Ex Parte Champernowne

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2019

12470442 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/470,442 05/21/2009
20995 7590 04/11/2019
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arthur Francis Champernowne
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.
EXIN.002ClDVl 3886
EXAMINER
VETTER, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/11/2019 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):
j ayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARTHUR FRANCIS CHAMPERNOWNE
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-2 and 4--11. Claims 3, 31, and 33 were
cancelled, and claims 12-30, 32, and 34--35 were withdrawn from
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Expedia, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "a system, apparatus and method for
providing automatic determination of the best fares for an on-line
reservation or fare inquiry." Spec. ,r 2. Exemplary claim 1 under appeal
reads as follows:
1. A method of building a sparse fare tree data structure for
finding at least one database record indicating a fare for travel
inventory, the method comprising:
storing, in a fare database, records including information
regarding acquirable travel items, wherein each record of at least
some of the records indicates a cost of a travel item
corresponding to the record;
in response to a fare query, generating, in a memory, a
sparse tree data structure enabling selective traversal of records
within the fare database to locate travel items responsive to the
fare query, wherein the sparse tree data structure comprises a root
node;
initializing, in the memory, a priority queue for storing one
or more query results to the fare query, each query result
corresponding to one or more criteria for identifying a record
within the fare database and indicating a lowest cost of one or
more travel items corresponding to the record identified by the
query result;
appending a first node to the root node of the sparse tree
in the memory, the first node representing a first set of criteria
for the records of the fare database, the first set of criteria
including a value for a first parameter of the records;
retrieving, from the fare database, a first set of records
corresponding to first set of criteria;
assigning a lowest cost indicated by the first set of records
as a cost of the first node;
when the cost of the first node of the sparse tree data
structure is less than or equal to a revisable lower bound, wherein
the lower bound is equal to the lowest cost of any query results
within a priority queue,
2
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
storing the first set of criteria represented by the first node,
together with the cost of the first node, as a partial query result
in the priority queue,
appending a second node to the first node of the sparse tree
in the memory, the second node representing a second set of
criteria for the records of the fare database, the second set of
criteria including the value for the first parameter of the records
represented by the first node and a value for a second parameter
of records in the fare database,
retrieving, from the fare database, a second set of records
corresponding to the second set of criteria, and
assigning a lowest cost indicated by the second set of
records as a cost of the second node;
when the cost of the second node of the sparse tree data
structure is less than or equal to the revisable lower bound,
storing the second set of criteria, together with the cost of
the second node, as a partial query result in the priority queue,
appending a third node to the second node of the sparse
tree in the memory, the third node representing a third set of
criteria for the records of the fare database, the third set of criteria
including the value for the first parameter of the records
represented by the first node, the value for the second parameter
represented by the second node, and a value for a third parameter
of records in the fare database,
retrieving, from the fare database, a third set of records
corresponding to third set of criteria, and
assigning a lowest cost indicated by the third set of records
as a cost of the third node;
when the cost of the third node of the sparse tree data
structure is less than or equal to the revisable lower bound,
storing the third set of criteria, together with the cost of the
third node, as a partial query result in the priority queue,
appending a fourth node to the third node of the sparse tree
in the memory, the fourth node representing a fourth set of
criteria for the records of the fare database, the fourth set of
criteria including the value for the first parameter of the records
represented by the first node, the value for the second parameter
represented by the second node, the value for the third parameter
3
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
represented by the third node, and a value for a fourth parameter
of records in the fare database,
retrieving, from the fare database, a fourth set of records
corresponding to fourth set of criteria, and
assigning a lowest cost indicated by the fourth set of
records as a cost of the fourth node; and
when the cost of the fourth node of the sparse tree data
structure is less than or equal to the revisable lower bound,
storing the fourth set of criteria, together with the cost of
the fourth node, as a partial query result in the priority queue,
appending a fifth node to the fourth node of the sparse tree
in the memory, the fifth node representing a fifth set of criteria
for the records of the fare database, the fifth set of criteria
including the value for the first parameter of the records
represented by the first node, the value for the second parameter
represented by the second node, the value for the third parameter
represented by the third node, the value for the fourth parameter
represented by the fourth node, and a value for a fifth parameter
of records in the fare database,
retrieving, from the fare database, a fifth set of records
corresponding to fifth set of criteria, and
assigning a lowest cost indicated by the fifth set of records
as a cost of the fifth node;
when the cost of the fifth node of the sparse tree data
structure is less than or equal to the revisable lower bound and
an ending condition is satisfied,
storing the fifth set of criteria, together with the cost of the
fifth node, as a complete query result to the fare query in the
priority queue, and
providing the complete query result from the priority
queue in response to the fare query; and
deferring processing of at least one additional node of the
sparse tree data structure representing a sixth set of criteria for
records of the fare database when a lowest cost indicated by
records of the fare database corresponding to the sixth set of
criteria is greater than the revisable lower bound, and not
appending child nodes to the at least one additional node as long
as the lowest cost indicated by records of the fare database
corresponding to the sixth set of criteria is greater than the
4
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
revisable lower bound, such that building of the sparse tree in the
data structure is completed without determining criteria for the
child nodes of the at least one additional node and without
retrieving, from the fare database, records constrained by the
criteria for the child nodes of the at least one additional node;
wherein the method is implemented by at least one
computing device.
REJECTION
Claims 1-2 and 4--11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Ans. 2. 2
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Supreme Court has 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." Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) (citing Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77
(2012)). According to this framework, a determination is made to consider
whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those concepts (i.e., laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas). See id. If so, a further
determination must be made to 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. Id.
2 The Examiner also objected to Appellant's Specification as failing to
provide proper antecedent basis for the claim term "traversal." See Final
Act. 4. However, this is not an appealable matter and therefore, not before
us.
5
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO's
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under the Revised Guidance, we first
look to whether the claim recites: any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, or
mental processes); and additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54--55. Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the
claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not
"well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. "The 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." Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 recites a method. Thus, independent claim 1 is
directed to one of the four statutory categories of patentability enumerated
by 35 U.S.C. § 101 (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter). Applying the first part of the Alice analysis, the Examiner finds the
claims are directed to determining optimal travel fares for a query which is
an abstract idea because it involves a method of organizing human activity
(i.e., it assists with creating the travel plans of persons and pricing the
6
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
transactions for travel products) using mathematical relationships/formulas.
See Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 3. Applying the second part of the Alice
analysis, the Examiner finds the claims do not include additional elements
that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea,
because the additional elements recited in the claims, beyond further
refinements of the abstract idea, are known and conventional generic
computing elements ( e.g., "memory" and "computing device") that serve to
perform well-understood functions (e.g., retrieving, storing, transmitting
data, and automating calculations). See Final Act. 5-6; see also Ans. 6-7. 3
Beginning with prong one of the first step of Alice, we must determine
"whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts," including the abstract ideas enumerated in the Revised Guidance.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. Appellant argues the claimed subject matter relates
to implementation and use of a specific data structure (i.e., a "sparse tree")
for locating database records regarding travel inventory, and not to a
conventional business practice. See App. Br. 12-19; see also Reply Br. 2-9.
As argued by Appellant, while the database records may include information
related to price ( or information used to determine a price), that fact does not
transform the claimed subject matter into a business method for finding
optimal prices. See App. Br. 13. 4
3 Although the Examiner's findings are explicitly directed to independent
claim 1, the Examiner further finds dependent claims 2 and 4--11 are also
patent-ineligible for the same reasons independent claim 1 is patent-
ineligible. See Final Act. 5.
4 Appellant additionally filed a Supplemental Reply Brief on January 16,
2019, to further respond to the Examiner's Answer. However, Appellant
"may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer."
7
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
Claim 1 recites, in part, "storing ... records including information
regarding acquirable travel items, wherein each record ... indicates a cost of
a travel item corresponding to the record," "to locate travel items responsive
to ... [a] fare query," and "storing ... query results to the fare query, each
query result ... indicating a lowest cost of ... travel items corresponding to
the record."
Consistent with the Examiner's finding, the aforementioned elements
recite a concept of determining optimal travel fares for a query (see Final
Act. 3), which relates to either a fundamental economic practice or
managing interactions between people. Both fundamental economic
practices and managing interactions between people are examples of certain
methods of organizing human activity, which is an enumerated category of
abstract ideas. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus,
independent claim 1, as well as the corresponding dependent claims, recite
an abstract idea. While Appellant's argument that the claims recite
additional elements that relate to implementation and use of a sparse tree for
locating database records regarding travel inventory notwithstanding, the
claims also recite certain methods of organizing human activity, which are
abstract ideas.
Because we conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea, we tum to
prong two of the first step of the Alice analysis. As described in the Revised
Guidance, we must evaluate "whether the claim as a whole integrates the
recited [abstract idea] into a practical application of the [abstract idea]." 5
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(a). Thus, we have not considered the arguments in
Appellant's Supplemental Reply Brief.
5 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Revised Guidance). Solely for
8
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. A claim that integrates an abstract
idea into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial
exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea,
such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
abstract idea. See id. When the exception is so integrated, then the claims is
not directed to an abstract idea. See id.
Claim 1, in part, recites: (a) "generating, in a memory, a sparse tree
data structure enabling selective traversal of records within the fare
database"; (b) "initializing, in the memory, a priority queue for storing one
or more query results"; ( c) when a cost of a node "of the sparse tree data
structure is less than or equal to a revisable lower bound," ( 1) "storing"
criteria and cost as "partial query result[s] in the priority queue," and (2)
"appending" nodes to "the sparse tree in the memory"; and ( d) "deferring
processing of at least one additional node of the sparse tree data structure ...
when a lowest cost indicated by records of the fare database ... is greater
than the revisable lower bound" and "not appending child nodes to the at
least one additional node as long as the lowest cost indicated by records of
the fare database ... is greater than the revisable lower bound." As such
claim 1 recites the implementation and use of a specific data structure (i.e., a
"sparse tree") for locating database records regarding travel inventory. See
App. Br. 12.
When viewed as a whole in light of Appellant's Specification, claim 1
recites a specific implementation of a "branch and bound" class of
purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate
it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Revised Guidance). See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55.
9
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
algorithms, which improves a computer's ability to retrieve relevant
information by identifying sub-optimal groups of potential search results
without requiring that individual search results from within those sub-
optimal groups be examined. See App. Br. 13 (citing Spec. ,r 71).
Additionally, when viewed as a whole in light of Appellant's Specification,
claim 1 recites the selective traversal of the sparse tree data structure and the
identification of sub-optimal results without explicitly enumerating those
results, which results in increased computational efficiency. See App. Br. 13
(citing Spec. ,r,r 64, 69-72). Accordingly, we conclude claim 1 recites
additional elements that impose meaningful limits that integrate the
aforementioned abstract idea (i.e., determining optimal travel fares for a
query) into a practical application (i.e., implementation and use of a sparse
tree data structure for locating database records regarding travel inventory),
such that independent claim 1, as well as the corresponding dependent
claims, are not directed to the aforementioned abstract idea.
We have considered the Examiner's finding that the present claims are
similar to the claims in Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America,
Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (see Ans. 4---6), but we reach the
opposite conclusion. In Versata, the Federal Circuit held that the claims at
issue were directed to the abstract idea of determining a price using
organization and product group hierarchies, where the organizational and
product group hierarchies had no particular concrete or tangible form or
application. See Versata, 793 F.3d at 1333-34. However, the present claims
recite more than "organization and product group hierarchies." As
previously discussed, claim 1 recites a specific sparse tree data structure and
specifically recites an algorithm that performs a selective traversal of the
10
Appeal 2017-011365
Application 12/470,442
sparse tree data structure and an identification of sub-optimal results without
explicitly enumerating those results. Thus, unlike the claims at issue in
Versata, the present claims recite a specific technical solution that provides
an improvement to the underlying computer-related technology.
Because we conclude that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application, and thus, are not directed to an abstract idea, we do not
need to proceed to the second step of Alice. Therefore, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in finding claims 1-2 and 4--11 recite patent-ineligible
subject matter. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-2 and 4--11 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
REVERSED
11