Ex Parte GETTINGS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 18, 2018

14263668 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/263,668 04/28/2014
116970 7590
Aurora Consulting LLC
P.O. Box 5542
Traverse City, MI 49696
07/20/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adam M. GETTINGS
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.
LEEONZOOlOl 6098
EXAMINER
WEISENFELD, ARYANE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/20/2018 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):
reporting@aurorapatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADAM M. GETTINGS,
EDDY Y. CHAN,
and ANDREW G. STEVENS
Appeal2017---000661
Application 14/263,668
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and
JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Adam M. Gettings, Eddy Y. Chan, And Andrew G. Stevens (Appellants)
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-8, 10-
16, and 18-22, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We
have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.,"
filed January 25, 2016) and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed August
12, 2016), and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed August 24, 2015).
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
The Appellants invented a property monitoring system for monitoring
property. Specification para. 14.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 7, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
7. A method for monitoring and valuing property at a first
location based on a detected environmental quality factor, the
method comprising:
[ 1] sensing an environmental quality factor at the first location,
wherein the sensing comprises sensing with a first
environmental sensor system,
and
wherein the first environmental sensor system comprises
at least one of a chemical sensor, a carbon dioxide
sensor, or a nitrogen sensor;
[2] retrieving from a first data storage system an estimated
market value for the property;
and
[3] calculating with a microprocessor a product value for the
property
by modifying the estimated market value based on the
environmental quality factor using a function
derived from a plot of pricing data and
environmental quality data,
wherein the microprocessor receives the environmental
quality factor from the first environmental sensor system,
the microprocessor receives the market value from the
first data storage system,
the environmental quality data is obtained from
environmental sensor systems at a plurality of locations,
and
2
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
the pricing data for property at the plurality of locations
is obtained from an inventory management or market
price tracking database.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Stroman et al. US 2008/0097809 Al Apr. 24, 2008
Frear, Making Soil and Crops Pay more, Copyright 1918
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as unpatentable over Stroman and Frear.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter tum primarily on whether the claims
recite more than abstract conceptual advice of what a computer is to provide
without implementation details.
The issues of obviousness tum primarily on whether the art describes or
otherwise shows to be predictable calculating a product value for the
property by modifying the estimated market value based on the data for the
environmental quality factor using a function derived from a plot of pricing
data and environmental quality data.
3
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of "plot."
02. The ordinary meaning of "plot" in the context of data analysis
is to represent graphically, or to locate (points or other figures) on
a graph, or to draw ( a curve) connecting points on a graph.
03. The ordinary meaning of "plot" as a noun in the context of data
analysis is a graph. 2 The plain meaning of a graph in the same
context is a diagram that exhibits a relationship, often functional,
between two sets of numbers as a set of points having coordinates
determined by the relationship. 3
Facts Related to Appellants' Disclosure
04. Assigning a commercial value to a location monitored by at
least one environmental sensor further can include computing a
commercial value using a function derived from a plot of pricing
data and environmental quality data. Spec. para. 23.
05. The assigning of the commercial value ... can include
computing a commercial value using a function derived from a
2 American Heritage Dictionary,
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=plot
3 American Heritage Dictionary,
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=graph
4
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
plot of product pricing data and environmental quality data, Spec.
para. 25.
06. The only support for the limitation "modifying the estimated
market value based on the environmental quality factor using a
function derived from a plot of pricing data and environmental
quality data" is in Specification paras. 23 and 25, each of which
only describes this result with no implementation details.
07. The remaining instances of the word "plot" refer to graphic
displays, not functions or data values. Spec. paras. 46, 57, and 68.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Stroman
08. Stroman is directed to managing livestock, such as cattle, from
conception to consumption. Stroman para. 2.
09. Stroman describes providing a user with a certification system
to differentiate animals by collecting certification information on
animals from conception to consumption. Collecting certification
information may allow users to participate in beef marketing
programs, which may increase the revenue potential of an animal.
Beef marketing programs may include branded beef programs or
any other marketing programs. The certification system may
assist a user in selecting a beef marketing program best suited to
the user's operation. Upon selecting a beef marketing program,
the user may be provided with the program's requirements and
may be instructed on how to meet the requirements. Upon
completion of a program, the user may receive a notification. The
5
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
notification may include a valuation or rating for the user's animal.
Stroman para. 15.
10. Stroman describes accessing market valuation information,
which may be located in the central database. Market valuation
information may be used to determine the environmental options
for the user. Environmental options may include converting dead
carcasses to animal feed, using x amount of manure on the user's
fields, etc. Market valuation information may be processed by, for
example, adaptive reasoning system 140 or any other knowledge-
based tool. Environmental management system 150 may access
other systems ( e.g., adaptive reasoning system 140, integrated risk
management system 125, etc.) to aid in identifying patterns,
trends, or causes, and recommending actions. Stroman para. 165.
11. Stroman describes the user being provided with environmental
options. The system may present the user with a list, checklist, or
any other suitable approach for providing environmental options.
The user may select one or more environmental options. In
response to the user selecting one or more environmental options,
the user may be provided with the steps needed to complete the
selected options. Such steps may include tests that may be
required at a predetermined time ( e.g., once a week, once a month,
periodically, etc.) for monitoring resources and the environment.
For example, the user may be instructed to periodically monitor
the quality of air, water, and soil on the premises and in the
surrounding areas. Such tests may depend on the user's region,
surrounding area, and the type of operation. Stroman para. 166.
6
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
Frear
12. Frear is directed to making soil and crops pay more. Frear
Title.
ANALYSIS
Initially, we must construe the word "plot" which is relied on in both the
arguments as to eligible subject matter and obviousness. The Specification
does not lexicographically define a plot. The plain meaning of plot as a
noun in the context of data analysis in the claims is a graph, which is a
diagram that exhibits a relationship, often functional, between two sets of
numbers as a set of points having coordinates determined by the
relationship. The only support for the claim limitation in each of the
independent claims of "using a function derived from a plot of pricing data
and environmental quality data" is from Specification paragraphs 23 and 25
which only repeat the limitation without further describing any
implementation. The remaining uses of the word "plot" in the Specification
are those of display, consistent with the plain meaning of the word. Thus, a
plot is a display (noun) of a diagram, and not the underlying data or analysis
thereof. The Specification does not suggest otherwise, and is consistent with
this usage.
Thus, we construe the phrase "using a function derived from a plot of
pricing data and environmental quality data" as "using a function derived
from a display of a diagram of the relationship between pricing data and
environmental quality data." Thus, to meet this limitation, one must derive a
7
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
function from the display (noun) of a diagram rather than ( or in addition to)
the underlying data and any analysis of the data itself.
Claims 1---8, 10-16, and 18-22 rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed
to the abstract idea of monitoring property at a first location.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the additional elements or combination of elements in
the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no
more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a
computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure
that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well
understood, routine, and conventional activities previously
known to the industry.
Final Act. 3.
We adopt the Examiner's determinations and analysis from Final Action
3-5 and Answer 2-13 and reach similar legal conclusions. In particular, we
are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that claims "are inextricably tied
to environmental sensing technology and the related technology used to
adjust property values based on a sensed environmental quality factor. Such
technology requires specialized hardware and software configured for a
particular and concrete purpose." Br. 8. Appellants do not claim to have
invented or improved such sensors, and the claims only recite using such
sensors for their ordinary purpose, viz. generating data inputs. The data is
then used only to compute some valuation, the epitome of abstraction as
discemable only to the human mind.
8
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
"When claims like the Asserted Claims are directed to an abstract idea
and merely require generic computer implementation, they do not move into
section 101 eligibility territory." Smart Systems Innovations, LLC v.
Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (2017) (citations and internal
quotations omitted).
Intellectual Ventures argues that the "interactive interface" is
a specific application of the abstract idea that provides an
inventive concept. But nowhere does Intellectual Ventures
assert that it invented an interactive interface that manages
web site content. Rather, the interactive interface limitation is
a generic computer element.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1370 (2015).
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims
must include an "inventive concept" in order to be patent-
eligible. No such inventive concept is present here. Instead,
the claims "add" only generic computer components such as an
"interface," "network," and "database." These generic
computer components do not satisfy the inventive concept
requirement.
Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Services Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1324--1325 (2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that
each claim, taken as a whole, amounts to something
significantly more than the abstract idea of monitoring property
at a first location. Moreover, the claims do not monopolize the
idea of monitoring property at a first location. Rather, the
claims are directed to systems and methods having a very
targeted application, specifically, the application of determining
a property valuation by sensing an environmental quality factor
at a first location/property with a first environmental sensor
system, retrieving from a first data storage system an estimated
9
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
market value for the property, and calculating with a
microprocessor a product value for the property by modifying
the estimated market value based on the data for the
environmental quality factor using a function derived from a
plot of pricing data and environmental quality data. Such
systems and methods are very specific applications of
monitoring property which are tied to, and result in,
improvements in another technological field-the field of
property valuation.
Br. 9. The arguments as to something significantly more and preemption
are conclusory with no underlying analysis other than reciting the claim
limitations. Those limitations themselves are abstract conceptual advice as
to what a computer is to produce devoid of implementation details. "Where
a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter
under the Mayo [/Alice] framework, as they are in this case, preemption
concerns are fully addressed and made moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
The claims as a whole are directed to monitoring and valuing property
by modifying one value based on some data from a sensor located at the
property. The data relied on is perceptible only in the human mind, and the
valuation output is the epitome of abstraction. Using a graph to derive some
relationship is an abstract mathematical concept. "If a claim is directed
essentially to a method of calculating, using a mathematical formula, even if
the solution is for a specific purpose, the claimed method is nonstatutory."
Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758
F.3d 1344, 1351 (2014) (citing Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595, (1978)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims are
similar to those in Research Corp. Technologies v. Microsoft Corp., 627
10
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Br. 9. First, Research Corp. Tech. predates
Alice. More to the point the claims in Research Corp. Tech. were directed to
rendering a halftone image. Id. at 868. This was a technical modification to
the manner of visual presentation rather than the creation of data perceptible
only to the human mind, as with the present claims' valuations.
Claims 1---8, 10-16, and 18-22 rejected under 35 US.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Stroman and Frear
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument that the art fails to describe
modifying the estimated market value based on the data for the
environmental quality factor using a function derived from a plot of pricing
data and environmental quality data. Br. 10. The Examiner cites Stroman
paras. 165 and 166. Final Act. 8; Ans. 14. These paragraphs describe
derivations by analysis of data, not of data plots as construed according to
the plain meaning of "plot" in light of the Specification. The Examiner
provides no articulation of reasoned rationale why one of ordinary skill
would rely on the plot of data as contrasted with the underlying data itself
for derivation analysis.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to non-statutory subject matter is proper.
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Stroman and Frear is improper.
11
Appeal2017-000661
Application 14/263,668
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-16, and 18-22 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
12