Michael Randy. May et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 8, 201911861436 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/861,436 09/26/2007 Michael Randy May END920060211US1 8390 30449 7590 08/08/2019 SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS 22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE SUITE 302 LATHAM, NY 12110 EXAMINER BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3623 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/08/2019 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): 30449@IPLAWUSA.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MICHAEL RANDY MAY, GAUTAM MAJUMDAR, MUTHUSAMY PALANISAMY MUTHUSAMY, and SACHIN POPLI ____________________ Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 Technology Center 3600 ____________________ Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–26, 28, and 29. Claim 27 has been cancelled. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for renewing services for contracted employees. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A renewal tracking and storage entry method comprising: receiving, by a computing system from a requester, a command for enabling a first renewal process associated with a company, said computing system comprising a memory device, said memory device comprising an original request document for at least one candidate, a list of candidates, and a request/skills details template, said list of candidates comprising said at least one candidate and sub-contracted candidates performing services for said company for a specified time period, said computing system comprising a server; presenting, by said computing system, said first list of candidates to said requester; receiving, by said computing system from said requester, a first selection of said at least one candidate of said list of candidates; receiving, by said computing system from said requester over a network and via an input device, first verification data verifying that said at least one candidate is associated with said first renewal process; generating, by said computing system, a first renewal request number for identifying a first renewal request document; generating, by said computing system, a new line item number and a new candidate description associated with said at least one candidate; Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 3 retrieving, by said computing system, a portion of candidate related data from said original request document; placing, by said computing system, said portion of said candidate related data in said request/skills details template, wherein said request/skills details template comprises fields associated with a project name, a location for placing a candidate, project coordinators, a requesting company and department, time frames for hiring candidates, and skill levels; receiving, by said computing system from said requester, first input data associated with said at least one candidate; placing, by said computing system, said first input data in said request/skills details template; presenting, by said computing system via a plotter of said computing system, said request/skills details template comprising said portion of said candidate related data and said first input data; generating, by said computing system, a renewal history GUI associated with said at least one candidate, wherein the renewal history GUI consists of a search results section, a candidate listing section, and a renewal history change log section, wherein said search results section consists of status and response identification fields for said at least one candidate, a supplier name field, a bond cart field, a purchase order number field, a start date field, and an end date field, wherein the candidate listing section consists of candidate listings, history links of said candidate listings, request numbers, skill names, bond cart numbers, and purchase order numbers, wherein the renewal history change log section comprises request ID numbers, changed skill names, start dates, end dates, and changed purchase order numbers, and wherein said renewal history change log section provides a single view for comparison of changes between renewal cycles; Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 4 displaying, by said computing system to said requestor, said renewal history GUI associated with said at least one candidate, wherein said renewal history GUI presents a complete chain of renewal cycles associated with said at least one candidate; receiving, by said computer system from said requestor via said input device, second input data for input to said renewal history GUI; generating, by said computing system, a first renewal history change log screen associated with said at least one candidate, wherein said first renewal history change log screen illustrates said second input data at a candidate level illustrating changes for a single response, wherein said first renewal history change log screen comprises a first renewal comparison section and a first change history section, wherein said first renewal comparison section comprises a summary table comprising said request ID numbers, said changed skill names, said start dates, said end dates, and additional purchase order numbers, wherein said first change history section comprises first values for a current request and second values from a previous request associated with said at least one candidate, wherein said first values and said second values are derived from said first renewal comparison section, and wherein said first values and said second values comprise values associated with primary skills, straight time rates, and locations; displaying, by said computing system to said requestor, said first renewal history change log screen associated with said at least one candidate; receiving, by said computer system from said requestor via said input device, third input data for input to said first renewal history change log screen; generating, by said computing system, a second renewal history change log screen associated with said at least one candidate, wherein said second renewal history change log Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 5 screen illustrates said third input data at a request level illustrating changes for multiple responses that have been renewed, wherein said second renewal history change log screen comprises a second renewal comparison section and a second change history section, wherein said second renewal comparison section comprises a summary table comprising said request ID numbers, said changed skill names, said start dates, said end dates, and said additional purchase order numbers; displaying, by said computing system to said requestor, said second renewal history change log screen associated with said at least one candidate; receiving, by said computing system from said requester in response to said presenting said renewal history GUI, said presenting said first renewal history change log screen, and said presenting said second renewal history change log screen, first validation data verifying that said portion of said candidate related data from said original request document in said request/skills details template comprises first current data associated with said at least one candidate and said first renewal process; receiving from said requester, by said computing system, a selection of a first supplier; determining, by said computing system that the most current details of a most current request document associated with said original request document have been fulfilled; generating, by said computing system based on said results of said determining, said first renewal request document associated with said at least one candidate, said first renewal request document comprising said portion of said candidate related data from said original request document and said first input data, said first renewal request document for first renewing an association between said company and said at least one candidate, said first renewal request document indicating an extended time period associated with extending employment for Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 6 said at least one candidate by said extended time period with respect to said specified time period; transmitting, by said computing system, said first renewal request document to said first supplier; enabling, by said computing system within said memory device, a table identifying a renewal process indicating a history of said at least one candidate; identifying, by said computing system executing said table, a first candidate key, comprising a first plurality of values, comprised by data of a first plurality of rows of said table, said first candidate key comprising a common link for tracking renewal history of said renewal process of said at least one candidate; identifying, by said computing system executing said table, a second candidate key comprised by data of an additional plurality of rows of said table, said second candidate key associated with a previous candidate associated with said at least one candidate; maintaining, by said computing system via said network and using data from said table, a renewal history of said at least one candidate with respect to said first renewal document; tracking, by said computing system via said network and based on said first candidate key, said table and said renewal history; and generating, by said computing system based on said table, an additional table comprising said first candidate key, within said memory device, with respect to newly generated values of said first candidate key generated based on said renewal process, wherein said first candidate key comprises said newly generated values, an identifying name, and associated value, wherein said additional table comprises: Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 7 a plurality of rows, wherein each row of said plurality of rows comprises an ID number to identify each renewal object for each row of said plurality of rows corresponding to each candidate status record; and a plurality of columns intersecting said plurality of rows to define said first candidate key based cells formed by said intersecting, wherein each column of said plurality of columns comprises an ID number to identify each said renewal object for each said column. REJECTION Claims 1–26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter. ANALYSIS An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.†35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas†are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.†See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 8 risk.â€); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.â€). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). If the claim is “directed to†an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application.†Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’†Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.†Id. The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“Memorandumâ€). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 9 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional†in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–57. Furthermore, the Memorandum “extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or per se)â€: (a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity— fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Id. at 52 (footnotes omitted). Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 10 USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 1 The Examiner determines the claims are directed to organizing renewal information according to a particular candidate, which is an abstract idea. Final Act. 7 (“using categories to organize, store, and transmit informationâ€); Ans. 3. Appellants argue the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but rather, recite enabling a renewal process that includes enabling a table identifying the renewal process within a memory device and generating a specialized renewal history GUI that includes a renewal history change log screen (associated with a candidate) for identifying a first candidate key (i.e., a software based common link for tracking and comprising a plurality of values comprised by a first plurality of rows of a table) and a second candidate key (comprised by additional plurality of rows of the table) for tracking a renewal process within a memory device. App. Br. 30. Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 2–4. We agree with the Examiner that the claims recite organizing renewal information for a particular candidate, which are certain methods of organizing human activity, for example, business relations or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, and categorized as abstract ideas under the guidelines in the Memorandum. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Accordingly, Appellants have not sufficiently argued why the claims do not recite an abstract idea. Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 11 USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 2 In determining whether the claims are “directed to†the identified abstract idea, we next consider whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.1 We discern no additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. Appellants contend the claims recite a resulting memory storage improvement that includes generating an additional table that includes the first candidate key with respect to newly generated values based on the renewal process. App. Br. 31. According to Appellants, the memory storage improvement results in an overall improved operational performance by (1) ensuring that only complete authorized candidate details are used, (2) providing a software key acting as a common software link for tracking, and (3) making an associated entry in the memory device. App. Br. 31; see also Reply Br. 3–4. Appellants argue the memory device storage functions are, therefore, modified via the specialized table to accurately perform the tracking process. App. Br. 31; see also App. Br. 32. Appellants further 1 We acknowledge that some of the considerations at Step 2A, Prong Two, properly may be evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of the Office guidance). For purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of the Office guidance). See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 nn. 25, 27–32. Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 12 argue that, like the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims here claim a specific type of non-abstract computer memory technology improvement to “improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory†defined by enabling a table (identifying a renewal process) within a memory device and generating a specialized renewal history GUI that includes a renewal history change log screen (associated with a candidate) for identifying and generating specialized software based keys (e.g., a registry key or a set of software instructions) comprising values comprised by a generated specialized table that “must have a row and a column that have a same ID value.†App. Br. 36; see also App. Br. 37–38. Appellants also argue the claims improve the operational performance of the computer itself and improve the technical field of graphical user interface generation and computer memory storage for similar reasons. App. Br. 39–43; see also Reply Br. 11–13. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 2–4, 7; Ans. 2–9. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Specification does not discuss any improvement in memory storage, the computer itself, or the technical field. See Ans. 5–8. Although Appellants rely on pages 9, 10, and 14–16 of the Specification (App. Br. 31–34, Reply Br. 7–11), we do not see, and Appellants do not sufficiently explain, where any improvements to memory storage, the computer itself, or the technical field or computer operations are discussed or disclosed. By contrast, in Enfish, the specification taught (1) that the claimed invention achieved other benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements, and (2) the claimed self-referential table functioned differently than conventional database structures. Enfish, Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 13 822 F.3d at 1337. We do not see similar disclosures in Appellants’ Specification. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other (see, e.g., Spec. 18–20). The Federal Circuit applied this distinction in Enfish in rejecting the § 101 challenge at step one of the Mayo/Alice analysis because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out its basic functions of storing and retrieving data, and not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. Accordingly, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants have not described an improvement to memory storage, the computer itself, or the technical field. For these reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. USPTO Memorandum, Step 2B Turning to step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, we look to whether the claims: (a) add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or (b) simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The Examiner determines the additional limitations, including the computing system comprising a server, input device, memory device, plotter, various limitations directed to receiving commands, selections, and Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 14 other data, presenting/displaying data, and determining an extended time period do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 8. Rather, the Examiner determines the limitations include generic computing hardware and generic data gathering or display features that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Final Act. 8. Moreover, the Examiner determines the tables and keys are employed as conventional tables and links that organize data and that storing data in tables, using a plurality of tables, and creating additional tables, is well- known, routine, and conventional. Ans. 6, 11. Appellants present similar arguments as those discussed above. App. Br. 38–43. In addition, Appellants argue “the specification fully supports unconventional candidate keys and tables executed to provide an improvement to memory.†Reply Br. 12. Appellants also argue “the claims recite usage of a novel table (storing digital keys) enabling a memory storage improvement.†Reply Br. 14. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 9–11. When viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional elements in the claim (e.g., “computing system,†“memory device,†“input device,†“plotter,†“GUI,†table,†“first candidate key,†“second candidate key,†“network,†“data,†“renewal objectâ€), and as identified by the Examiner, amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive concept. See Spec. 18–20. Moreover, Appellants do not direct our attention to anything in the Specification that indicates the claimed computer Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 15 components perform anything other than well-understood, routine, and conventional processing functions, such as receiving, processing, storing, and displaying data. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired informationâ€); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably inventiveâ€); Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept). Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively explain why the candidate keys and tables are unconventional. In short, the claims do no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. Accordingly, Appellants have not adequately explained how the claims are performed such that they are not routine, conventional functions of a generic computer. The claims at issue do not require any non- conventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non- generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,†but merely call for performance of the claimed information receiving, processing, storing, and and displaying data “on a set of generic computer components.†Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2017-011592 Application 11/861,436 16 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26, 28, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation
