Ex Parte Chou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 23, 2018

12540031 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/540,031 08/12/2009
97066 7590 10/25/2018
Innovation Capital Law Group, LLP
19800 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite 270
Irvine, CA 92612
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Y. Hong Chou
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.
DALl.PAU.02 1466
EXAMINER
GILLS, KURTIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2018 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):
processing@icaplaw.com
vlin@icaplaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y. HONG CHOU, TOM F ARMAKIS, and
THOMAS R. KNOWLES
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031 1
Technology Center 3600
Before JENNIFER S. BISK, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BISK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 2
Appellants, listed above, seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of
the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--43. We have jurisdiction under 25
U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as DAL Global Services, LLC.
App. Br. 4.
2 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Specification filed
August 12, 2009 ("Spec."), the Final Rejection mailed November 2, 2015
("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief filed March 24, 2016 ("App. Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed September 23, 2016 ("Ans."), and the Reply
Brief filed November 21, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates "to real-time travel service management
and dispatch systems." Spec. ,r 1. For example, coordinating services for
aircraft between flights. Id. ,r 2.
Claim 36 is illustrative:
36. A computer program product, comprising a non-
transitory computer usable medium including a computer
readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a
method for providing management and dispatching aircraft
services, said method comprising:
controlling data flow and processing, employing a
controller processor, of management and dispatch operations;
storing organizing retrieving, and distributing management and
dispatch data using a database server;
accessing dispatch functions and management functions
employing a workstation;
receiving and transmitting dispatch information over a local
wireless communication network using a wireless handheld device;
receiving an availability alert from a service crew member and
transmitting a current status based on the availability alert from the
service crew member; and,
analyzing incoming GPS information from the handheld device
and comparing the GPS information against an exact location to
validate GPS information by a location validation module;
wherein real-time information is transmitted between the
controller processor, the work station, and the handheld device.
2
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1--43 under U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 15-18.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9-36, and 40 3 under§ I03(a) as
being obvious over Emond (US 2007/0049292 Al; Mar. 1, 2007) and
Baiada (US 6,721,714 Bl; Apr. 13, 2004). Final Act. 18-30.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 37-39 and 41--43 under§ I03(a) as
being obvious over Emond, Baiada, and Chou (US 2005/0197848 Al; Sept.
8, 2005). Final Act. 30-33.
ANALYSIS
THE§ 101 REJECTION
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. For the following reasons, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection.
For purposes of the§ 101 rejection, Appellants argue all the claims as
a group, focusing on the limitations of claims 1, 25, 36, and 40 only. See
Appeal Br. 12-20. We select claim 36 as representative. Claims 1-35 and
37--43 stand or fall with claim 36. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Legal Framework
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under§ 101, we apply
the Supreme Court's two-step test articulated in Alice Corp. Proprietary Ltd.
3 For purposes of the§ 103 rejections, claim 8 is objected to as being
dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). First, we determine
whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas. Id. at 2354--55. If so, we then
proceed to the second step and examine the claim's elements-both
individually and as an ordered combination-to determine whether the claim
contains an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract
idea into a patent-eligible application. Id. at 2357.
The Federal Circuit has described the Alice step-one inquiry as
looking at the "focus" of the claims, their "character as a whole," and the
Alice step-two inquiry as looking more precisely at what the claim elements
add-whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application of the
ineligible matter to which the claim is directed. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents
Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Alice Step One
The Examiner concludes that the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea, "specifically the abstract idea of 'an idea of itself involving
service management and dispatch." Final Act. 13, 15-16. The Examiner
compares the claims to those at issue in Cyberfone, stating that the claims
simply organize and compare data, which can be performed mentally. Id. at
16 (citing Cybeifone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 F. App'x
988 (Fed. Cir. 2016)); Ans. 13.
Appellants contend that "the claims are not directed to "an idea of
itself' because they "cannot be mentally or manually executed" at least for
the reason that they involve a GPS enabled handheld device. App.
4
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
Br. 13-14; Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants also contend the claims are
necessarily rooted in computer technology "to overcome a problem
specifically arising in real-time management and dispatch systems and
methods" and require "a database server" and "real-time information
transmission" between devices. App. Br. 16-17 (citing Spec. ,r,r 23, 28);
Reply Br. 5.
We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2) that claims 1--43 are all
directed to an abstract idea in the field of service management and dispatch.
Specifically, the claims are directed to managing and dispatching services by
receiving, analyzing, and transmitting data on location and availability of
service crew. Our reviewing court has found similar methods to be abstract
ideas. In particular, we find the claims similar to those found to be directed
to an abstract idea in Electric Power, which did "not go beyond requiring the
collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular field,
stating those functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical
means for performing the functions that are arguably an advance over
conventional computer and network technology." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1351. "[W]e have treated collecting information, including when limited to
particular content (which does not change its character as information), as
within the realm of abstract ideas." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (citations
omitted); see also Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC.,
874 F.3d 1329, 1337-38 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding claims directed to the
functional results of accumulating, converting, and monitoring records
manipulate data "but fail[] to do so in a non-abstract way"); Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n., 776 F.3d
1343, 1345, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding the "claims generally recite.
5
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
.. extracting data ... [ and] recognizing specific information from the
extracted data" and that the "claims are drawn to the basic concept of data
recognition").
For purposes of this step in the Alice analysis, the claimed GPS
enabled handheld device, similar to the scanner in Content Extraction and
the telephone unit and server in TL! Communications, merely provide a
generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea. Content
Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; In re TL! Commc 'ns LLD Patent Litig., 823
F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, the claims do not purport to
improve the functionality of either a database server or the transmission of
data between devices. Instead, the benefits of the claims flow from
performing the abstract idea in conjunction with well-known database
structure and functionality and in using the generic features provided by
computer devices and networks to transmit information. See BSG Tech LLC
v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding
unpatentable claims directed to indexing information stored in databases and
explaining that the claimed benefits of the claims "are not to improvement to
database functionality," but instead "flow from performing an abstract idea
in conjunction with a well-known database structure").
Alice Step Two
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we proceed to step
two to determine whether the claims include additional limitations that
individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to
"significantly more" than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. For
example, we look at whether the claims focus on a specific means or method
that improves the relevant technology or instead are directed to a result or
6
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
effect that, itself, is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes
and machinery. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
The Examiner concludes the claimed elements, either individually or
as an ordered combination, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea
such that the claimed invention is rendered patent-eligible. Final
Act. 16-17. The Examiner adds that "the location validation limitation is at
most a computer implemented algorithm for comparing one GPS set of
categorized data against an exact location set of categorized data" and "is
modified by using generic processing devices and memory media that
provides receiving and transmission and validation which is nothing more
than a purely conventional computerized implementation of Applicant[s']
algorithm." Ans. 4--5.
Appellants argue the claims recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the identified abstract idea. App. Br. 17-20; Reply
Br. 6-8. According to Appellants, "the location validation module ... is
neither a routine nor a well-known system and function, as it solves
important problems facing airline dispatch and management systems." App.
Br. 17. Appellants add "[t]he use of a GPS device to interact with service
crew members for availability alerts and current status are not routine and
conventional functions." Id. at 18.
We agree with the Examiner that "the claimed solution is directed to
service and dispatch management which stands outside the realm of
computer technology." Ans. 3. We do not find Appellants' reliance on
Enfish persuasive. See Reply Br. 6-8 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1327).
Enfzsh 's claims were directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer
database" which provide a "self-referential table." Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1330.
7
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
We find Appellants' claims are more similar to those in Electric Power than
those in Enfzsh. The claims in Electric Power were directed to "detecting
events on an interconnected electric power grid in real time over a wide area
and automatically analyzing the events on the interconnected electric power
grid." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351. Although the Electric Power claims
received and analyzed data from various devices, including "EMS/SCADA
systems," the Federal Circuit determined that, unlike Enfish, "the focus of
the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on
certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools." Id.
at 1354. Like the claims in Electric Power, the claims here receive and
analyze data from GPS enabled handheld devices. They do not "require a
new source or type of information, or new techniques for analyzing it" or
"require an arguably inventive set of components or methods, such as
measurement devices or techniques, that would generate new data." Id.
at 13 5 5. Instead of invoking "any assertedly inventive programming," the
claims here "[ m ]erely require[ e] the selection and manipulation of
information" to make certain services more efficient. Id. As in Electric
Power, this manipulation of data "by itself does not transform the otherwise-
abstract processes of information collection and analysis." Id.
Moreover, notwithstanding Appellants' contention that the claimed
invention "solves important problems facing airline dispatch and
management systems" and "when taken as an ordered combination, provide
unconventional steps that confine the abstract idea to a particular useful
application" (App. Br. 17-18), the analysis of Alice's step two is not an
evaluation of novelty or nonobviousness, but rather, a search for "an element
or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the patent in
8
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself."' Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 23 5 5 ( quoting 1\;f ayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Lab., 132 S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)). The question in
the second step is not whether the claimed invention is novel, but rather
whether the implementation of the abstract idea involves "more than
performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities
previously knovv'Il to the industry.~~, Content, 776 F,3d at 1347----48 (quoting
·11· 114S-, (-,. 2·1~9-) /1 lee, _ ·· .__. /L at _ ) ..
Consequently, even ifwe were to agree with Appellants that the claim
recites a particularly novel and useful method for airline dispatch and
management, never before implemented on computers, the Examiner
determines, and Appellants do not persuasively refute, that the computer
implementation of the claimed methodology requires only computer
equipment and functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional,
such as storing, receiving, processing, and displaying data. Final
Act. 16-17; Ans. 3-5; see, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the claims recite
both a generic computer element-a processor-and a series of generic
computer 'components' that merely restate their individual functions-i.e.,
organizing, mapping, identifying, defining, detecting, and modifying.");
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
( quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357) ("Instead, the claimed sequence of steps
comprises only 'conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,'
which is insufficient to supply an 'inventive concept."'); buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding computer-
9
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
implemented system for guaranteeing performance of an online transaction
to be ineligible).
That the Specification emphasizes integrating available systems and
using standard equipment to implement the claimed invention only bolsters
the notion that the claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in
computer technology itself, but rather focuses on an abstract idea that is
implemented using standard computer equipment and functionality as tools.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r 57 ("As is known to those skilled in the art, the
aforementioned example architectures described above, according to the
present invention, can be implemented in many ways, such as program
instructions for execution by a processor, as software modules, microcode,
as computer program product on computer readable media, as logic circuits,
as application specific integrated circuits, as firmware, etc.")), ,r 59 ("[W]ell-
known equivalent components and elements may be substituted in place of
those described herein, and similarly, well-known equivalent techniques
may be substituted in place of the particular techniques disclosed."). The
claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the GPS
enabled handheld devices, the method with a database server performs data
management, or the process of transmitting or receiving data. Nor do they
effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. "At best,
the claims describe the automation of the [ abstract idea] through the use of
generic-computer functions." OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). That is not enough to transform an
abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360.
We do not find Appellants' reliance on Bascom persuasive. Reply
Br. 7 (citing BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
10
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). In BASCOM, the claims were generally
directed to filtering content. 827 F.3d at 1348. Although the Court
determined the claims recited generic computer, network, and Internet
components that were not inventive by themselves, the Court found the
ordered combination of the limitations provided the requisite inventive
concept. Id. at 1349-1350 ("[A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces").
There, the patent extensively claimed and explained how a particular
arrangement of elements was "a technical improvement over prior art ways
of filtering such content." Id. at 1350 ("According to BASCOM, the
inventive concept harnesses this technical feature of network technology in a
filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering
scheme and elements while locating the filtering system on an ISP server.").
Here, other than providing general conclusory statements, Appellants do not
persuasively explain how the claims are similar to those in BASCOM.
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants' contention that the claims are
patentable because they do "not pre-empt all service management and
dispatch, but only a particular, practical application of service management
and dispatch." Reply Br. 7. Where, as here, the claims cover a patent-
ineligible concept, preemption concerns "are fully addressed and made
moot" by an analysis under the Alice framework. See Ariosa, 788 F .3d
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The Examiner's point in this regard is well
taken. See Ans. 13.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, then, the recited elements----considered
both individually and as an ordered combination----do not contain an
11
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
"inventive concept" sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a
patent-eligible application. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 25, 36, and 40.
We also sustain the Examiner's ineligibility rejection of dependent
claims 2-24, 26-35, 37-39, and 41--43. See Final Act. 15-17. Appellants'
contention that the dependent claims are eligible for the same reasons that
the independent claims are eligible (see Appeal Br. 12-20) is unavailing for
the reasons previously discussed. The dependent claims call for similar
generic components, devices, and functions as the independent claims.
Appellant has not argued that the additional limitations added by these
claims require any non-conventional components, devices, or functions.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1--4 3 under § 101.
THE § 103 REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7, 9-36, and 40
Appellants direct their arguments to the limitations of independent
claims 1, 25, 36, and 40. See App. Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 8-10.
"database server" and "workstation "4
Appellants argue that Emond does not teach or suggest the claimed
database server or workstation. Appeal Br. 21; Reply Br. 8-9. In response,
the Examiner explains that Emond's LBS system comprises various
components, including "client and base system databases, and client and
base system workstations configured to access the database servers for
4 Claim 40 recites a database server, but does not recite a workstation.
12
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
ultimately distributing management and dispatch data." Ans. 6-7 (citing
Emond (54), Figs. 3, 7, ,r,r 38, 39, 66).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 6-7) that a person of ordinary skill
would understand at least Emond's LBS platform discloses the claimed
workstation. Emond ,r 39 ("The LBS platform 104 comprehensively refers
to, and includes, an application server 127 that provides the location based
services to the mobile clients 102."). We also agree with the Examiner
(Ans. 6-7) that at least Emond's data storage means 160 discloses the
claimed database server. Emond Fig. 7, ,r 66 ("The LBS platform 104 may
also comprise data storage means 160. ").
"location validation module" for "comparing the
GPS information against an exact location"
Appellants argue Emond does not teach the claimed location
validation module. Appeal Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 9. According to
Appellants, Emond uses A-GPS technology with a fixed GPS receiver to
"more accurately obtain GPS location data," and"[ w ]hile the fixed GPS
receiver of Emond may be disposed at a fixed location that may be known,
the GPS location determination of this fixed GPS receiver may be subject to
error and, thus, does not provide an 'exact location' as claimed." App.
Br. 22. In response, the Examiner explains that Emond's "fixed GPS
receiver provides the exact location information to validate the mobile GPS
data." Ans. 7 (citing Emond ,r,r 10, 38, 72).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7) that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claimed "exact location" includes the location of a fixed
GPS receiver as disclosed by Emond. When describing one embodiment of
the invention, the Specification uses the term "exact location" to refer to the
13
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
position of a gate location. Spec. ,r 45 ("[T]he Position Validation utility
compares the GPS position against the exact location of the assigned gate.").
Appellants do not point to anything in the Specification, however, limiting
how that position is defined or excluding the use of a fixed GPS receiver for
determining that position.
"receiving an availability alert from a service crew member "5
Appellants argue Baiada does not teach or suggest "receiving an
availability alert from a service crew member." App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 9.
According to Appellants, instead of disclosing receiving an alert, Baiada
"clearly involves communications to the support personnel." App. Br. 23.
In response, the Examiner explains that "Baiada illustrates that labor
resources" are "among the various types of data for transmitting a current
status based on availability considerations" and that Baiada "teaches
availability alerts [and] real-time information transmission." Ans. 7-8
(citing Baiada, 13:64---67, 17:40-46).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 7-8) that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would understand that Baiada's emphasis on labor resources and
real-time transmission of current status suggests receiving availability alerts
from a crew member. Baiada, 13:64---67, 17:40-46. Further, such artisan
would find it obvious to incorporate this suggestion into Emond's system.
Secondary Considerations
Appellants submit two 37 C.F.R. § 1.132 declarations that purport to
show "commercial success of the resulting product derived from the claimed
5 Claim 40 recites a similar limitation, "receiving an availability alert from
the dispatched service crew member."
14
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
invention." App. Br. 24--26; Reply Br. 10. Appellants assert that "there
should be no question that what was sold was within the scope of the
claims." App. Br. 24. Appellants, however, do not explain this assertion or
point to evidence supporting this conclusion.
In addition, the Examiner explains that neither declaration sets forth
facts that are supported by evidence, but instead include bare opinion "not
relevant to the issue of nonobviousness of the claimed subject matter." Ans.
8-9. Y. Hong Chou's opinion, for example, simply affirms that the claimed
subject matter functions as intended, which is irrelevant to obviousness. Id.
at 8. Tom Farmakis's declaration opines that "it is unlikely" that DAL
Global Services would have achieved $117 million in sales without the
described services. Id. at 8-9. Not only is the $117 million in sales not
given any context, such as what percentage of the market this dollar amount
represents, this testimony does not directly link those sales to the invention. 6
6 While a prima facie case for obviousness may be rebutted by evidence
showing secondary considerations such as commercial success as alleged by
Appellants, such arguments must be supported by evidence on the record
which demonstrates a nexus between the purported commercial success and
the claimed invention. See Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (noting that fact finders must
ascertain whether a nexus connects commercial success to a claimed
invention and determine the probative value of secondary-considerations
evidence for rebutting a prima facie case of obviousness); Demaco Corp. v.
F. Von Langsdorff Licensing Ltd., 851 F.2d 1387, 1391-94 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(noting that secondary-considerations evidence must be considered despite a
strong case for obviousness based on prior art, and laying out an
"evidentiary routine" where a patentee must establish a prima facie case of a
nexus between commercial success and the claimed invention); Simmons
Fastener Corp. v. Ill. Tool Works, Inc., 739 F.2d 1573, 1575 (Fed.
Cir. 1984) (explaining that the weight accorded to secondary-considerations
evidence depends on a demonstration of"[ a] nexus between the merits of the
15
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8-9) that Appellants'
declarations do not show commercial success attributable to the claimed
subject matter and, therefore, do not outweigh the strong evidence of
obviousness discussed above.
Conclusion
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of any error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claims 1, 25, 36, and 40. Appellants do not argue
claims 2-7, 9-24, and 25-35 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 20-
27; Reply Br. 8-10. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed with respect to
independent claims 1, 25, 36, and 40, Appellants' arguments are not
persuasive of any error in the Examiner's determination.
Claims 37-39 and 41-43
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection, based on the
combination of Emond, Baiada, and Chou, of dependent claims 37-39 and
41--43. Final Act. 30-33.
Appellants argue Chou does not teach or suggest "wherein the exact
location comprises an exact location of an assigned gate" as recited by
claims 37-39. App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 10. According to Appellants,
Chou instead discloses "providing a location of an agent, for example, as
'close to gate 10' instead of the typical GPS longitude and latitude
coordinates." App. Br. 26. In response, the Examiner explains that "Chou
teaches a real-time expression of location information including specific gate
claimed invention and the evidence of secondary considerations").
However, we further note evidence of commercial success without proof that
sales are the direct result of unique characteristics of the invention does not
demonstrate nonobviousness. In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1384 (Fed.
Cir. 2008).
16
Appeal2017-001923
Application 12/540,031
location that may be displayed on at least a handheld device." Ans. 9-10
(citing Chou ,r,r 28, 46). We agree with the Examiner. Chou ,r 28
("[P]ositions of agents and customers are expressed in meaningful location
terms, such as a specific gate."); ,r 46 ("The assignment of any deal to one or
more agents takes into consideration the current location of the active agents
... [t]he location may include terminal, gate, facility, walkway, as well as
any location that can be displayed on a map layout.").
Appellants do not argue claims 41--43 separately with particularity.
App. Br. 26-27; Reply Br. 10. Thus, for the same reasons as discussed with
respect to independent claims 1, 25, 36, and 40, Appellants' arguments are
not persuasive of any error in the Examiner's determination.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--43.
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
17