Ex Parte Heine et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 13, 2018

13604839 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/604,839 09/06/2012
10800 7590 12/13/2018
Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
Indianapolis, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christian P. Heine
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.
2178-1936 7142
EXAMINER
CAI,LANCE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/13/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTIAN P. HEINE,
MAHENDRA P. SRIVASTAVA, JAMES D. BOHN, and
TERESA CELMER1
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
Technology Center 3600
Before MARC S. HOFF, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-23. App. Br. 8. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants list Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, Robert Bosch GmbH, and
Sortimo International GmbH as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
January 25, 2016 ("App. Br.") 3.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above-mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents, for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
August 26, 2015 ("Final Act."); the Examiner's Answer mailed August 10,
2016 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed October 10, 2016 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants describe the present invention as follows:
A system for ordering items includes a plurality of tagged
containers [and] an item being stored in each container. A
mobile electronic device reads data in a tag associated with one
of the containers and identifies at least one supplier for the item
that is within a predetermined distance of the mobile electronic
device. The mobile electronic device sends an order request to a
server that identifies the at least one type of item in the container
and the at least one supplier. The server generates an order for
the item with only the one supplier identified in the order request
and sends the order to another server operated by the one
supplier.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis,
illustrates the claimed invention:
1. A system for generating orders for an item comprising:
a plurality of containers, each container being configured
to hold at least one type of item;
a plurality of tags, each tag in the plurality of tags being
affixed to one container in the plurality of containers, each tag
being configured to store data corresponding to the at least one
type of item stored in the one container in the plurality of
containers;
a mobile electronic device having a processor and
memory, a software application program including instructions
stored in the memory of the mobile electronic device and the
processor executes the instructions stored in the memory of the
mobile electronic device to:
receive from a sensor in the mobile electronic
device data corresponding to the at least one type of item
in one of the containers from one tag in the plurality of
tags that is associated with the one container;
2
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
generate location data of the mobile electronic
device with a signal receiver in the mobile electronic
device;
identify a plurality of suppliers that supply the at
least one type of item with reference to the data
corresponding to the at least one type of item;
identify one supplier from the identified plurality of
suppliers that is within a predetermined distance of the
mobile electronic device with reference to the location
data;
generate an order request for the at least one type
of item, the order request including an identifier of the one
identified supplier for the at least one type of item; and
transmit the order request with a wireless network
device in the mobile electronic device; and
a server communicatively coupled to the mobile electronic
device, the server including a database that stores data
corresponding to the plurality of suppliers for each type of item
held in the plurality of containers, the server being configured to:
receive the order request generated by the mobile
electronic device;
generate an order for the at least one type of item
from the one supplier identified in the order request, the
order being generated by the server with reference to
supplier data corresponding to the one supplier identified
in the order request that are stored in the database; and
send the order to another server operated by the one
identified supplier.
App. Br. 20-21 (Claims Appendix).
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2--4.
3
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 15, 16, and 18-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I02(b) as anticipated by Ritz (US 2002/0019784 Al; published Feb. 14,
2002). Final Act. 5-16.
Claims 4, 6, 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Ritz and Zmood (US 2008/0296373 Al; published
Dec. 4, 2008). Final Act. 16-18.
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ritz and Coastal Tool, "De Walt DCD940KX 18 Volt XRP Drill-Driver
Kit," May 20, 2009 (available at http://web.archive.org/web/2009052007
4050/http://www.coastaltool.com/a/dewalt/dcd940kx.htm) ("Coastal Tool").
Final Act. 18-19.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ritz and Portnoy (US 2012/0035760 Al; published Feb. 9, 2012).
Final Act. 19-20.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ritz and Ron (US 2010/0137004 Al; published June 3, 2010). Final
Act. 20.
Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable
over Ritz and Yo (US 2005/0182686 Al; published Aug. 18, 2005). Final
Act. 21.
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
4
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
PATENT-ELIGIBILITY REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Summary
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to patent
ineligible abstract ideas without reciting significantly more. Final Act. 2--4,
23-26. Appellants present multiple arguments for why the claims are not
directed to an abstract idea (App. Br. 8-12) and why the claims recite
significantly more than an abstract idea (id. at 12-15). We address these
arguments individually in the Analysis section below.
Principles of Law
A patent may be obtained for "any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that this provision contains an
important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 134 S. Ct.
2347, 2354 (2014) (quoting Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)). Accordingly, in applying the
§ 101 exception, the Supreme Court cautioned:
[W]e must distinguish between patents that claim the
"'buildin[g] block[ s]"' of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more, thereby
"transform[ing]" them into a patent-eligible invention. The
former "would risk disproportionately tying up the use of the
underlying" ideas, and are therefore ineligible for patent
protection. The latter pose no comparable risk of pre-emption,
and therefore remain eligible for the monopoly granted under our
patent laws.
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2354--55 (all brackets in original except first set)
(internal citations omitted).
5
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
In Alice, the Supreme Court has set forth an analytical "framework for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts." Id. at 2355 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-73 (2012)). In the first step of the analysis, we
determine whether the claim at issue is "directed to" a judicial exception,
such as an abstract idea. Id. at 2355. If not, the inquiry ends. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. US., 850 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claim is
determined to be directed to an abstract idea, then we consider under step
two whether the claim contains an "inventive concept" sufficient to
"transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application." Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quotations and citation omitted).
In considering whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea under
step one, we acknowledge, as did the Supreme Court, that "all inventions at
some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural
phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71. We therefore look to
whether the claim focuses on a specific means or method that improves the
relevant technology or is instead directed to a result or effect that, itself, is
the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and machinery. See
Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
In the second step of the Alice analysis, if applicable, we must
consider whether the claim contains an element or a combination of
elements that is sufficient to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-
eligible application. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 714
(Fed. Cir. 2014); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
6
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, we must
"determine whether the claim[] do[es] significantly more than
simply describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the
abstract idea into patentable subject matter. We look to see
whether there are any "additional features" in the claim[] that
constitute an "inventive concept," thereby rendering the claim[]
eligible for patenting even if [it is] directed to an abstract idea.
Those "additional features" must be more than "well-understood,
routine, conventional activity."
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) ( citations omitted). A claim that "merely require[ s] generic
computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform [an] abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357.
Central to our analysis herein is the fundamental principle that the
Alice framework must be applied to the claims, as properly construed. As
our reviewing court has stated, "The § 101 inquiry must focus on the
language of the Asserted Claims themselves." Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Accenture
Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2013) (admonishing that "the important inquiry for a§ 101
analysis is to look to the claim"); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(focusing on "whether the claims of the asserted patents fall within the
excluded category of abstract ideas") ( emphasis added)).
These principles are based on long-established jurisprudence that "[i]t
is the claims [that] define the metes and bounds of the invention entitled to
the protection of the patent system." In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1360
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (citing Zenith Lab. Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.,
19 F.3d 1418, 1424 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
7
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
Contentions and Analysis
Appellants argue that "the Office Action does not properly establish[]
that the pending claims are actually directed to the alleged abstract idea."
App. Br. 9; see also id. at 9-10 (citing Ex parte Poisson, 2012-011084, 4--5
(PTAB Feb. 27, 2015) for the proposition that that the Office has the initial
burden to establish a prima facie case for a section 101 rejection).
Appellants further argue the Office Action ignores the specific
limitations of the claims in concluding that the claims are directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 9 (citing Final Action 2--4). Appellants contend
the pending claims are each directed to specific technological
improvements to methods and systems for ordering items that
include not only highly specifically configured software, but
specific interactions between multiple specifically configured
and non-generic computer hardware devices ( e.g. the mobile
electronic device and the server) that provide distinct
improvements to the functionality of these systems.
Reply Br. 6 ( citing Enfzsh (for the proposition "that improvements to
computerized technology (and software in particular) may be considered to
be directed to non-abstract ideas")).
We disagree that that the Office Action ignores specific limitations.
Claim 1, for example, is directed to plural abstract ideas. These abstract
ideas include auditing inventory (receiving data corresponding to at least one
item), researching which suppliers of replacement items are locally located
(identifying a plurality of suppliers of the item and identifying at least one
supplier is within a predetermined distance), and ordering replacement items
(generating an order request for the item, transmitting the order request to a
central ordering agent, and having the ordering agent generate and send the
order).
8
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
Auditing inventory reasonably may be characterized as an idea of
itself or a mental process, such as forming an observation or an evaluation.
See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2) Part (III), especially Section B "Concepts
Relating To Organizing Or Analyzing Information In A Way That Can Be
Performed Mentally Or Is Analogous To Human Mental Work," as well as
the case law cited therein. Researching the existence and location of
suppliers also may be reasonably characterized as a mental process,
analogous to the pre-Internet activity of a person who looks up sellers of
goods in the Yellow-Pages phonebook. See id. Directing an ordering agent
to place an order, as well as the ordering agent placing an order with a
selected supplier reasonably may be characterized as entailing fundamental
economic practices, such as sales activities. See, e.g., MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(2) Part (I), especially Section A "Concepts Relating to
Agreements Between People Or Performance Of Financial Transactions," as
well as the case law cited therein. Furthermore, the Examiner has cited these
abstract ideas in the rejection. See, e.g., Final Action 2--4.
Our reviewing court has held that combining several abstract ideas
does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v.
Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract
idea ... to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim non-
abstract."); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims were directed to a
combination of abstract ideas).
Appellants do not dispute that the above concepts reasonably may be
characterized as abstract ideas (see App. Br. 9-12), but instead argue that the
Examiner has failed to address specific claim elements and limitations:
9
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
the automated systems and methods of claims 1, 8, and 18
provide an automated technological solution that reduces or
eliminates the need for human activity to perform the task of
generating and transmitting orders for items or components. The
claims do not merely recite common mental processes of a
human, but instead require specific hardware, such as tags, tag
sensors, and a signal receiver that generates location information,
in addition to specific automated software processing for the
claimed systems and methods to identify suppliers and generate
specific orders for different items or components from the
identified suppliers in an automated manner.
Id. at 12. Appellants argue these elements are not merely directed to a broad
abstract idea. Id. at 10.
This argument is unpersuasive because Appellants conflate Alice's
step-one inquiry and step-two inquiry. Based at least on Appellants'
acknowledgement that the invention is directed to automating "the task of
generating and transmitting orders for items or components" (id. at 12), the
hardware and software elements noted by Appellants reasonably may be
characterized as constituting additional claim elements beyond the
underlying abstract idea. The Examiner is correct, then, in not considering
these additional elements under step one of the Alice framework, and,
instead, analyzing these additional elements under step two of the Alice
framework. That is, these additional elements should be analyzed to
determine whether the claims focus on a specific means or method that
improves a relevant technology or are instead directed to a result or effect
that, itself, is the abstract idea and merely invokes generic processes and
machinery. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
Appellants then argue that the claims also are patent eligible because
read as a whole, the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea
pursuant to step two of the Alice framework. App. Br. 12-15. For example,
10
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
Appellants note again that the claims recite "specific limitations directed to
tags associated with containers or tools, a sensor for reading data from the
tags in a mobile electronic device, and a signal receiver in the mobile
electronic device to identify a location of the mobile electronic device as
part of the automated ordering process." Id. at 13-14. They argue that these
elements "go far beyond a general recitation of a microprocessor and a
memory" (id. at 14), and they note "the USPTO expressly points out that
even having relatively generic computing components such as
microprocessors and a memory can amount to significantly more than an
abstract idea if the claim is properly read as a whole." Id. ( citing the
USPTO guidelines "July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility," available
at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-2015-
update.pdf).
Appellants more specifically argue that their claims include
significantly more than an abstract idea because "the claims are directed to
an improvement that arises from and is rooted in the technological field
itself." Id. at 15 (citing DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245, 357
(Fed. Cir. 2014). According to Appellants, the present claims "are clearly
directed to solutions for problems that are specifically related to the
technological fields of supplying items for work sites and other industrial
fields that employ numerous parts that need to be stored, organized, and
ordered to maintain supply or similar fields that use tools with multiple
components that require periodic replacement. App. Br. 15 ( citing claims 1,
8, 18; Spec. ,r,r 1, 66).
This argument is unpersuasive. Appellants provide insufficient
evidence that inventorying and ordering replacement parts constitutes an
11
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
improvement to a technical field merely because the inventoried parts,
themselves, may be used in work sites or industrial fields. We instead agree
with the Examiner (Final Act. 4) that Appellants' invention is better
characterized as being directed to automating the abstract ideas of auditing
inventory and ordering replacement inventory through the use of generic
processes and machinery that are being used to perform generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities
previously known to the industry. See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336.
Furthermore, the Examiner provides a factual basis in support of the
determination that recited components are conventional. See, e.g., Ans. 25
(citing Spec. ,r,r 19, 20 for the proposition that the recited mobile devices and
tags may be selected from a variety of conventional devices and
mechanisms).
Appellants do not dispute that conventional devices may be used as
the additional claim elements that automate the claimed abstract idea. See
generally Reply Brief. Appellants instead cite to SiRF Technology v.
International Trade Commission, 601F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010) for the
proposition that the present invention is patent eligible because it cannot be
implemented merely with pen and paper. Reply Br. 8.
This argument is unpersuasive because the present invention's
underlying abstract idea is capable of being performed with pen and paper.
In fact, prior to the advent of the telegraph or telephone, the acts of auditing
inventories of tools or supplies and then ordering replacements were, in fact,
performed either mentally or with pen and paper. For example, people
historically audited inventory in their head, and they then mailed written
letters to suppliers in order to restock worn tools and depleted supplies.
12
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
Appellants also argue the claims are patent eligible under step 1 and
step 2 because the claims do not "preclude any well-established activity such
as making an economic payment for an item" (App. Br. 11) or "attempt to
preclude access to an abstract idea" (id. at 14). We recognize that the
Supreme Court has described "the concern that drives this exclusionary
principle [i.e., the exclusion of abstract ideas from patent eligible subject
matter] as one of pre-emption." See Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2354.
However, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for patent
eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test for
patent eligibility. As our reviewing court has explained: "The Supreme
Court has made clear that the principle of preemption is the basis for the
judicial exceptions to patentability" and "[ f]or this reason, questions on
preemption are inherent in and resolved by the§ 101 analysis." Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(citingAlice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at2354). Although "preemption may signal
patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does
not demonstrate patent eligibility." Id.
For the stated reasons, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's determination that the appealed claims are directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter.
PRIOR-ART REJECTIONS UNDER 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 & 103
Contentions
Appellants argue that Ritz does not anticipate independent claim 1
because Ritz's scanner/receiver combination, which the Examiner maps to
13
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
the claimed mobile electronics device, does not perform variously claimed
functions:
the scanner/receiver combination [ 100/180] in Ritz does not
identify a plurality of suppliers, identify one supplier from the
identified plurality of suppliers within a predetermined distance
of the mobile electronic device and generate an order request for
the at least one type of item including an identifier for the
supplier for the at least one type of item. Instead, Ritz expressly
teaches that the portal server 200 supplies the vendor information
and locations of vendors. Ritz at ,r,r 0055 and 0057. However,
claim 1 requires that the mobile electronic device perform these
functions, and the teachings of Ritz cannot be interpreted to teach
that both the scanner/receiver combination is the mobile
electronic device and that the separate portal 200 is the mobile
electronic device. Furthermore, claim 1 requires a server that is
in communication with the mobile electronic device, so the portal
200 from Ritz cannot be both the server and the mobile electronic
device of claim 1.
App. Br. 17.
Appellants characterize the Examiner's position as that Ritz's
disclosure can be modified to render the presently claimed invention
unpatentable:
the Office Action is arguing that a proposed modification to the
system of claim 1 might change the configuration of the system
in claim 1 to be more similar to the prior art and that the pending
rejection is valid because the claim limitations do not include an
express disclaimer for the proposed modification.
Id. See also Reply Br. 9 ("The Answer once again proposes that an alleged
rearrangement of components in the teachings of the claims might arrive at
the teachings of Ritz, or an additional pro forma argument that some alleged
14
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
reconfiguration of the elements in Ritz produces a system with some
similarities to the pending claims.")
Appellants further argue that the other claims are not anticipated by
Ritz or rendered obvious for similar reasons. App. Br. 18-19.
Contrary to Appellants' assertions (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 9), the
rejection is not premised on the theory that Ritz's disclosed system must be
modified in some manner in order to render the present claims unpatentable.
The Examiner instead takes the position that when the disputed claim
language is read in a manner consistent with Appellants' Specification, the
language may be interpreted in a sufficiently broad, but reasonable manner
so as to read on Ritz's system without any modifications. See, e.g., Ans. 10-
12.
Specifically, the Examiner determines that the disputed claim
language does not require that the claimed mobile electronic device, alone
and unaided, identify a plurality of suppliers or identify one supplier that is
within a predetermined distance. Ans. 11. According to the Examiner, the
claim language, interpreted consistently with Appellants' Specification,
reads on systems wherein the mobile electronic device, when assisted by
other components, performs the recited functions:
A statement that an element performs an action, taken on
its own without any additional qualifiers as is the case presently,
can be plainly interpreted to mean that the element is relying on
additional elements [to] assist in the performing [ ofJ the action,
just as the statement "the Examiner writes an office action" or
"Examiner used her phone to find a coffee shop" does not
preclude the notion that the examiner utilized word processing
15
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
software and the phone queried a satellite mapping server to find
said coffee shop.
Id.; see also id. at 11-12 (citing Spec. ,r,r 30, 34).
Findings of Fact
The record supports the following Findings of Fact (hereinafter
"Fact") by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. Paragraph 30 of Appellants' Specification reads as follows with added
emphasis:
In the inventory management server 108, the message
service 112 is communicatively coupled to both the mobile
electronic device 104 and to one or more suppliers 160 through
a data network, such as the Internet. The message service 112
receives order request messages from the mobile electronic
device 104 that include identifying information for consumables,
tools, or tool components, and optionally a list of approved
suppliers for the order. The message service 112 sends
confirmation messages to the mobile electronic device 104
indicating the success or failure of an order request. The mobile
electronic device 104 also sends supplier location queries to the
message service 112 and the message service 112 returns
suppliers that are located within a predetermined distance of the
mobile electronic device. The message service 112 also
generates orders and sends order messages to a plurality of
suppliers 160 in response to receiving order request messages
from the mobile electronic device 104.
2. Paragraph 33 of Appellants' Specification reads as follows:
The supplier [database] DB 124 stores data corresponding
to the multiple suppliers 160. The supplier[] DB 124 includes
one or more tables or appropriate data structures for identifying
the supplier locations 125 and supplier interface data 126 that
enables the message service 112 to communicate with online
inventory and ordering systems for each of the suppliers 160.
The supplier DB 124 also includes location data 125
corresponding to the suppliers 160. The location data include
16
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
geolocation data ( e.g. latitude/longitude of supplier locations)
and/or street addresses of the suppliers 160. In terms of location
data for a supplier, a single supplier can simply be a single store
at a single location. Other suppliers, however, include multiple
stores at multiple locations. For example, a large national
hardware store chain stored in the supplier DB 124 can include
hundreds or thousands of locations. For purposes of location
identification, the individual locations of the hardware store
chain are identified first by both the overall identity of the
supplier and individually with each store location being a
separate supplier.
3. Paragraph 34 of Appellants' Specification reads as follows:
In the server 108, the message service 112 sends geographic
information in the supply database to the mobile electronic
device 104 in response to a supplier location query. In one
configuration, the query includes location data corresponding to
the identified location of the mobile electronic device 104 and a
request for supplier locations within a predetermined distance of
the mobile electronic device. The query can further include a list
of supplier identifiers to filter the results. For example, if
Chain A and Chain B each have two locations within 15 miles of
the mobile electronic device, but the query specifies that only
Chain A locations should be returned to the mobile electronic
device, then the message service 112 returns data from the
supplier DB 124 for only the two Chain A locations.
Additionally, the message service 112 omits a location of
Chain A that is located 20 miles from the mobile electronic
device from the query results that are returned to the mobile
electronic device 104.
Analysis
The Examiner has set forth a rational basis for determining that the
disputed limitations do not necessarily have to be performed by the mobile
electronic device alone, but instead may be performed by the mobile
electronic device in combination with other system components. Ans. 10-
12. For example, claim 1 merely recites that the mobile electronic device
17
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
identify a plurality of suppliers. But Appellants' Specification indicates that,
in fact, it is the mobile electronic device 104 in combination with message
service 112 that identifies the plurality of suppliers. Fact 1, cited in Ans. 11.
Similarly, Appellants' Specification indicates that the mobile electronic
device 104 works in combination with message service 112 and supplier
DB 124 to identify one supplier from the identified plurality of suppliers that
is within a predetermined distance. Fact 3, cited in Ans. 12; see also Fact 2.
By inaccurately arguing that the rejection is based upon the theory
that the system of either the claim or Ritz must be modified to render the
claim unpatentable (App. Br. 16-18; Reply Br. 9--10), Appellants provide
insufficient evidence that the Examiner's actual claim interpretation is
unreasonably broad.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim 1 over Ritz.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of that claim, as well as
claims 2-3, 5, 7-10, 15, 16, and 18-21, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 18.
We likewise sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of
claims 4, 6, 14, 11-13, 17, 22, and 23. Appellants have not particularly
pointed out errors in the Examiner's reasoning regarding the teachings of the
additionally cited reference, but, instead, merely reiterate the same
arguments that are set forth in relation to the independent claims regarding
the alleged deficiencies of Ritz. Id. at 13-14.
18
Appeal2017-000657
Application 13/604,839
CONCLUSIONS
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-23 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
19