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-7 of co-
pending Application 14/632, 185, Arroyo (US Patent Application
2015/0324364 Al; published November 12, 2015). Final Action 2-7.
2
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
Claims 8, 9, and 11-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Final
Action 8-11.
Claims 8, 9, and 11-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Wagner (US Patent Application Publication
2015/0170163 Al; published June 18, 2015) and Sabharwal (US Patent
Application Publication 2012/0323639 Al; published December 20, 2012).
Final Action 12-32.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief ( filed August 1, 2017), the Reply Brief ( filed
December 26, 2017), the Final Action (mailed March 20, 2017) and the
Answer (mailed November 3, 2017) for the respective details.
Non-statutory Double Patenting
Appellants do not proffer substantive arguments regarding and we
summarily affirm the Examiner's provisional rejection of claims 8, 9, and
11-27 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. See Appeal Brief
11; Reply Brief 3; see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI
2010) (precedential) ("If an appellant fails to present arguments on a
particular issue - or, more broadly, on a particular rejection - the Board
will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of
the rejection. See, e.g., Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (the Board may treat arguments appellant failed to make for a given
ground of rejection as waived)").
3
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea
comprising a fundamental economic practice or organizing human activity,
and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Action 8-11; see also Alice
Corp. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) (describing the two-step
framework "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.").
After the mailing of the Answer and the filing of the Briefs in this
case, the US PTO published revised guidance on the application of§ 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter "Memorandum"). Under the Memorandum, the
Office first looks to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
4
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. We adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis and clarification with respect to the
Memorandum.
Appellants argue the pending claims are not directed to an abstract
idea because:
[C]laim 8 "is directed to a system for notifying a user about
business opportunities based on a set of analysis criteria."
(Action, p. 8). This is incorrect. Claim 8 is directed to a system
for autonomously expanding and improving a database of
opportunities. Through operation of the machine recited in claim
8, the database is expanded to newly include identified
correlations between existing records (i.e. opportunities) and
new links of relevant information from more mature
opportunities to less mature opportunities, i.e. "an updating
engine to update the database to include the correlations
identified between a more mature opportunity and a less mature
opportunity and to include the relevant data from the more
mature opportunity now associated in the database with the less
mature opportunity such that data from the more mature
opportunity are available to guide progress in the less mature
opportunity." (Claim 8).
Appeal Brief 11-12.
We agree with the Examiner's determination that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea. See Final Action 8-11. The Specification
discloses:
5
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
[A] CRM system is used as a model for managing a business's
interactions with current and future customers. The CRM system
uses techniques and methods to organize, automate, and
synchronize sales, for marketing, customer service, and technical
support. In one example, the CRM system may be a classical
CRM system that monitors sources such as current customers
and potentially future customers to gather information to better
target various customers.
Specification ,r 57.
The concept of marketing is a fundamental business practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce. The use of marketing is also a
building block of ingenuity in attempting to stimulate sales. Thus, a CR1v[
system is an example of a conceptual idea subject to the Supreme Court's
"concern that patent law not inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up
the future use of these building blocks of human ingenuity." Alice, 573 U.S.
at 216 ( citations omitted). Claim 8 recites "an identifying engine to identify,
based on the patterns, correlations for the opportunities in which data from a
more mature opportunity is determined to be relevant to a less mature
opportunity" and "a notifying engine to notify the user, based on the
correlations, about the relevant data for the less mature opportunity." These
steps comprise fundamental economic principles or practices and/or
commercial or legal interactions; thus the claim recites the abstract idea of
"certain methods of organizing human activity." Memorandum, Section I
(Groupings of Abstract Ideas); see Specification ,r,r 23-26. Our reviewing
court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited
similar subject matter. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (using advertising).
Appellants argue, "[t]he subject matter of claim 8 is just such an
improvement in computer-related technology that allows the database of
6
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
opportunities to self-update and self-expand by creating and storing the new
correlations between opportunities and creating new links for relevant data
from more mature to less mature opportunities." Appeal Brief 12. We do
not find Appellants' argument persuasive because claim 8 merely uses the
database as a tool to provide the customer with updated information relevant
to the latest opportunity as a way to market the opportunity to the customer.
See Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("[W]e find it relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an
improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract
idea ... the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database)
or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea' for which
computers are invoked merely as a tool."). The claims do not recite an
additional element or elements that reflect an improvement in the
functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field. See Final Action 10 ("Based on a review of the specification
the additional elements are found to be generic computer hardware ('general
purpose computer' in Paragraphs 0020 and 0094) performing the limitations
in a routine and conventional manner and do not amount to significantly
more to the abstract idea."); Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 ("In holding that the
process was patent ineligible, we rejected the argument that 'implement[ing]
a principle in some specific fashion' will 'automatically fal[l] within the
patentable subject matter of§ 101. "') (quoting Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S.
584, 593 (1978)).
Accordingly, we determine the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, Section III(A)(2)
7
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
(Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the
Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical Application). Nor do we
find the claim includes a specific limitation or a combination of elements
that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. See
Memorandum, Section III(B) (Step 2B: If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial
Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept); see
also Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc., 890 F.3d 1354,
1359 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("[T]he 'inventive concept' cannot be the abstract idea
itself'). Other than the abstract idea itself, the remaining claim elements
only recite generic computer components that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional. See Final Action 10-11; Alice, 573 U.S. at 226.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claims 8, 9, and 11-27,
not argued separately, are not patent eligible. See Appeal Brief 13.
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections
Appellants contend, "Wagner merely helps a user to prioritize a
schedule of, for example, sales visits" and further contend:
Wagner does not look for correlations between opportunities
where a more mature opportunity guides efforts on a less mature
opportunity, i.e.[,] "data from a more mature opportunity is
determined to be relevant to a less mature opportunity" resulting
in action "to update the database with ... the relevant data [ from
the more mature opportunity] associated with the less mature
opportunity." (Claim 8).
Appeal Brief 14. The Examiner finds Sabharwal addresses Wagner's CRM
software alleged deficiency because Sabharwal discloses maturity levels "in
which data from a more mature opportunity ... is determined to be relevant
8
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
to a less mature opportunity." Final Action 16 ( citing Sabharwal ,r,r 34--3 7,
42).
Appellants further contend, "[h ]owever, Sabharwal, like Wagner, is
not particularly relevant to the claimed subject matter. Specifically,
Sabharwal has nothing to do with managing a CRM database comprised of
records for different opportunities." Appeal Brief 15. We do not find
Appellants' arguments persuasive because it is evident that both Sabharwal
and Wagner pertain to managing business information dependent databases.
Wagner employs CRM software and discloses:
Examples of a system and method for calculating
relevance of sales opportunities and generating a visualization of
the relevance of the sales opportunities are described. In one
example embodiment, objects from a CRM database are
accessed to compute an importance score and an urgency score
for each object. The importance score is computed based on
parameters indicative of an importance of an opportunity. The
urgency score is computed based on parameters indicative of an
urgency of a sales opportunity. A relevance score is computed
for the objects using the importance score and the urgency score.
The objects are ranked based on the corresponding relevance
score.
Wagner ,r 15.
Sabharwal ("A system, computer-readable storage medium, and
computer-implemented method for determining a maturity level for a
business process") (Abstract) discloses:
In some embodiments, after the correlation module 108
calculates the weighted maturity levels 118, the correlation
module 108 determines recommended actions using the
weighted maturity levels 118. For example, consider a business
process that is associated with five questions and corresponding
responses to questions 112. The weighted maturity levels 118
corresponding to the five responses to questions 112 may
9
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
indicate a number of recommended actions 208 for improving
the business process.
Sabharwal ,r 35.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's determination that it
would have been obvious to modify the business information database of
Wagner, wherein Wagner analyzes the relevancy of the business data, by
employing Sabharwal's disclosure of analyzing business data based upon
maturity levels. See Final Action 16.
Appellants argue that, "Sabharwal appears to only ever discuss
evaluating the maturity and potential improvements to a single business
process. Sabharwal has not been shown to correlate between different
business processes and, most importantly, to associate relevant data from a
more mature process with a less mature one." Appeal Brief 15. We do not
find Appellants' argument persuasive. Sabharwal discloses, "[t]he term
'process' as used herein comprises a series of activities to produce a product
or perform a service, and is to be interpreted broadly as including a process
group, a sub-process, or any collection of processes." Sabharwal ,r 16.
Subsequently, we sustain the Examiner obviousness rejection of claims 8, 9,
and 11-27.
DECISION
The Examiner's provisional obviousness-type double-patenting
rejection of claims 8, 9, and 11-27 is affirmed.
The Examiner's nonstatutory subject matter rejection of claims 8, 9
and 11-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
10
Appeal2018-002230
Application 14/2 72,215
The Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 8, 9 and 11-27
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(l ). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(v).
AFFIRMED
11