Ex Parte Gauthier

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2018

14808680 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/808,680 07/24/2015
39500 7590 04/03/2018
Anglehart et al.
1939 de Maisonneuve Ouest
Montreal, QC H3H 1K3
CANADA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andre GAUTHIER
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.
Pl444US01 5309
EXAMINER
GUILIANO, CHARLES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/03/2018 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):
jam es. anglehart@anglehart.et-al.ca
martine@anglehart.et-al.ca
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDRE GAUTHIER
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808, 680 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 The Appellant identifies "9131-7198 QUEBEC INC." as the real party in
interest and assignee. Appeal Br. 2. We further note that "Agendrix" is the
assignee of record, recorded on April 24, 2017, at Reel 042123, Frame 0591.
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808,680
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer calendar system comprising:
an account manager module implemented in
software and stored in memory for executing by a
processor configured to create and modify user accounts
and organization accounts;
one or more data stores for storing user data and
for storing organization data;
a connection manager module implemented in
software and stored in memory for executing by a
processor configured to join and to sever user accounts
from organization accounts;
an availability manager module implemented in
software and stored in memory for executing by a
processor configured to accept user input to define a state
of availability data of a user to participate in an event
differently for different organizations; and
a scheduling manager module implemented in
software and stored in memory for executing by a
processor configured to control access to availability
information by presenting to an organization data
representing the availabilities of users specifically for
that organization, and to accept input from an
organization to book available users in accordance with
schedules.
CITED REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Conmy et al. US 7 ,082,402 B2
(hereinafter "Conmy")
Doss et al. US 2008/0021760 Al
(hereinafter "Doss")
Schwarz
Putterman et al.
(hereinafter "Putterman")
US 2012/0316911 Al
US 2014/0200940 Al
2
July 25, 2006
Jan.24,2008
Dec. 13, 2012
July 17, 2014
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808,680
REJECTIONS 2
I. Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-25 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as ineligible subject matter. 4
II. Claims 1, 4--7, 10-13, 15, 17-21, 24, and 25 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Conmy and Schwarz. 5
III. Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Conmy, Schwarz, and Doss.
IV. Claims 2, 3, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Conmy, Schwarz, and Putterman.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
2 In addition to the identified rejections, the Final Action (page 5) rejected
claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter that the
Applicant regards as the invention. This rejection is withdrawn. See
Answer 6.
3 The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is introduced as a new
ground of rejection in the Answer (pages 3--4).
4 We regard as inadvertent the inclusion of canceled claim 8, in the
paragraph introducing Rejection I (Final Action 6). See Appeal Br. 32.
5 The paragraph introducing Rejection II in the Final Action (page 8)
includes canceled claim 8 (see Appeal Br. 32), claims 9 and 16 (which are
addressed, instead, in Rejection III), and omits claim 25 - all of which we
regard as inadvertent. In addition, the Answer (page 5) introduces a new
ground of rejection for claim 25, based upon§ 103.
3
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808,680
ANALYSIS
Subject-Matter Eligibility
Applying the first step of the methodology delineated in Alice Corp.
Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014), the
rejection states that the claims at issue are directed to the abstract idea of
"scheduling based on conditions," which is characterized as a method of
organizing human activities. Final Action 6. Under the second Alice step,
the Examiner determines that the additional elements or combination of
elements in the claims other than the abstract idea amount to no more than a
mere instruction to implement the idea on a computer. Id.
Alleging error in the rejection, the Appellant- as to the first step of
the Alice analysis - argues that calendar "systems and other improved
electronic scheduling systems, [ ]though related to the abstract idea of
scheduling, are technological tools that perform real-world function," and
identifies several granted U.S. patents, in support of this proposition.
Appeal Br. 9-10. Yet, the Appellant's broad, hypothetical statement and
reference to issued patents - without any discussion or analysis of their
claims, in regard to the first Alice step - is not persuasive of error in the
rejection of the claims in the present Appeal. Moreover, the Appellant
acknowledges that certain issued patents in the field of computerized
calendars involve organizing human activities - the same species of
abstract idea that the rejection applies to the claims at issue here. Appeal Br.
12.
Further, although the Appellant contends that "the present claims
define a tool which, through novel organization and management of data,
provides new capabilities to its users" (id. at 10) and disputes the rejection's
4
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808,680
comparison of the claims to those in Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d
1315 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (id. at 11 ), the Appellant does not argue that the
identified abstract idea of "scheduling based on conditions," (Final Action 6)
fails to embrace the recited subject matter. Moreover, in the realm of
subject-matter eligibility jurisprudence, courts employ the expression
"method of organizing human activities" in a specialized manner, which
comports with the rejection in this Appeal. In particular, courts use "the
phrase 'methods of organizing human activity' to describe concepts relating
to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities, such as managing relationships
or transactions between people, social activities, and human behavior;
satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation; advertising, marketing, and sales
activities or behaviors; and managing human mental activity." MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(2)(II) (9th ed., Rev. 8i Jan. 2018) (collecting cases).
As to the second Alice step, the Appellant argues that independent
claims 1 and 24 contain features amounting to significantly more than the
identified abstract idea:
- the availability manager module is configured to accept user input to
define a state of availability data of a user to participate in an event
differently for different organizations; [and]
- a scheduling manager module is configured to control access to
availability information by presenting to an organization data
representing the availabilities of users specifically for that
organization, and to accept input from an organization to book
available users in accordance with schedules.
Appeal Br. 13. However, we agree with the Examiner's determination
(Answer 9-10, 11-14) that such features - as well as features addressed by
the Appellant with respect to dependent claims 19 and 20 (see Appeal Br. at
5
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808,680
14--15) - are no more than conventional and routine features applied in a
generic computing environment.
Therefore, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejection of the claims
addressed by the Appellant, such that we sustain the rejection of 1-7, 9-13,
and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Obviousness
The Appellant argues that independent claim 1 was rejected
erroneously, because the cited prior art does not teach or suggest the recited
"connection manager module ... configured to join and to sever user
accounts from organization accounts." Appeal Br. 20-22; Reply Br. 9-10.
According to the rejection, Conmy teaches this feature. Final Action
9 (citing Conmy, col. 4, Figs. 1-2); Answer 19 (citing Conmy, col. 4, 11. 1-
20, 40-45, col. 5, 11. 55---60, col. 6, 11. 12-15, col. 8, 11. 20-21, Fig. 3).
As the Appellant points out, the identified claim language of
"join[ing]," in consonance with the Specification, involves affiliating "user
accounts" with "organization accounts" in a manner that may involve
sharing availability information, whereas "sever[ing]" refers to ending such
an affiliation. See Reply Br. 10 (citing Spec. i-f 26). See also Spec. i-f 35
(referring to "disaffiliation" as a situation in which "a User Account 100
holder's affiliation with the organization is severed.")
By contrast, as the Appellant explains (Reply Br. 10), the portions of
Conmy cited in the rejection concern scheduling a user for an event- i.e.,
"book[ing] available users," in the language of claim 1 - rather than
"join[ing] and ... sever[ing] user accounts from organization accounts," as
claim 1 requires.
6
Appeal2018-000230
Application 14/808,680
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error in the rejection of independent
claim 1 - and, for similar reasons, independent claim 24 and dependent
claims 2-7, 9-13, 15-23, and 25 - such that we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-7, 9-13, and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-13, and
15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We REVERSE the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-13,
and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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
7