Ex Parte Griebeler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2018

13967971 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/967,971 08/15/2013 Jeffrey Griebeler
51444 7590 12/31/2018
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
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.
ORA130777 (0-497) 5143
EXAMINER
W AESCO, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/31/2018 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):
MPusti@KragLaw.com
PTOMail@KragLaw.com
DDay@KragLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY GRIEBELER and BRIAN CURRAN
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971 1
Technology Center 3600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-19, and 21-23. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Oracle International Corporation
as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to measuring customer experience value.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a computing system implementing a
customer relationship management system that manages
functionality for a website of an entity, Internet traffic data
indicating Internet communications for the website of the entity,
the Internet communications related to one or more actions by
the entity to increase interaction by customers with the website
of the entity, wherein the functionality of the website for the
entity includes Internet commerce functionality;
determining, by the computing system, a measure of
acquisition performance of the website for the entity based on a
summation of direct Internet traffic of the website, indirect
Internet traffic of the website, and unidentified Internet traffic of
the website, wherein the direct Internet traffic is based on the
Internet traffic data indicating Internet traffic to the website of
the entity as a result of a first action by the entity, wherein the
indirect Internet traffic is based on the Internet traffic data
indicating Internet traffic to the website of the entity as a result
of a second action by the entity to raise awareness of the entity,
and wherein the unidentified Internet traffic is based on the
Internet traffic data indicating Internet traffic to the website of
the entity by an unidentifiable source;
determining, by the computing system, a measure of
operational performance of the website for the entity based on a
summation of a measure of visitors to the website and a ratio
based on a measure of new visitors to the website and a measure
of repeat visitors to the website;
computing, by the computing system, a customer
acquisition value of the entity for the website, the customer
acquisition value based on a summation of the measure of
acquisition performance of the entity for the website and the
measure of operational performance of the entity for the website;
computing, by the computing system, a customer retention
value of the entity for the website, the customer retention value
2
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
based on a summation of a measure of average resolution time
for resolving a problem with the website and a measure of uptime
for customers accessing the website; and
computing, by the computing system, an operation
efficiency value of the entity, the operation efficiency value
based on a measure of content of the website that has been
accessed by one or more customers interacting with the website;
generating, by the computing system, based on customer
interaction with the entity, a customer experience value that
indicates a measure of customer experience of the entity for the
website, wherein the customer experience value is generated
based on a summation of the customer acquisition value, the
customer retention value, and the operation efficiency value;
generating, by the computing system, a graphical user
interface that indicates the customer experience value in relation
to a measure of customer satisfaction for the website; and
adjusting operation of the computing system for the
customer relationship management system, wherein the
operation of the computing system is adjusted to change the
Internet commerce functionality of the website in response to the
generated customer experience value, and wherein the adjusting
includes:
dynamically creating one or more webpages for the
website to cause the change in the Internet commerce
functionality of the website.
App. Br. 37-38 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
England
Galvin
Bhalla
Sarma
US 2012/0290399 Al
US 8,386,639 B 1
US 2013/0054306 Al
us 8,645,221
3
Nov. 15, 2012
Feb.26,2013
Feb.28,2013
Feb.4,2014
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
Dwyer, F. Robert, Customer Lifetime Valuation to Support Marketing
Decision Making, JOURNAL OF DIRECT MARKETING, vol. 11 no. 4, p. 6
(Fall 1997)
Analytics Basics: Unique Visitors, New vs. Returning Visitors, Click Z,
(May 23, 2018).
Jeff Haden, How to Dig Deeper in Your Web Analytics, Owner's Manuel
(March 5, 2012).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final
Act. 6-8.
Claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 8-13.
Claims 1, 4--11, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over England, Dwyer, Galvin, and Analytics
Basics. Final Act. 13-26.
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over England, Dwyer, Galvin, Analytics Basics, and DigDeeper. Final Act.
26-29.
Claim 18 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over England, Dwyer, Galvin, Analytics Basics, and
DigDeeper. Final Act. 29-31.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over England, Dwyer, Galvin, Analytics Basics, and Sarma. Final Act. 31-
32.
4
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining the limitation
"dynamically creating one or more webpages for the website to cause the
change in the Internet commerce functionality of the website," lacks support
in the Specification as originally filed?
Second Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining the claims lack
eligibility under the two-step Alice/Mayo inquiry?
Third Issue: Has the Examiner erred in determining England and
Dwyer teach or suggest the "adjusting" limitation recited in the independent
claims?
ANALYSIS
First Issue
The Examiner rejects the independent claims as lacking written
description with respect to the "adjusting" limitation. The Examiner finds
that, although the Specification describes an adjustment operation, it does
not specifically describe that the "adjustment" operation is in response to a
generated customer experience value. Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds
that the Specification does not describe any "internet commerce
functionality" nor does it provide any disclosure that the adjustment
operation is directed to any such functionality. Id. The Examiner explains:
Id.
In summary, although Claims 1, 11, and 19 have support for a
generated customer experience value, and creating one or more
webpages, it DOES NOT have support for creating one or more
webpages to cause change in the Internet functionality of the
website in response to the generated customer experience value.
5
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
Appellants contend the Examiner has erred because the recited
"adjusting," and all of its associated actions, are disclosed in the
Specification. App. Br. 11-16. Appellants identify paragraph 24 of the
Specification as supporting the element "adjust operation of the processor
for the customer relationship management system" because it states "when
the present invention is implemented in a CRM system, the CRM system
may be able to automatically adjust operation of other business functions
provided by the CRM system in response to the CXV. App. Br. 12 (quoting
Spec. ,r 24). Appellants further argue the Specification provides support for
"wherein the operation of the computing system is adjusted to change the
Internet commerce functionality of the website in response to the generated
customer experience value," because paragraph 35 of the Specification
"describes 'Internet and mobile commerce' as one of many services of that a
user of a CRM system (e.g., CRM system 310) according to the Invention
may be able to manage." App. Br. 13.
Appellants contend the limitation "wherein the adjusting includes
dynamically creating one or more webpages for the website to cause the
change in the Internet commerce functionality of the website" is supported
by paragraphs 24, 25, 27-29, 34, and 35. App. Br. 13. Appellants argue (1)
paragraph 35 describes using the CRM to manage services, (2) paragraph 27
describes those services include applications servers and web servers, (3)
paragraph 29 describes that an application server can create dynamic
webpages. Appellants argue that, taken together, these collective disclosures
support the limitation because "[ t ]he functionality described in the
Application for a CRM system that enables users with Internet and mobile
commerce functionality can thus be implemented with an application server,
6
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
which 'create webpages dynamically' to cause a change in the Internet
commerce functionality of a website." App. Br. 14. Finally, Appellants
argue that this modified functionality is "in response to the generated
customer experience value" because paragraph 39 describes the customer
experience value as being used to "enable an entity to improve a response to
customer's needs and preferences." App. Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by these arguments because the Specification
fails to demonstrate the Appellants possessed dynamic creation of web pages
in response to a generated customer experience value. Although the
Specification describes dynamic creation of web pages, and the
Specification also describes generating a customer experience value, nothing
in the Specification ties the dynamic generation of those web pages to the
customer experience value. There is only one detail regarding the specific
adjustments that are made in the system-that the adjustments may include
"operation of other business functions provided by the CRM system." Spec.
Appellants argue that the Specification makes clear that Internet
commerce is one of these "business functions." Reply Br. 2-3 (citing Spec.
,r 35). But even accepting this argument, the fact remains there is only a
single reference in the Specification to "dynamically" generating
webpages-the description in paragraph 29. Spec. ,r 29 ("In some
embodiments, an application server may create web pages dynamically for
displaying on an end-user ( client) system."). However, Appellants do not
identify, nor do we discern, any disclosure that the dynamically generated
web pages described in paragraph 29 of the Specification are generated "in
response to the generated customer experience value." Nothing in
7
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
paragraph 29 indicates why the dynamic creation of webpages occurs, nor is
there any disclosure of a scenario that causes such dynamic creation to take
place. Rather, the description in paragraph 29 is better characterized as a
general summary of the capabilities of the web functionality provided in
Appellants' system. The description of "dynamically creating one or more
webpages" description is untethered to the generation of a customer
experience value. As such, the various isolated disclosures relied upon by
Appellants are too attenuated to support the very specific causal and
functional relationships between the CRM, the Internet commerce
functionality, the dynamically generated webpages, and the customer
experience value, and we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
the claims for lack of written description.
Second Issue
The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to ineligible subject
matter under the Alice/Mayo inquiry. With respect to the first step, the
Examiner determines the claims are directed to a combination of abstract
ideas. More specifically, the Examiner determines the claim limitations are
directed to collecting information, analyzing information, and transmitting
the information in a way similar to Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Examiner also finds that the generation
of a customer experience value is a mathematical formula which also is an
abstract idea. Final Act. 8-1 O; Ans. 3--4. Applying the second step of
Alice/Mayo, the Examiner finds that the claims do not include additional
elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself because those additional elements are implemented using generic
8
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
computer components performing their basic functions of storing, retrieving,
sending, and processing data. Final Act. 11-12. The Examiner further finds
Appellants' Specification describes the use of general purpose computers,
and based on that description, "one would reasonably deduce the
aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic
components." Final Act. 12 ( citing Spec. ,r 27); Ans. 7-8.
Appellants argue the Examiner's analysis is flawed because "the
Examiner fails to clearly articulate a specific abstract idea ... [and]
identifies multiple concepts strung together as opposed to one clearly
identified abstract idea." App. Br. 19. Appellants argue the invention is
similar to that found eligible in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F .3d
1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellants further argue the claims are "not simply
1) comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options,
or 2) applying a Mathematical Relationship/Formulas as ratios, summations,
and values to analyze the data for transmission purposes." App. Br. 23.
Appellants contend the claims instead "determin[ e] a measure of customer
experience of an entity based on disparate measures including Internet
communications of a website of the entity and adjusting operation of a CRM
system for Internet commerce functionality of the website based on the
measure of customer experience." Id.; see also Reply Br. 5. Appellants
argue that this "unique 'combination' of steps in the claims for an 'inventive
concept."' Id. Appellants further contend the Examiner's analysis under the
second step is flawed because "the Examiner did not identify all of the
elements as being part of an abstract idea, and yet fails to consider those
elements as additional elements for purposes of the 'significantly more'
analysis." Reply Br. 6.
9
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
Although we agree with the Examiner that the claim is directed to an
abstract idea, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred with respect to the
second step of the inquiry. The Examiner determines the claims are directed
to an abstract idea because "the claims do not go beyond requiring the
collection, analysis, and display of available information in a particular
field." Final Act. 13. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner's
analysis under the second step fails to adequately consider those limitations
that are additional to the abstract idea. In addition to reciting elements
directed to the collection, analysis, and display of information, Appellants'
claims also include steps involving changing how a website operates by
dynamically generating new webpages, based on the collected data. The
Examiner's analysis does not explain why this additional claimed
functionality, which goes beyond the abstract idea of collecting, analyzing,
and displaying information, is insufficient to supply an inventive concept.
Although the Examiner states that "adjust[ing] operation of the computing
system by creating a webpage does not impose any meaningful limits on the
computer implementation of the abstract idea," the Examiner provides
insufficient reasoning or evidence in support of this statement. As such, we
agree with Appellants that the Examiner has erred in determining the claims
do not provide an inventive concept under the second step of the Alice/Mayo
inquiry, and we do not sustain the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Third Issue
In rejecting the independent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Examiner finds England teaches the "adjusting" limitation with the
exception of implementing the "adjusting" using a "customer relationship
management" system. Final Act. 16 ( citing England ,r,r 85-86). The
10
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
Examiner finds that although England describes a CRM, "it does not
explicitly state its use or how it is used in the system." Id. (citing England
,r 142). The Examiner turns to Dwyer, finding that it teaches the use of a
CRM system to determine a customer experience value. Final Act 18. The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine England
and Dwyer "because both are analogous art utilizing data to make
management decisions based on customer experience" and combining them
is "the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a
predictable result [that] renders the claim obvious." Final Act. 18.
Appellants argue England and Dwyer do not teach or suggest the
"adjusting" limitation because "England is silent with regard to adjusting
operation of a CRM system that changes Internet commerce functionality as
recited in claim 1." App. Br. 30. We agree with Appellants.
Neither Dwyer nor England teach or suggest using a CRM to adjust
the functionality of a website by dynamically creating webpages. In
particular, neither cited reference teaches that the CRM system makes
changes to the website. England describes the use of a publisher
management sub-module that is "used to schedule the automatic publishing
and un-publishing of content variations within predetermined webpages to
keep the website fresh." England ,r 85. England references a CRM in
paragraph 142, but only teaches its use in a conventional manner-in
connection with managing customer contact lists. Similarly, Dwyer does not
describe the use of a CRM system. At most, England and Dwyer teach the
use of CRM systems generally and in a conventional manner. As such, they
do not teach or suggest the disputed limitation, and we do not sustain the
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
11
Appeal2017-010088
Application 13/967,971
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-19, and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-19, and
21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--11, 13, 15-19,
and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection for each
claim on appeal, we affirm the Examiner's decision to reject the claims.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
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).
AFFIRMED
12