Ex Parte Czompo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 6, 2017

13309522 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 6, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/309,522 12/01/2011 Joseph CZOMPO Q110598U4vk 3700
73859 7590 09/08/2017
Silicon Valley Patent Group LLP
Attn: Client QCM
4010 Moorpark Avenue
Suite 210
San Jose, CA 95117
EXAMINER
BARBEE, MANUEL L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2864
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2017 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm_PAIR @ s vpatentgroup. com
B WYMAN @ S VP ATENTGROUP. COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSEPH CZOMPO, GUTTORM R. OPSHAUG,
ASHUTOSH JOSHI, and NING LUO
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,5221
Technology Center 2800
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BRIAN D. RANGE, and
JENNIFER R. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judges.
RANGE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
SUMMARY
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction. 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Specification describes the invention as relating to an apparatus
and method for providing an improved heading estimate of a mobile device.
Spec. 5—10. In particular, the described invention makes use of inertial
data for the device (i.e., measurements of acceleration) to determine whether
or not a device is mounted in a vehicle. Id. at 110. Claims 1 and 7,
reproduced below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method in a mobile device for detecting cradle rotation,
the method comprising:
determining a threshold based on a GNSS magnitude;
comparing an angular rotation rate to the threshold; and
determining a cradle rotation state based on the
comparison.
7. A mobile device to detect cradle rotation, the mobile device
comprising:
an inertial measurement unit comprising an accelerometer and a
gyroscope;
a Global Navigation Satellite Systems receiver (GNSS
receiver);
a processor coupled to the inertial measurement unit and the
GNSS receiver; and
memory coupled to the processor, comprising code for:
determining a threshold based on a GNSS magnitude of a
velocity;
2 In this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action dated May 26, 2015
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed January 29, 2016 (“Appeal Br.”), the
Examiner’s Answer dated June 15, 2016 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed
August 15, 2016 (“Reply Br.”).
2
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
comparing an angular rotation rate to the threshold; and
determining a cradle rotation state based on the
comparison.
Appeal Br. 23—25 (Claims App’x).
The patent application addressed in this decision is related to Patent
Application No. 13/309,519, addressed by our decision in Appeal 2016-
007041, and Patent Application No. 13/309,520, addressed by our decision
in Appeal 2016-007288.
REJECTION
On appeal, the Examiner maintains rejection of claims 1—20 as
unpatentable under 35U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 2; Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by the Appellants and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (“it has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After considering
the evidence presented in this Appeal and each of Appellants’ arguments, we
are not persuaded that Appellants identify reversible error. Thus, we affirm
the Examiner’s rejections for the reasons expressed in the Final Office
Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
Appellants do not present any substantively distinct arguments for
claims 2—19 except to address certain aspects of claim 7 separately. See,
e.g., Appeal Br. 6, 17—19. We therefore limit our discussion to claims 1 and
3
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
7. Claims 2—6 and 13—20 stand or fall with claim 1, and claims 8—12 stand
or fall with claim 7. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013).
The Examiner characterizes claim 1 as “directed to determining a
threshold and determining a cradle rotation based on a comparison.” Final
Act. 2. The Examiner states that claim 7 recites a mobile device but this
“only generally links the abstract idea to a technological environment.” Id.
The Examiner determines that claim 1 and claim 7’s recitations “use
numerical values to make determinations and for comparisons and are
abstract ideas.” Id. The Examiner explains that these claims recite elements
“that are mathematical relationships or formulas” and the mathematical
formula is an abstract idea. Ans. 3, 4.
The Examiner does not dispute that claims 1 and 7 are directed to a
statutory category. Ans. 2. Thus, the issue at hand is whether claims 1 and
7 are directed to an abstract idea, and we apply the two part Alice
framework. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLSBankInt’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355
(2014). The first step of that framework is to “determine whether the claims
at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. (citation
omitted). If so, the second step is to consider the elements of the claims
“individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine whether the
additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Id. In other words, the second step is to “search for an
‘inventive concept’—i.e., an 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.’” Id. (alteration in original)
(citation and internal quotes omitted).
4
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
The Court acknowledged in Mayo, that “all inventions at some level
embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena,
or abstract ideas.” Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
132 S. Ct. 1289, 1293 (2012). We therefore look to whether the claims
focus on a specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea while
merely invoking generic processes and machinery. See Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). We emphasize that
the Section 101 analysis must focus on the particular patent claims at issue
rather than exclusively focusing, for example, on teachings or embodiments
of the Specification are not recited in the claims at issue. See, e.g., Alice
Corp. Pty. Ltd., 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (holding that first step is determination
“of whether claims at issue” are patent eligible) (citation omitted); Enfish,
822 F.3dd at 1337 (holding claims patent eligible where “claims” were
“specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database” and
were “directed to an improvement of existing technlogy”) (emphasis
omitted); cf. KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)
(holding that, in assessing obviousness, “[w]hat matters is the objective
reach of the claim”).
Here, the Examiner correctly applied step one of the Alice analysis in
determining that claims 1 and 7 are directed to mathematical relationships or
formulas. The recited method of claim 1 receives a GNSS (Global
Navigation Satellite System, see Spec. 1 5) magnitude and an angular
rotation rate as inputs. Ans. 2-4. A threshold is calculated and compared to
the angular rotation rate. Based on the comparison, a cradle rotation state is
determined. Notably, the claim does not recite any use of the calculated
5
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
state and does not recite that the calculated state is output to anywhere.
Rather, claim 1 takes two numbers as input, performs a calculation, and does
nothing with the calculation.
Claim 7 recites a device rather than a method. Appeal Br. 24—25
(claims app’x). It recites the physical components for receiving or
measuring the GNSS magnitude and angular rotation rate and a memory
with “code for” making the calculations discussed above. Much like
claim 1, claim 7’s apparatus determines a cradle rotation state and ends
there. The Examiner states that both claim 1 and claim 7 are “directed to
determining a threshold based on a GNSS magnitude, comparing an angular
oration rate to the threshold; and determining a cradle rotation state based on
the comparison” (Ans. 3), and Appellants present no persuasive argument to
the contrary. We thus agree with the Examiner that math presented by
claims 1 and 7 is an abstract idea under prong one of the Alice analysis.
Turning to the second step of the Alice framework, Appellants assert
that, even if the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims are
nonetheless directed to patent-eligible subject matter because the claims
include elements that “amount to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.” Appeal Br. 15 (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355).
With respect to claim 1, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does
not recite any elements other than the abstract idea. Claim 1 is directed to
pure math; numbers are received and calculations are made. Nothing in
claim 1 adds “significantly more” to the abstract idea itself.
With respect to claim 7, the Examiner finds that the claim merely
recites “well-understood, routine and conventional” data gathering elements
6
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
along with generic computer components and the mobile device. Appellants
do not persuasively dispute the Examiner’s finding regarding these hardware
aspects being known and generic. The Supreme Court has held that “generic
computer implementation” fails to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2357. Likewise, our reviewing court
has held that generic and well-known devices for inputting data into a
computer do not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
See, e.g., Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat.
Ass ’n, 776, F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that use of generic
computer and scanner did not make claim patent eligible); compare with
Thales Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1348—1349 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (holding that claims “directed to systems and methods that use inertial
sensors in a non-conventional manner to reduce errors in measuring the
relative position and orientation of a moving object on a moving reference
frame” were patent eligible) (emphasis added). We thus agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 4—5) that the claim 7 as a whole, including recitation of
generic input and computer components, does not amount to “significantly
more” that would render claim 7 patent eligible.
Importantly, both claims 1 and 7 are distinguishable from claims that
our reviewing court has previously found patent eligible. Here, claims 1 and
7 do not declare, report, or output the “cradle rotation state.” Because
claims do not use the cradle rotation state for any concrete purpose, the
calculation of the cradle rotation state does not improve the mobile device or
its location reporting in any way. In other words, the end result of claims 1
and 7 is purely an abstract result held in computer memory, and there is no
aspect of these claims that results in a technological improvement.
7
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
In contrast, DDR, Enfish, and similar decisions held that claims were
eligible where the claimed invention provided a technological improvement.
See DDR Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (holding that claims reciting computer processor for serving
“composite web page” were patent eligible because “the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks”); Enfish, 822 F.3d at
1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims directed to self-referential table
for computer database were patent eligible because claims were directed to
an improvement in the functioning of a computer); Visual Memory LLC v.
NVIDIA Corp.,___ F.3d____, 2017 WL 3481288, *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 15,
2017) (holding that claims directed to “an improved computer memory
system” having many benefits were patent eligible).
The claims at issue in our prior decisions related to the patent
application at issue also stand in contrast to the claims at issue here. In
Appeal 2016-007041, we addressed, for example, a claim that recited
“declaring, by the mobile device, the mobile device is unmounted based on
the variance being greater than the threshold.” Ex parte Czompo, Appeal
2016-007041, slip op. at 2 (PTAB Aug. 8, 2017). In Appeal 2016-007288,
we addressed, for example, a claim that recited “form[ing] an improved
heading” and “correcting the [virtual] gyroscope with a bias based on the
improved heading.” Ex parte Czompo, Appeal 2016-007288, slip. op. at 2.
These claims recited an output that, based on the record before us in those
decisions, appears to overcome a problem arising in the realm of location
devices and improve the technology at issue. In each decision, we thus
8
Appeal 2016-007790
Application 13/309,522
reversed where the Examiner did not adequately explain how these claims
would not be patent eligible under, for example, the reasoning of DDR.
In sum, Appellants arguments here do not establish that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 as patent ineligible because that claim begins and
ends with pure math. Similarly, Appellants do not establish error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 because that claim begins with generic input
devices, uses generic computer components, and ends with a purely
mathematical result. Neither claim provides an output that results in a
technological improvement, and neither claim recites significantly more than
an abstract idea.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1—20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9