Ex Parte MEYER et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

13836791 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/836,791 03/15/2013 Leslie MEYER
113027 7590 08/01/2018
Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C. CoreLogicl 13027
4000 Legato Road
Suite 310
Fairfax, VA 22202
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.
CORLOG.003US 6982
EXAMINER
KING JR., JOSEPH W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2018 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):
meo.docket@mg-ip.com
meo@mg-ip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED ST ATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LESLIE MEYER and KATHY DUDEK
Appeal 2017-003157 1
Application 13/836, 791
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN,Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-16; claims 17-20 have been
withdrawn. See Final Act. 1, App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 CoreLogic Solutions, LLC is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' disclosure relates to "efficiently mining and analyzing
information associated with particular mortgage loans, borrowers and
properties." Abstract. Claim 1 is independent, and reproduced below for
reference (with emphasis added):
1. A computer-implemented process comprising:
(a) receiving input specifying an identifier of an
individual;
(b) searching a plurality of data repositories for
properties associated with the identifier, said plurality of data
repositories including a data repository of credit header data
and a data repository of aggregated loan data, said credit header
data representingnon-fmancial information maintained by one
or more credit bureaus, said aggregated loan data representing
mortgage loans offered by a plurality of lenders; and
( c) for each property associated with the identifier
identified in step (b ), assessing, based at least in part on public
recorder data, whether the property is currently owned by the
individual;
( d) detecting any liens associated with the properties
associated with the identifier that are assessed to be currently
owned by the individual;
( e) computing a combined loan-to-value (CLTV) score
based at least in part on all detected liens associated with the
properties associated with the identifier that are assessed to be
currently owned by the individual; and
(f) generating a lien report including the CLTV score,
wherein steps (a)-( f) are performed by a computerized analytics
system that comprises one or more computing devices.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
Claims 1-7, 13, 15, and 16 standrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as
being unpatentable over Cagan (US 2007 /0033126 Al; Feb. 8, 2007) and
Showalter (US 2011/0270779 Al; Nov. 3, 2011). Final Act. 7.
Claim 8 standsrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as being
unpatentable over Cagan, Showalter, and Hennessy et. al., "Sperlonga Helps
Lenders and Servicers Meet July Jst Fannie Mae Guide Requirement to
Clear HOA Liens," http://www.cuinsight.com/press-release/sperlonga-helps-
lenders-and-servicers-meet-july-lst-fannie-mae-guide-requirement-to-clear-
hoa-liens-2 (last visited May 30, 2012) (hereinafter"Sperlonga"). Final Act.
12.
Claim 14 standsrejectedunder35 U.S.C. § 103(a)as being
unpatentable over Cagan, Showalter, and Beardsell (US 2008/0010188 Al;
Jan. 10, 2008). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments, considering only those arguments Appellants actually raised in
the briefs. See37 C.F.R. §4I.37(c)(l)(iv). Wearenotpersuadedthe
Examiner errs. We adopt the Examiner's fmdings and conclusions in the
Final Action and Examiner's Answer as our own, to the extent they are
consistent with our analysis below.
A. Patent Eligible Subject Matter
Alice Corp. Party. v. CLSBanklnternational, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014),
identifies a two-step framework for determining whether claimed subject
matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility under 35 U.S. C. § 101.
3
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
In the frrst step, "[ w ]e must frrst determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
Appellants argue Examiner error in the frrst step of the Alice analysis
because "the Examiner characterized the claims as being directed to the
abstract idea of' a computer-implemented plurality of steps to compute a
CLTV[(combinedloan-to-value)] score'"but "[a]tno point has the
Examiner 'identif[ied] the specific claim limitations and explain[ ed] why
those claim limitations set forth a judicial exception' as required in Part I [ of
the Alice analysis]." App. Br. 5. Appellants contend independent claim 1
"[is] ... not 'directed to' an abstract idea such as a fundamental economic
practice, a method of organizing human activities, an idea 'ofitself,' and/or
a mathematical relationship or formula." App. Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree with the
Examiner that "the claims are essentially directed to the concept of a
computer-implemented plurality of steps to compute a CLTV score" which
is an abstract idea. Final Act. 3--4. The claims are directed to collecting
information (e.g., "receiving input," "searching a plurality of data
repositories"), analyzing the information (e.g., "assessing ... whether the
property is currently owned," "detecting liens," "computing a combined
loan-to-value ( CL TV) score"), and displaying the information (e.g.,
"generating a lien report"). The claims are, thus, comparable to claims
found to be directed to abstract ideas. See, e.g., Electric Power Group, LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis" are "abstract-idea processes"); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674
F.3d 1315, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (determining a loan clearinghouse process
4
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
is abstract);Digitechimage Techs., LLCv. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758
F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("organizing information through
mathematical correlations"); Content Extraction & TransmissionLLCv.
Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("1)
collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and
3) storing that recognized data in a memory"); Len di ngTree, LLC v. Zi llow,
Inc., 656 F. App. 991,997 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding ineligible claims to a
computerized method of speeding up a loan-application process).
In the second step of the Alice analysis, we "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." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (quotingMayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78-79 (2012)).
In other words, the second step is to "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."' Id. (alteration in original) ( quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines the additional elements in the claims
amount to no more than mere instructions to implement the idea on a
computer. Final Act. 6. Specifically, the Examiner fmds, and we agree, the
elements "are recited in the claims at a high level of generality as simply
performing generic computer functions of comparing, calculating, data
searching, and data storage, which are routinely used in computers,
computer systems and data storage systems, and which are being used in the
recited claims to simply carry out the abstract idea." Ans. 7.
5
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
Appellants argue "[ t ]he alleged abstract idea is therefore at zero risk
of being 'tied up' [preempted] by independent claim 1" (App. Br. 7), and
that "whether or not specific claim features are 'well-understood, routine and
conventional,' and thus amount to 'significantly more' than the judicial
exception itself, is a factual analysis that must be based on evidence" (App.
Br. 8).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding the claims
reciting "significantly more" than the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites a
"plurality of data repositories," a "computerized analytics system," and "one
or more computing devices." i.e., generic computer components, which do
not satisfy the inventive concept. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLCv.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (internal quotation
marks omitted)("[ A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of
generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible."). Rather, we agree with the Examiner that "the
computerized processing and storage elements of the pending claims are
simply being used as tools to implement the described abstract idea, where
these devices, as tools are not themselves being technologically improved."
Ans. 8. Appellants' disclosure states that "[a]ll of the processes and process
steps described above (including those of FIGS. 2 and 3) may be embodied
in, and fully automated via, software code modules executed by one or more
general purpose computers, servers, or other types of computing machines."
Spec. ,r 59; see also Spec. ,r,r 12-17, 60----62.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument regarding
preemption. Preemption is not the sole test for patent eligibility, and any
questions on preemption in the instant case have been resolved by the above
6
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
analysis. As our reviewing court has explained: "questions on preemption
are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis," and, although
"preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ari osa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015); cf GIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362---63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[T]hat the claims do not preempt all price optimization or
may be limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make
them any less abstract.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs. We sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 1-16.
B. Obviousness
Appellants argue Examiner error, because "[t]here is simply no
disclosure or suggestion in Cagan that the CL TV ratio is calculated based on
lien information for multiple properties owned by the individual." App. Br.
12. Instead, Appellants contend that in Cagan, "the 'CL TV ratio' is 'based
on primary and secondary lien information' for a single property, i.e., 'the
subject property."' App. Br. 12.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner fmds, and
Appellants do not challenge, that Cagan "also discloses that the invention of
Cagan would include determining a CL TV score for one or more properties,
since it allows for determining a value of properties (plural) in a loan
portfolio, or the value of the portfolio as a whole ( which portfolio would
include a plurality of properties)." Ans. 9, citing Cagan ,r 16.
"[O]bviousness does not require the prior art to reach expressly each
7
Appeal 2017-003157
Application 13/836, 791
limitation exactly. Rather, obviousness may render a claimed invention
invalid where the record contains a suggestion or motivation to modify the
prior art teaching to obtain the claimed invention." Beckson Marine, Inc. v.
NFM, Inc., 292 F.3d 718, 727 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Here, Cagan suggests
determining "the value of the portfolio as a whole" ( Cagan ,r 16). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill, in view of the teachings
of the cited references, would determine the value of the CL TV ratio for the
entire portfolio. See Final Act. 7-9; Cagan Fig. 3, ,r,r 16, 45; Showalter,r,r
274--275.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and the dependent claims which are not separately argued. See
App. Br. 12.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is affrrmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 13-16 under 3 5
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affrrmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8