Ex Parte Gruber et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13251104 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/251,104 09/30/2011 Thomas R. Gruber
150004 7590 03/29/2019
DENTONS US LLP - Apple
4655 Executive Dr
Suite 700
San Diego, CA 92121
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.
Pl 1337US2/77870000124102 7191
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, JEFFREY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
patents.us@dentons.com
dentons_PAIR@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS R. GRUBER,
ALESSANDRO F. SABATELLI,
ALEXANDRE A. A YBES,
DONALD W. PITSCHEL,
EDWARD D. VOAS,
FREDDY A. ANZURES,
and PAUL D. MARCOS
Appeal2017-004229 1
Application 13/251, 1042
Technology Center 3600
Before HUBERT C. LORIN, ANTON W. PETTING, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.
PETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 The record includes a transcript of the oral hearing held February 14, 2019.
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Apple Inc. (Appeal Br.
1 ).
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
STATEMENT OF THE CASE3
Thomas R. Gruber, Alessandro F. Sabatelli, Alexandre A. Aybes,
Donald W. Pitschel, Edward D. Voas, Freddy A. Anzures, and Paul D.
Marcos (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection
of claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44---62, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a way of intelligent generation, organization,
triggering, and delivery of reminders and tasks in electronic to-do lists.
Specification para. 4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method comprising:
at a device having one or more processors and memory:
[ 1] determining a current location of the device;
[2] establishing a reminder time for a task item
based on a required travel time between the current
location of the device to a destination location associated with
the task item;
3 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App.
Br.," filed May 3, 2016) and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed January 17,
2017), and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed November 16, 2016),
and Final Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 10, 2015).
2
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
[3] detecting an event related to an interaction with the
device;
[ 4] in response to detecting the event:
[ 4.1] determining a change in the current location of the
device;
and
[ 4.2] dynamically updating a current value of the
reminder time for the task item in accordance with the change
in the current location of the device;
and
[5] in accordance with a determination that a current time
matches the current value of the dynamically updated reminder
time,
performing an action associated with the task item.
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Aaron US 2008/0195312 Al Aug. 14, 2008
Kim US 2011/0090078 Al Apr. 21, 2011
Stahl US 2011/0130958 Al June 2, 2011
Elumalai US 2012/0242482 Al Sept. 27, 2012
Park US 8,560,229 B 1 Oct. 15, 2013
Claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44---62 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more.
Claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44--59 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Kim, Stahl, Elumalai, and Aaron.
Claims 60-62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Kim, Stahl, Elumalai, Aaron, and Park.
3
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
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 applied art
show that it was predictable to one of ordinary skill to perform the recited
claims.
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 the Prior Art
Kim
01. Kim is directed to departure time estimations based on known
criteria. Kim para. 2.
02. Kim describes generating at least one departure alert for at
least one event is provided. The method may include obtaining
scheduling data associated with a first event, wherein the first
event scheduling data includes a first event time value and a first
event location value. Further, the method may include obtaining a
device location value. Still further, the method may include
obtaining a current time value. Even further, the method may
include determining if the first event location value and the device
location value differ by more than an event location threshold.
Even further, the method may include that upon a determination
that the first event location value and the device location value
4
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
differ by more than the event location threshold, estimating a first
travel time value from the device location and the first event
location. Additionally, the method may include generating a
departure time value by comparing the first event time value and
the estimated first travel time value. Moreover, the method may
include generating a departure alert by comparing the departure
time value and the current time value. Kim para. 7.
03. Kim describes a wireless communications device (WCD)
including calendar module, device location module and departure
module. Calendar module may include one or more scheduled
events, each of which may include at least one of an event location
and/or event participants. For example, a user may schedule a
meeting at a specific building in a specific room including at least
one of participant. In one aspect, departure alert module may
include user departure buffer. In such an aspect, user departure
buffer may allow user to include additional time between events
and may be: configurable by a user, may be set to a default value,
etc. Further, device location module may obtain the current
location of the device. In one aspect, device location module may
include location determining functionality, such as GPS, WiFi,
Bluetooth, etc., or any combination thereof, may access a user
inputted location, may access a location determined by the
departure alert server. Kim para. 29.
Stahl
04. Stahl is directed to devices which can implement or
communicate with an electronic calendar. Stahl para. 2.
5
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
05. Stahl describes a device that can access a calendar entry having
an associated time and an associated location in a calendar
application. The device, which can be a mobile or non-mobile
computing device, can dynamically determine an estimated travel
time to the location associated with the calendar entry. The
computing device can provide an alarm indication for the calendar
entry at an alarm time based on the estimated travel time.
Changing road or travel conditions or a change from an expected
previous location can all cause the travel time to change and one
or more embodiments can be configured to determine, before the
scheduled time, what the current estimate is for the travel time.
Stahl para. 5.
Elumalai
06. Elumalai is directed to a computing device that learns over time
how to identify which task reminders are most appropriate to
present to a user in different contexts. Elumalai para. 4.
07. The computing device displays a graphical user interface
(GUI) that contains the task reminders identified as most
appropriate to present to the user in a current context. Unless
instructed to do so by the user, the computing device does not
present the task reminders identified as less appropriate in the
current context. By only presenting the most appropriate task
reminders for the current context, the computing device can
attempt to minimize the risk that the user will be distracted or
annoyed by reminders that are unlikely to be helpful to the user.
At the same time, by presenting the most appropriate reminders
6
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
for the current context, the computing device can help the user
make more productive use of the user's time. Elumalai para. 4.
08. If the reminder module has not received new or updated task
data, the reminder module determines whether the reminder
module has received new or updated context data. The reminder
module receives the context data from the context sources. From
time to time, the context data provided by the context sources
changes in a relevant way. For example, the GPS module can
indicate that the computing device has moved from one part of
town to another part of town. In another example, the
accelerometers can indicate that the computing device is
accelerating in a manner consistent with the computing device
being transported in a car. In another example, the reminder
module can receive data from the calendar indicating that the user
is scheduled to be in a meeting at a particular time. Elumalai para.
4.
09. The reminder module can learn over time that it is
contextually-appropriate to display task reminders corresponding
to certain geographical locations ( e.g., grocery stores) when the
current geographical location of the computing device is within a
given distance of such geographical locations. Elumalai para. 4 7.
10. If the reminder module has not received new or updated task
data, the reminder module determines whether the reminder
module has received new or updated context data. The reminder
module receives the context data from the context sources. From
time to time, the context data provided by the context sources
7
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
changes in a relevant way. For example, the GPS module can
indicate that the computing device has moved from one part of
town to another part of town. In another example, the
accelerometers can indicate that the computing device is
accelerating in a manner consistent with the computing device
being transported in a car. In another example, the reminder
module can receive data from the calendar indicating that the user
is scheduled to be in a meeting at a particular time. Elumalai para.
53.
11. If the reminder module has received new or updated context
data or after the reminder module generates, updates, or deletes a
reminder, the reminder module uses a machine learning algorithm
to calculate scores for the reminders. The scores are numerical
values indicative of the likelihoods that the user would find it
helpful to be reminded of the tasks corresponding to the reminders
given a current context. Elumalai para. 56.
Aaron
12. Aaron is directed to schedule management. Aaron para. 1.
13. Aaron describes managing appointments in a wireless device
includes receiving scheduling data for a future appointment, and
determining a current location of the wireless device. The
scheduling data includes a time associated with the future
appointment. A reminder for the future appointment is provided
at a time prior to the future appointment that varies based on the
current location of the wireless device. Aaron para. 4.
8
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
14. Aaron describes an estimated travel time between the current
location of the device and the location associated with the future
appointment being calculated. The time for the reminder may be
determined based on the estimated travel time and the time
associated with the future appointment. For example, the
estimated travel time may be calculated based on historical data
associated with the location of the future appointment and/or real-
time travel conditions between the current location of the device
and the location of the future appointment. The real-time travel
conditions may include traffic and/or weather conditions between
the current location and the location associated with the
appointment, and/or a speed of travel associated with the wireless
device. Aaron para. 6.
15. Aaron describes the current location of the wireless device
being repeatedly determined to detect changes in the current
location of the wireless device. The time for the reminder may be
dynamically updated based on the changes in the current location
of the wireless device. Aaron para. 8.
16. Aaron describes managing attendance of a future appointment
that includes receiving scheduling data for the future appointment
including a time and location associated with the future
appointment and attendance status information for a plurality of
attendees. Location information indicating a current location of a
wireless device associated with one of the plurality of attendees is
also received. Based on the current location of the wireless device
and the time and/or location associated with the future
9
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
appointment, a likelihood of attendance of the future appointment
is predicted for the one of the plurality of attendees. The
attendance status information for the one of the plurality of
attendees of the future appointment is updated based on the
predicted likelihood of attendance. Aaron para. 12.
17. Aaron describes the wireless device as configured to
dynamically update the time for the reminder based on the
changes in its current location. For example, after determining
that the reminder should be provided at a particular time based on
the location of the wireless device and the location of the future
appointment, the user of the wireless device may carry the device
to another location. The wireless device may be configured to
detect this change in location using one or more of the location
techniques described above, and may thereby dynamically re-
determine the time for the reminder based on the change in
location, for example, using rules, algorithms, and/or other
techniques. For example, as shown in FIG. 1, the location may
be geographically closer to the appointment location than the
location. As such, the wireless device may dynamically update
the time of the reminder to a time that is closer to the time of the
future appointment, based on its new location being closer to the
appointment location. The wireless device may be configured to
detect changes in its location by repeatedly determining its current
location periodically, intermittently, and/or at predetermined times
based on the time of the appointment. Thus, the wireless device
may provide the reminder at the updated time prior to the time of
10
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
the appointment based on the change in its current location. Aaron
para. 44.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44-62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 11
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that
claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we
then ask, "[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To
answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim
both individually and "as an ordered combination" to determine
whether the additional elements "transform the nature of the
claim" into a patent-eligible application. [The Court] described
step two of this analysis as a 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."
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014)
(citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
4 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019).
11
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first
determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining
whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions ( a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial
exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited
judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application of that exception. If the claims are directed to a
judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an
inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims
provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
Method claim 1 recites determining the current time and establishing a
reminder time, detecting some unspecified event and in response,
determining a change in location and updating the reminder time, and at the
reminder time, performing some arbitrary unspecified task. Detecting an
unspecified event and a change in location are simply forms of data
reception, as receiving data indicative of an event and location change are
within the scope of implementations for such detection. Similarly,
performing some arbitrary unspecified task is no more than transmitting data
regarding such task, as again this is within the scope of implementations.
Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data.
None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any
of these steps, but instead recite only functional results to be achieved by
any and all possible means.
12
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature. The next issue is whether it
recites the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include mathematical concepts5, certain methods of organizing human
activity6, including fundamental economic practices and business activities,
or mental processes. 7 Among those certain methods of organizing human
activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people. Like those concepts claim 1
also recites a way of managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that
would ordinarily take place in issuing a reminder at a time that has been
reset based on seeing that one has moved after some unspecified event. The
issuing of a reminder involves determining when to send the reminder and
what is to be reminded which manages personal behavior in following the
5 See e.g., Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
6 See e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Systems
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed.
Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B. V., 911 F.3d 1157
(Fed. Cir. 2018)
7 See e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
13
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
reminder content at that time. For example, claim 1 recites ''establishing a
reminder time" and ''updating a current value of the reminder time," which
is an activity that would take place whenever one is determining when to
remind someone, and "performing an action associated with the task item,"
which is an activity that would take place whenever one is determining what
to remind someone of. Similarly, claim 1 recites "detecting an event related
to an interaction with the device" and "determining a change in the current
location of the device," which are characteristics of determining that the
timing of a reminder might change.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to providing task
reminders, which is a method of organizing human activities, and so an
abstract idea. Final Act. 5.
The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in updating a reminder time and at that time
performing some arbitrary unspecified task absent any technological
mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1-3 and 5 recite steps for
receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting of location and event data,
which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results.
Limitation 4 is the only step to describe some form of logic and recites
determining a location change and updating a reminder time value in
response to detecting some event, which is simply seeing one has moved and
changing a reminder accordingly. To advocate seeing one has moved and
changing a reminder accordingly is conceptual advice for results to be
obtained, and not technological operations.
14
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
The Specification at paragraph 4 describes the invention as relating to
intelligent generation, organization, triggering, and delivery of reminders
and tasks in electronic to-do lists. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows
that claim 1 is directed to issuing a reminder at a time that has been reset
based on seeing that one has moved after some unspecified event, i.e.
managing work completion. This is consistent with the Examiner's
determination.
The concept of managing work completion is a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce. The use of managing
work completion is also a building block of ingenuity in organizational
management. Thus, managing work completion is an example of a
conceptual idea subject to the Supreme Court's "concern that patent law not
inhibit further discovery by improperly tying up the future use of these
building blocks of human ingenuity." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216 (citations
omitted). Claim 1 recites the idea of performing various conceptual steps
generically resulting in the managing work completion. As we determined
earlier, none of these steps recite specific technological implementation
details, but instead get to this result by advising one to issue a reminder at a
time that has been reset based on seeing that one has moved after some
unspecified event. Thus, claim 1 is directed to managing work completion,
which is a fundamental economic practice.
Also, this is an example of managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people as a certain method of organizing human
interactions, because managing work completion is part of managing
personal behavior of those whose work needs completion. The concept of
managing work completion by issuing a reminder at a time that has been
15
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
reset based on seeing that one has moved after some unspecified event is a
way of taking movement into account as work moves toward completion.
The steps recited in claim 1 are part of a conceptual way of taking such
movement into account.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344--45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (claims
that implemented the abstract idea of generating tasks based on rules on the
occurrence of an event, held ineligible because they preempted all practical
uses of the abstract concept); Digitech Image Technologies, LLC v.
Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (2014) (manipulating
data sets).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind
as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, modifying,
and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the
data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TL!
Commc 'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis,
modification, and transmission and does not recite an improvement to a
particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314--15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims
not abstract because they "focused on a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation"). As such, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of
16
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
Alternately, this is an example of a mathematical concept because the
steps of establishing a reminder time based on travel time and updating a
reminder time in accordance with location change perform mathematical
algorithms. The remaining steps are mere data gathering and incidental post
processing steps.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 is directed
to the abstract idea of managing work completion by advising one to issuing
a reminder at a time that has been reset based on seeing that one has moved
after some unspecified event.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application. 8
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, "all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas."
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. "[A]pplication[s]" of
such concepts " 'to a new and useful end,' " we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the " 'buildin[g] block[ s]' " of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
8 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
17
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not alter the analysis
at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention. Stating an abstract idea "while adding the words
'apply it'" is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting
the use of an abstract idea "'to a particular technological
environment.'" Stating an abstract idea while adding the words
"apply it with a computer" simply combines those two steps,
with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent's recitation of a
computer amounts to a mere instruction to "implement[t]" an
abstract idea "on ... a computer," that addition cannot impart
patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of "additional
feature[ e ]" that provides any "practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [ abstract idea] itself."
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted).
"[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply
instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer." Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely functional, devoid of
implementation details. Steps 1-3 are pure data gathering steps, which is an
abstract concept. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter
the abstractness of such limitations. Step 5 is insignificant post solution
activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Step 4
recites generic computer processing expressed in functional terms to be
18
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
performed by any and all possible means and so presents no more than
abstract conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in
interpreting data ( e.g., determining a current location, detecting an event,
determining a change, determining that a current time matches a current
value) and the results desired (e.g., establishing a reminder time,
dynamically updating a current value of the reminder time, performing an
action associated with a task item), and not in how the process physically
enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically
achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellants' claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing work completion by issuing a reminder at a time that has been
reset based on seeing that one has moved after some unspecified event as
performed by a generic computer. To be sure, claim 1 recites doing so by
advising one to issue a reminder at a time that has been reset based on seeing
that one has moved after some unspecified event. But this is no more than
abstract conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, lacking any
particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the
computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology
or technical field. The Specification spells out different generic equipment.2
and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular
steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
9 The Specification describes a desktop computer and a handheld device,
such as a laptop computer, a tablet computer, and a "smart" phone. Spec.
para. 23.
19
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
managing work completion under different scenarios. Claim 1 does not
describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions.
Instead, claim 1 amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply the abstract idea of managing work completion by advising one to
issue a reminder at a time that has been reset based on seeing that one has
moved after some unspecified event using some unspecified, generic
computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to advising one to issue a reminder
at a time that has been reset based on seeing that one has moved after some
unspecified event to achieve the functional result of managing work
completion as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving
or applying that result. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
20
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements
separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the
process is purely conventional. Using a computer for receiving, analyzing,
modifying, and transmitting data amounts to electronic data query and
retrieval----one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these
computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities
that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) ("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
'processing,' 'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming"). None of
these activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce
some unexpected result. Appellants do not contend they invented any of
these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated
upon, "even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is 'limited
to particular content' or a particular 'source,' that limitation does not make
the collection and analysis other than abstract." SAP America, Inc. v.
InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellants' claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-
21
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
modification-transmission is equally generic and conventional or otherwise
held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange,
display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction),
Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification,
generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering
of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because
the additional elements recited in the claim does not provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe
process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance.
The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a
generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long "warn[ ed] ... against" interpreting § 101 "in
ways that make patent eligibility 'depend simply on the
draftsman's art.'
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
22
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of managing
work completion, without significantly more.
APPELLANTS' ARGUMENTS
As to Appellants' Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner's
determinations and analysis from Final Action 5-7 and Answer 29-38 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now tum to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the claims are
directed to an improvement to computer-related technology, in that they
allow task reminders to be provided at a correct time based on the user's
change in location. This is necessarily technical." Reply Br. 49. People
have been reminding others of things to do based on location and time for
time immemorial. The most notable examples common to all human
experience occur when movement causes schedules to fall behind.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
failed to follow various earlier guidelines. Reply Br. 49---64. The analysis
supra follows the most recent 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the focus of the
claimed invention should be recognized as being directed to the intelligent
updating of reminder times for task items based on the current location of
the device and based on detecting an event related to an interaction with the
23
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
device." Reply Br. 52. We determine the claim as being directed to
managing work completion as advised to be done by issuing a reminder at a
time that has been reset based on seeing that one has moved after some
unspecified event is a way of taking movement into account as work moves
toward completion, supra. This is an even more detailed expression of
Appellants' characterization. As we determine supra, however, this does not
alter the conclusion.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the Examiner
improperly relied on the Smartgene case [ SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced
Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed. Appx. 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)] to identify the
alleged abstract idea." Reply Br. 52-55. First, we determine that the claims
are directed to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people as a certain method of organizing human interactions, supra,
consistent with the most recent guidance and case law. This remains so
irrespective of whether SmartGene is analogous. Second, the claims in
SmarGene provided and generated data and then generated advisory data.
This is consistent with claim 1 in the instant application, which recites
receiving, analyzing, modifying, and transmitting data, where the
transmitted data is also advisory in transmitting data regarding a task.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Examiner's
determination that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept
of Smartgene is impermissibly based on evaluating individual claim
elements in isolation rather than the claimed invention as a whole." Reply
Br. 55-57. First, we evaluated the claims as individual limitations and as a
whole supra. Second, as we just determined, claim 1 as a whole is directed
to providing information for performing some action. That some of the
24
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
information indicates some change in location does not alter this
determination. A change in location is just another data input, as no
technological mechanism for determining that such a change occurred is
recited. It does so based on other data that is received and generated, but
providing information for performing an action remains the focus of claim 1.
Providing information is an abstract idea just as generating advisory data
was in SmartGene.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "in the
precedential McRO decision, the Federal Circuit held that the concept of
applying rules to data to determine an output is not abstract." Reply Br. 56.
First, as to the patent eligibility of applying rules, the Federal Circuit has
held the opposite of what Appellants argue.
IV argues that the claims do not merely require routine
and conventional use of computers and the Internet because
"applying business rules to email is not what computers and
the Internet do in the absence of this claim limitation" and
"because computers and the Internet do not have 'rule
engines' as a matter of course." . . . But the inquiry is not
whether conventional computers already apply, for example,
well-known business concepts like hedging or intermediated
settlement. Rather, we determine whether "each step does
no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 ( emphasis
added). Here that is the case.
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318-19
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
As to McRO, the court held that, although the processes were
previously performed by humans, "the traditional process and newly claimed
method ... produced ... results in fundamentally different ways."
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094 (differentiating the claims at issue from
those in McRO). In McRO, "[i]t [ was] the incorporation of the claimed
25
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
rules, not the use of the computer, that improved the existing technology
process," because the prior process performed by humans "was driven by
subjective determinations rather than specific, limited mathematical rules."
837 F.3d at 1314 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations
omitted). In contrast, the claims of the instant application merely implement
an old practice of using decision criteria in making reminder time decisions
in a new environment. Appellants have not argued that the claimed
processes of getting information that a location changed applies rules of
reminding one in a manner technologically different from those which
humans used, albeit with less efficiency, before the invention was claimed.
Merely pigeonholing the objects of decision making to aid decision making
is both old and itself abstract.
The claims in McRO were not directed to an abstract
idea, but instead were directed to "a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of
rules of a particular type." We explained that "the claimed
improvement [was] allowing computers to produce 'accurate
and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in
animated characters' that previously could only be produced by
human animators." The claimed rules in McRO transformed a
traditionally subjective process performed by human artists into
a mathematically automated process executed on computers.
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094 (citing McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-16).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "claimed
invention is different from the abstract idea of Electric Power Group [Elec.
Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)]." Reply Br. 57-
58. Appellants distinguish the instant claim because it detects an event
related to an interaction with the device. Id. But as we determine supra,
in the absence of reciting some technological mechanism for such
26
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
detection, simply receiving data that represents such an event is within
the scope of this limitation. Again, simply receiving such data is a
generic operation of a generic computer.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
claims recite specific inventive means for achieving the
result of intelligently updating reminder times for task items. In
particular, Appellant's claims recite a specific technical means
( e.g., "detecting an event related to an interaction with the
device") to trigger the determining of a change in the current
location of the device and the dynamic updating of the reminder
time, which improves computing efficiency.
Reply Br. 58. This repeats the above argument regarding detecting an
event and is equally unpersuasive here.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims are
analogous to those in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 59-61. The claims differ from those found patent
eligible in Enfzsh, where the claims were "specifically directed to a self-
referential table for a computer database." 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The claims at issue in Enfzsh thus were "directed to a specific
improvement to the way computers operate," rather than an abstract idea
implemented on a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are
not directed to an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the
claims purport to reduce processing, they do so only in the same sense
people reduce time spent monitoring by waiting for advisory notices rather
than continually monitoring circumstance. Instead, the claims are more
analogous to those in Fair Warning where claims reciting "a few possible
rules to analyze audit log data" were found to be directed to an abstract idea
because they asked "the same questions ( though perhaps phrased with
27
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have
asked for decades." 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095. In other words, the claims
recite abstract conceptual advice generally followed by manual steps prior to
the advent of computers.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the claims would not
preempt the idea. App. Br. 61---62. "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).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Appellant
established in its opening brief that the categorical label of 'methods of
organizing human activities' is not a separate basis for identifying an
abstract idea and thus the examiner improperly relied on the categorical label
for identifying an abstract idea." Reply Br. 63. Please see the most recent
guidance we cite supra and the case law supporting this.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the Examiner's
Answer demonstrates that the examiner improperly failed to consider the
additional claim elements both individually and as a combination when
determining whether the claim as a whole recites eligible subject matter."
Reply Br. 63---64. Please see our analysis supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "like the claims in
Bascom [BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)] and Amdocs [Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016)], the claimed invention is
28
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
directed to improvements to another technology or technical field." Reply
Br. 64---66.
Initially, in response to Appellants' contention that the court in
BASCOM found the claims eligible, we remind Appellants' that Bascom did
not find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the Appellees did
not provide sufficient evidence to support a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss in
which facts are presumed in the non-movant's favor. We are not persuaded
by Appellants' argument that "like the claims in Bascom, Appellant's claims
are directed to a particular arrangement of elements that represent an
inventive concept." Reply Br. 65. The innovative concept described in
BASCOM was the "installation of a filtering tool at a specific location,
remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to
each end user. This design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter
on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server."
BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The instant claims have no analogous
structural benefit. Appellants repeat the argument that the claims reduce
processing supra. As we determine supra, they do so only in the same sense
people reduce time spent monitoring by waiting for advisory notices rather
than continually monitoring circumstance. The claims recite abstract
conceptual advice generally followed by manual steps prior to the advent of
computers. This is no more technological than when a pharmacy advises
one that rather than waiting for a prescription, the pharmacy will call, or
handing out numbers at the supermarket deli counter and calling each
number. As to Amdocs, the holding in Amdocs turned on a claim
construction based on additional details in the Specification not explicitly
recited in the claims from an earlier court case for which there is no parallel
29
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
here. In that case, the court held that the claims, properly construed, were
similar in design to the claims in BASCOM because the invention's
enhancement of data in a distributed fashion "produced an unconventional
result-reduced data flows and the possibility of smaller databases" to a
technological problem, namely "massive record flows" that required "huge
databases." Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1302, 1292; see also id. at 1292 (network
components "arrayed in a distributed architecture" that enables load
distribution, allowing "data to reside close to the information sources,
thereby reducing congestion ... , while still allowing data to be accessible
from a central location .... Each patent explains that this is an advantage
over prior art systems that stored information in one location, which made it
difficult to keep up with massive record flows from the network devices and
which required huge databases.") Id. at 1291-92. No such analogous
situation is present here.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "the claimed
invention includes elements or functions that are beyond those recognized in
the art or by the courts as being well-understood, routine, or conventional."
Reply Br. 66-67. Appellants argue that because the claims are novel and
non-obvious they are unconventional. "A claim for a new abstract idea is
still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus
distinct from demonstrating§ 102 novelty." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corporation, 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). "The Supreme
Court instructs that groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery
does not by itself satisfy the§ 101 inquiry." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
30
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
As to Appellants arguing that the Examiner fails to explain why the
dependent claims are ineligible (Reply Br. 67-68), we determine that the
Examiner provided sufficient explanation in both the Final Action and
Answer. Appellants fail to provide any arguments as to what about each
dependent claim makes it eligible.
Claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44-59 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Kim, Stahl, Elumalai, and Aaron
We adopt the Examiner's findings, analysis, and determinations from
Final Action 7-31 and Answer 3-29 and reach similar legal conclusions.
We now tum to the Reply Brief.
All of Appellants' arguments as to claim 1 from Reply Brief 7-29 are
directed to limitation 4. This appears to be because Kim alone describes the
remaining limitations. The Examiner further relies on Stahl to make explicit
what is implicit in Kim, i.e., setting a reminder time based on the travel time
in Kim. See Final Action 7-8. The Examiner then applies Elumalai and
Aaron for limitation 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
mischaracterizes Elumalai. Reply Br. 8-10. Appellants contend that "the
Examiner is mischaracterizing Elumalai' s determining of likelihood scores
to mean 'updating a task reminder.' This is a clear, factual misstatement.
Determining likelihood scores is not a disclosure of updating task reminders,
as the Examiner alleges, let alone is it synonymous with the required
limitation." Reply Br. 8. Elumalai chooses which reminders to display
based on context. Such a display of reminders is fairly characterized as
updating the reminders on the display. More to the point, Elumalai is
applied for showing the use of context in making reminder decisions. Aaron
31
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
is the reference for which the updating of time for a reminder is applied.
Elumalai is applied only to show it was known to use contextual change as
an input parameter in making reminder decisions, such as in Aaron.
Appellants next contend that
the Examiner has mischaracterized the teachings of
Elumalai to liken Elumalai' s action of calculating likelihood
scores to Aaron's actions of "detect[ing] (a) change in location
. .. and .. . dynamically re-determin[ing] the time for the
reminder based on the change in location" in an attempt to
justify his proposed combination of Elumalai and Aaron. This
is clear error.
Id. at 9. Elumalai monitors for changes in context, and when this
occurs, its reminder module calculates scores for reminders. One of
Elumalai' s context change examples is that of an input from an
accelerometer. Although Elumalai does not describe computing time as a
numeric quantity, Elumalai does decide whether to immediately present a
reminder based on the score, and in that sense re-determines whether to
present the reminder at the present time. Elumalai also takes being at a
location within a given distance from some destination as a contextual
change deserving of scoring.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
mischaracterizes Aaron. Reply Br. 10-12. Appellants contend that "Aaron
only teaches that detecting a change in location is performed 'repeatedly'
(i.e., 'periodically, intermittently, and/or at predetermined times') without
contemplating the detection of any 'triggering event [ related to an
interaction with the device]."' Reply Br. 10 ( citing Aaron, para. 44 ).
Appellants fail to appreciate that input from the timing signal, which
Appellants admit Aaron describes, is a triggering event. Aaron's timing
32
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
signal triggers recalculating the reminder time. Such an event is related to
interacting with the device at least to the extent of interacting to operate the
device. Appellants do not narrow or otherwise recite the manner or
implementations of the recited "related to."
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner fails
to rebut Appellants' argument that the references fail to show limitation 4 to
be predictable. Reply Br. 12-13. Appellants contend that "there is simply
no concept of one specific type of context triggering the determining of
another specific type of context in Elumalai or Aaron." Id. at 13. As we
determined supra, Aaron uses the context of a timer signal to trigger
checking the context of location change. Beyond that, Elumalai' s use of
checking for distance to destination context to trigger a new display of
reminders would have led one of ordinary skill to add such a contextual
change as a trigger in Aaron, because Elumalai describes the importance of
the reminder in such a contextual change and Aaron describes the need to
recompute the time to the reminder at that point.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner fails
to consider the claim as a whole. Id. at 14--16. Appellants contend that
predicating the location determination on an event reduces battery
consumption. See id. at 14. As we determine supra, though the claims
purport to reduce processing, they do so only in the same sense people
reduce time spent monitoring by waiting for advisory notices rather than
continually monitoring circumstance. Thus, the claims are little more than
abstract conceptual advice to do less work by working when asked instead of
continually. There is no technological mechanism in the claim for reducing
battery consumption.
33
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner's
rationale is without merit. Reply Br. 16-18. This argument is split into the
following three parts.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Aaron's teaching
of providing accurate reminder times of future appointments does not
support the specific combination of references required to satisfy the
claimed invention." Reply Br. 18-19 (emphasis omitted). Appellants
contend that the references could be combined in a way different from that
the Examiner proposes. Such an alternative does not in itself negate the
combination the Examiner proposes. We determine supra that Elumalai' s
use of checking for distance to destination context to trigger a new display of
reminders would have led one of ordinary skill to add such a contextual
change as a trigger in Aaron, because Elumalai describes the importance of
the reminder in such a contextual change and Aaron describes the need to
recompute the time to the reminder at that point.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "Examiner's
Answer fails to rebut Appellant's demonstration that the Examiner's
proposed rationale of 'simple substitution of one known element for another
to obtain predictable results' is without merit." Reply Br. 20-21 ( emphasis
omitted). The Examiner's reasoning is similar to that in KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,418 (2007). In KSR, the invention simply
combined two elements of an accelerator, each already described as
desirable with an accelerator pedal. Here, the references describe the use of
context change and the use of location change to update reminders. The use
of two separate additions to a reminders system would therefore have been
34
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
predictable just as in the analogous situation in KSR to gamer the known
advantages of each in a common context.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "Examiner's
proposed combination would impermissibly change the principle of
operation of Elumalai's device." Reply Br. 22-23. "The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference .... Rather, the
test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, (CCPA 1981). See also In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550, (Fed. Cir.
1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be
physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review."); and
In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
The Examiner is not proposing to simply annex Elumalai's device to
Aaron. Instead, the Examiner determines that Elumalai provides a reason
one of ordinary skill would have used a change in context as an additional
reason and therefore trigger for updating Aaron's reminder time.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "Examiner's
proposed combination would render Elumalai' s device unsatisfactory for its
intended purpose of updating task reminders based on the helpfulness of the
reminder." Reply Br. 23-24. This is the same as the previous argument
expressed differently and is equally unpersuasive here.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "Examiner's
Answer fails to rebut appellant's demonstration that the Examiner's proposed
rationale of 'combining prior art elements according to known methods to
35
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
yield predictable results' is without merit." Reply Br. 24--28. This is an
alternative phrasing to a prior argument supra and is equally unpersuasive
here.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the "Examiner's
Answer fails to rebut appellant's demonstration that the Examiner's proposed
combination of four separate references is impermissibly based on
hindsight." Reply Br. 28-29. As we determine supra, the references
provide the necessary motivation.
As to separately argued claim 30, reciting "wherein performing the
action further comprises generating a map including at least a respective
indication of the current location of the device," we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument that Kim's route display does not occur responsive to a
triggered departure alert. Reply Br. 29. First, nothing else in the claim is
functionally dependent on the map display. Thus, the limitation is
undeserving of patentable weight. King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616
F.3d 1267, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Second, Appellants do not dispute Kim's
generation of the map. They only dispute what triggers the map. As Kim
already describes the value of producing a map, it was at least predictable to
trigger that map timing to be coincident with the reminder, particularly as
location is a component of timing for what the reminder is for.
As to separately argued claims 45--49, each reciting an event
description for the event detected in limitation 3, as we determine supra,
such detection encompasses an implementation as rudimentary as receiving
data meant to represent the event. Thus, the actual event has no effect on the
operation of the claim because the claim is triggered by data meant only to
indicate the event occurred, not the event itself. As with the rejection
36
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
against claim 30 supra, the nature of the event would then have no
patentable weight. This is essentially the Examiner's reasoning. Appellants
argue that each of the events is the trigger for the claim. Id. But as we
earlier determine, it is not the event, but the data representing the event that
triggers the claim. Any data that triggers the claim can represent whatever
the user imagines. There is no functional relationship between the event and
the data representing the event. The relationship is entirely aspirational.
Beyond that, each of the five events recited, viz. a transition between
cell towers communicating with the device, a change in Wi-Fi signatures
received by the device; alert based on accelerator signals; receipt of a
text message that contains location information; and receipt of a push
notification that contains location information, are at least predictable
occurrences of contextual change that would potentially require
recomputation of reminder time. Each occurrence represents new
location information, and is a known form of providing such
information. The applied references already provide the motivation for
using location information to detect a change in location and updating
the reminder time.
Claims 60---62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim,
Stahl, Elumalai, Aaron, and Park
This rejection is not separately argued.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44---62 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more 1s proper.
37
Appeal2017-004229
Application 13/251,104
The rejection of claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44--59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kim, Stahl, Elumalai, and Aaron is
proper.
The rejection of claims 60-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kim, Stahl, Elumalai, Aaron, and Park is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 28, 30, 31, 35, 37, 38, 42, and 44--62 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
38