Ex Parte Vallone

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2018

13730075 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/730,075
7590
Anthony J. Vallone
3812 Woodleigh NW
Canton, OH 44718
12/28/2012
06/27/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony J. Vallone
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.
102531-0002 1488
EXAMINER
WINSTON III, EDWARD B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2018 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 ANTHONY J. VALLONE
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075 1
Technology Center 3600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 43--49, 51---62, and 71-74, which are
all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE. 2
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is the inventor, Anthony
J. Vallone. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Br.") filed July 8, 2016;
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed October 6, 2016; Final Office Action
("Final Act.") mailed January 14, 2016; and original Specification ("Spec."),
filed December 28, 2012.
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "icon-based user interfaces" and
methods for navigating "a stack of unit boxes on a display of a device,"
where "[r]espective unit boxes may represent, e.g., the fields of a record in a
health record of an individual," and "icons" depict items of the unit boxes-
such as "instances of observations about the health state of the individual" or
"activities prescribed for and/or performed for or by the individual." Spec.
,r,r 5, 23, 34, 37; Title (capitalization altered). Appellant's navigational user
interface enables intuitive "creation, organization, annotation, accessing,
updating, and removing the unit boxes ... of the stack," thus "facilitating
retrieval of the patient care information." Spec. ,r,r 34, 3 7.
Claims 43--45, 71, and 72 are independent. Claims 43 and 45
illustrate Appellant's invention, as reproduced below:
43. A nonvolatile computer-readable storage device
comprising instructions that, when executed on a processor of a
device having a display and a memory, present stack of unit
boxes having a stack order, respective unit boxes comprising a
first area, a second area, and at least one items, by:
for a current unit box in the stack, present on the display a
unit box comprising at least one icon respectively depicting an
item of the unit box;
upon receiving a selection of the first area, transitioning
from the current unit box to a next unit box after the current unit
box in the stack order, and displaying a unit box corresponding
to the next unit box, the next unit box comprising at least one
icon respectively depicting an item of the next unit box; and
upon receiving a selection of the second area, transitioning
from the current unit box to a preceding unit box before the
current unit box in the stack order, and displaying a unit box
corresponding to the preceding unit box, the preceding unit box
comprising at least one icon respectively depicting an item of the
preceding unit box.
2
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
45. A method of presenting a stack of unit boxes having a
stack order, respective unit boxes comprising at least one item on
a device having a processor, a display, and a memory storing an
icon set, the method comprising:
executing on the processor instructions configured to:
for a current unit box in the stack, presenting on the display
a unit box comprising at least one icon respectively depicting an
item of the unit box;
upon receiving a forward gesture associated with a first
axis in a forward direction, transitioning from the current unit
box to a next unit box after the current unit box in the stack order,
and presenting on the display a unit box comprising at least one
icon depicting an item of the next unit box;
upon receiving a backward gesture associated with the
first axis opposite the forward direction, transitioning from the
current unit box to a preceding unit box before the current unit
box in the stack order, and presenting on the display a unit box
comprising at least one icon depicting an item of the preceding
unit box;
upon receiving a change gesture along a second axis that
is orthogonal with the first axis:
identifying a selected item in a currently displayed
unit box that is near the change gesture;
identifying an alternative item for the selected item;
transitioning from the selected item to the
alternative item in the unit box, and
displaying the alternative item in the currently
displayed unit box.
Br. 21-28 (Claims App'x).
Examiner's Rejection
Claims 43--49, 51---62, and 71-74 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 2-3.
3
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
ANALYSIS
In Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014), the
Supreme Court reiterates an analytical two-step framework previously set
forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566
U.S. 66, 79 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. The first step in
the analysis is to "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts," such as an abstract idea. Id. If the
claims are directed to eligible subject matter, the inquiry ends. Thales
Visionix Inc. v. United States, 850 F.3d 1343, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfzsh,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second step in the analysis is
to consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered
combination'" to determine whether there are additional elements that
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application."
Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). 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. (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
In rejecting independent claims 43--45, 71 and 72 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner finds (1) these claims are directed to "the
abstract idea of displaying images and rotating images in a stack using
motion control gestures," and "using stored images and given options to
change a previous image to an 'updated' desired image"-similar to "the
4
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
abstract idea of comparing new and stored information using rules to
identify options"; and (2) the claims do not "include additional elements that
are sufficient to .... amount to significantly more than the underlying
abstract idea of comparing new and stored information and using rules to
identify options." Final Act. 2-3.
Appellant argues independent claim 43 (and similarly worded
independent claim 44) and independent claim 45 (and similarly worded
independent claims 71 and 72) are not directed to the generic abstract ideas
asserted by the Examiner, but rather to novel and nonobvious user interfaces
and technical operations for accessing and navigating electronic records
(such as medical records) represented by "unit boxes" and "icons," as
claimed. Br. 11-12, 16-17, 19. Appellant argues claims 43 and 44 are
directed to "a specific improvement to the computer's basic ability to display
information and interact with the user" by "navigating through data records
in a stack or sequential order" using "specific areas of a unit box
[representing a data record] for navigating through a stack of unit boxes"
without "need[ing] ... scroll bars, buttons, and drop down menus that are
commonly used to navigate through lists." Br. 11, 14. Appellant also argues
independent claims 45, 71, and 72 are directed to improved user interfaces
and navigation techniques using "forward and reverse gestures along a first
axis" to move through a stack of unit boxes, and "gestures along a second
axis ... to display alternate items within the unit box" and "transition
between items (or in claim 72 activities) within a unit box." Br. 17, 19.
When considering whether the claims are directed to a patent
ineligible concept, such as an abstract idea, "[t]he 'directed to' inquiry ...
cannot simply ask whether the claims involve a patent-ineligible concept,
5
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
because essentially every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical
products and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon."
See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1335-36 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70-71). Rather,
"the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims" considered in
their entirety, in light of the Specification, to ascertain whether the claims'
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter. Id. ( citing
Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed.
Cir. 2015)).
Having reviewed the evidence, we disagree with the Examiner's
finding that the claims are directed to an abstract idea of comparing new and
stored information using rules to identify "options to change a previous
image to an 'updated' desired image." See Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 6. Rather,
we conclude the character of the claims as a whole is directed to improved
user interfaces for electronic devices, and improved methods for accessing
and navigating electronic records, the user interfaces and navigation
methods being especially "beneficial when displaying data on devices with
small displays, such as mobile devices." Br. 11-12, 14, 17, 19. See Core
Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362---63
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (claims directed to "an improved user interface for
electronic devices, particularly those with small screens" and to "a specific
manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user," improve "the
efficiency of using the electronic device by bringing together 'a limited list
of common functions and commonly accessed stored data"' and "are not
directed to an abstract idea"); see also Trading Techs. Int 'l, Inc. v. CQG,
Inc., 675 F. App'x 1001, 1002---05 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (claims directed to
"improvements in existing graphical user interface devices that have no 'pre-
6
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
electronic trading analog'" and "recite more than 'setting, displaying, and
selecting' data or information that is visible on the [graphical user interface]
device" are not directed to an abstract idea); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36.
Our conclusion is supported by Appellant's Specification, which
confirms the improved user interfaces and navigation techniques.
Particularly, the Specification describes Appellant's invention as directed to
"icon-based user interfaces" that "'shepherd[]' information associated with
an activity [ or other record information] once it is stored as a unit box in the
stack" and "enable a comparatively simple and intuitive navigational system
that may be cognizable to users ... with little training." See Spec. ,r,r 4, 37;
Title (capitalization altered). For example, Appellant's claims 43 and 44
divide unit boxes (representing fields of records) into at least two areas (first
and second areas), such that "[u]pon selecting a first area of the unit box ...
the next record is displayed" and "[u]pon selecting a second area of the unit
box ... the previous data record is displayed" together with icons depicting
items of respective unit boxes. Br. 11, 14. Claims 45, 71, and 72
additionally allow gestures along a second axis----orthogonal to a first axis of
the stack of unit boxes-to transition between alternate items within a unit
box and display an alternate item according to the transition. Br. 17, 19.
Claims 43--45, 71, and 72 thus provide a "language-independent presentation
of information through the use of icons" depicting informational items of
unit boxes, the claims enabling simple and intuitive "creation, organization,
annotation, accessing, updating, and removing the [ stacked] unit boxes" as
well as "replac[ing] the selected item in a record stored in the memory
representing the unit box." See Spec. ,r,r 37, 58.
7
Appeal2017-004537
Application 13/730,075
Because claims 43--45, 71, and 72 are directed to improved user
interfaces and techniques for accessing and navigating electronic records, we
find claims 43--45, 71, and 72, and their dependent claims 46-49, 51---62, 73,
and 7 4 are not directed to an abstract idea. As the claims are not directed to
an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis, we need not
proceed to step two of the analysis. See Enfish, at 1336, 1339.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 43--49, 51-62, and 71-74 as directed to non-statutory subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 43--49, 51-62, and 71-74 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
As such, we REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 43--49,
51---62, and 71-74.
REVERSED
8