Ex Parte LEKAS

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2018

14331097 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/331,097 07/14/2014 Stephen Nicholas LEKAS
64046 7590 12/18/2018
Mintz Levin/San Diego Office
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
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.
49867-501001US 1086
EXAMINER
CAMPEN, KELLY SCAGGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroombos@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte STEPHEN NICHOLAS LEKAS
Appeal2017-011099
Application 14/331,097
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-7, 9, 14--22, and 24, which represent
all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed May
4, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed August 25, 2017 ("Reply Br."), the
Examiner's Answer mailed June 28, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Final Rejection
mailed July 6, 2016 ("Final Act.").
2 Appellant identifies Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Co. as the
real parties in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011099
Application 14/331,097
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to a method for remotely inspecting
an insurable area, over a network, using a camera on a mobile device and
having a server analyze the video image items captured by the camera to
provide an insurance decision. Spec. ,r 4.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below:
1. A method for facilitating a virtual inspection of an
insurable area, the method comprising:
receiving, at a remote server, an indication of a request selected
via a first graphical user interface presented at a user mobile device
including a downloaded application, the indication received from a
user at the user mobile device including the downloaded application
configured to
perform the virtual inspection of the insurable area;
determining, at the remote server, one or more information
items needed for making an insurance decision with respect to the
insurable area, the one or more information items comprising
information for at least two rooms associated with the insurable area;
when a live agent is available, then providing, by the remote
server, a live communication session via a first wireless channel
between the live agent coupled to the remote server and the user via
the user mobile device, the live communication session comprising
communicated instructions from the live agent to the user for
capturing, by a camera at the user mobile device, one or more video
image items for the at least two rooms based on the determined one or
more information items;
when a live agent is not available, then providing, by the remote
server, a set of visual instructions to the user mobile device via a
second wireless channel, the set of visual instructions triggering, at the
user mobile device including the downloaded application, display for
the user a second graphical user interface presenting the set of visual
instructions for capturing, by the camera at the user mobile device, the
one or more video image items for the at least two rooms based on the
determined one or more information items, the set of visual
instructions comprising an identification of the at least two rooms for
2
Appeal 2017-011099
Application 14/331,097
which the one or more video image items for the at least two rooms
are to be captured;
receiving, by the remote server, the one or more video image
items from the user mobile device in response to the instructions;
determining, by the remote server, a location associated with
the user mobile device and/or associated with a geotag associated with
the one or more video image items;
validating, by the remote server, that the virtual inspection is
associated with the insurable area by comparing the location with
location information associated with the insurable area; and
providing, by the remote server, the insurance decision for the
insurable area based on the received one or more video image items,
wherein a set of existing information provided regarding the insurable
area is validated automatically based on information extracted from
the set of video image items.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 9, 14--22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to non-statutory
subject matter. Final Act. 3--4.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 9,
14--22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-statutory subject
matter. App. Br. 6-31; Reply Br. 2-7. The Examiner finds:
The claims are directed to the abstract idea of computerized insurance
inspection ( certain human activities). The additional elements or
combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per
se amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on
a computer.
Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner further finds that the claims do not include
additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both
3
Appeal 2017-011099
Application 14/331,097
individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. Id. at 3.
Appellant contends "[t]he claims include a mobile device with a
camera that obtains video image items and a server that receives those video
image items over a network to extract information from the video image
items." App. Br. 13. "The server further validates a location of the mobile
device in order to provide an insurance decision." Id. For example, claim 1
requires, among other steps, interaction between a user and an agent or a
user and a remote server, and validating a location by comparing the location
of the images with location information associated with the insurable area:
when a live agent is available, then providing, by the
remote server, a live communication session via a first wireless
channel between the live agent coupled to the remote server and
the user via the user mobile device, the live communication
session comprising communicated instructions from the live
agent to the user for capturing, by a camera at the user mobile
device, one or more video image items for the at least two
rooms based on the determined one or more information items;
when a live agent is not available, then providing, by the
remote server, a set of visual instructions to the user mobile
device via a second wireless channel, the set of visual
instructions triggering, at the user mobile device including the
downloaded application, display for the user a second graphical
user interface presenting the set of visual instructions for
capturing, by the camera at the user mobile device, the one or
more video image items for the at least two rooms based on the
determined one or more information items, the set of visual
instructions comprising an identification of the at least two
rooms for which the one or more video image items for the at
least two rooms are to be captured;
4
Appeal 2017-011099
Application 14/331,097
determining, by the remote server, a location associated
with the user mobile device and/or associated with a geotag
associated with the one or more video image items;
validating, by the remote server, that the virtual
inspection is associated with the insurable area by comparing
the location with location information associated with the
insurable area ....
App. Br. 23-24 (Claim Appendix, Claim 1 ). Appellant argues that this is a
"clear improvement in computer technology and substantially more than the
[Examiner's] alleged abstract idea of 'computerized insurance inspection."'
App. Br. 13. We agree with Appellant.
The Federal Circuit recently explained that claimed subject matter is
patent eligible where the claim limitations have "the specificity required to
transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of
achieving it." SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPIC, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Similarly, inMcRO, the court held
patent eligible claims that are limited to rules with specific characteristics for
producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expression in
animated characters. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the recent Finjan decision, the court
held claims are patent eligible because they recited specific steps for
generating a security profile that identifies suspicious code and linking the
profile to a downloadable ( downloadable executable application program),
which accomplished the desired result. See Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys.,
Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305---06 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
We conclude that Appellant's claims are patent eligible as directed to
a specific improvement ( validating a location of a mobile device based on
video images obtained by a user, in tum obtained based on instructions
5
Appeal 2017-011099
Application 14/331,097
during a live communication with a live agent or a via remote server on a
second channel) with specific steps for accomplishing a desired result-
enabling a mobile device including a camera and a server to capture video
image data of a remote location and analyze the video image data to verify
the location of the remote location and enable an insurance decision. Our
reviewing court has approved claims of this general character. See, e.g.,
Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1305---06; McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316 (finding eligible
claims that use "limited rules" in a computerized "process specifically
designed to achieve an improved technological result in conventional
industry practice"); Trading Techs. Int'!, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App'x
1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 201 7) ("Abstraction is avoided or overcome when a
proposed new application or computer-implemented function is not simply
the generalized use of a computer as a tool to conduct a known or obvious
process, but instead is an improvement to the capability of the system as a
whole.").
For these reasons, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-7, 9,
14--22, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-7, 9, 14--22, and 24 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6