Ramsey Devereaux et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 18, 2019

14273889 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 18, 2019)

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.
14/273,889 05/09/2014 Ramsey Devereaux US-0964.05a|USCO:0304 3618
130735 7590 07/18/2019
Fletcher Yoder PC / USAA
P.O. Box 692289
Houston, TX 77269
EXAMINER
SUBRAMANIAN, NARAYANSWAMY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2019 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):
docket@fyiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAMSEY DEVEREAUX, DAVID S. FRANCK,
MICHAEL J. ALLEN, SPENCER READ, and KATHLEEN L. SWAIN
____________

Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,8891
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 The Appellants identify United Services Automobile Association as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

2
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
1. A computer system for processing loss related data,
comprising:
a memory configured to store instructions;
a processor disposed in communication with the memory,
wherein the processor upon execution of the instructions is
configured to:
receive, from one or more sensor devices
associated with an insured property, a first set of data
regarding damage to the insured property;
determine, based on analysis of the first set of data,
instructions for the one or more sensor devices to take a
series of readings regarding the damage to the insured
property;
transmit the instructions to the one or more sensor
devices;
receive, from the one or more sensor devices, a
second set of data collected from the series of readings
and regarding the damage to the insured property;
determine one or more loss events regarding the
damage to the insured property based on an analysis of
the received first and second sets of data;
identify one or more relevant sections of an
insurance policy associated with the insured property that
relate to the one or more loss events regarding the
damage to the insured property;
determine, by applying predefined business rules
using the determined one or more loss events and the
relevant sections, that the insurance policy covers an
insurance claim regarding the one or more loss events
and that recoverable depreciation is applicable to the
determined insurance claim; and
provide notification to an insured associated with
the insured property on a display that identifies:
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

3
the insurance claim for the one or more loss
events covered by the insurance policy;
and a repairing party regarding at least one
of the one or more loss events.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
ineligible subject matter.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The findings of fact relied upon, which are supported by a
preponderance of the evidence, appear in the following Analysis.
RELATED CASES
We note that at the time the Appeal Brief was filed in the present case,
a Notice of Appeal had been filed in at least one related U.S. patent
application: 14/303,336 (Appeal 2018-001359). Appellants fail to cite this
related Appeal as required by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(ii). We remind
Appellants and counsel to review pending proceedings before the Board, so
as to ensure that all related Appeals are identified.
ANALYSIS
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. Yet, subject matter belonging to any of the statutory
categories may, nevertheless, be ineligible for patenting. The Supreme
Court has interpreted § 101 to exclude laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas, because they are regarded as the basic tools of scientific
and technological work, such that including them within the domain of
patent protection would risk inhibiting future innovation premised upon
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

4
them. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013).
Of course, “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect,
rest upon, or apply’” these basic tools of scientific and technological work.
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014) (internal citation
omitted). Accordingly, evaluating ineligible subject matter, under these
judicial exclusions, involves a two-step framework for “distinguish[ing]
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.” Id. (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted). The first step determines whether the claim is
directed to judicially excluded subject matter (such as a so-called “abstract
idea”); the second step determines whether there are any “additional
elements” recited in the claim that (either individually or as an “ordered
combination”) amount to “significantly more” than the identified judicially
excepted subject matter itself. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101, in accordance with judicial precedent. 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019
Revised Guidance”). Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, a claim is “directed
to” an abstract idea, only if the claim recites any of (1) mathematical
concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity, and (3) mental
processes — without integrating such abstract idea into a “practical
application,” i.e., without “apply[ing], rely[ing] on, or us[ing] the judicial
exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial
exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

5
monopolize the judicial exception.” Id. at 52–55. The considerations
articulated in MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106.05(a)–(c)
and (e)–(h) (“MPEP”) bear upon whether a claim element (or combination
of elements) integrates an abstract idea into a practical application. Id. at 55.
A claim that is “directed to” an abstract idea constitutes ineligible subject
matter, unless the claim recites an additional element (or combination of
elements) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
Although created “[i]n accordance with judicial precedent” (id. at 52),
the 2019 Revised Guidance enumerates the analytical steps differently than
the Supreme Court’s Alice opinion. Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Guidance
addresses whether the claimed subject matter falls within any of the statutory
categories of § 101. Id. at 53–54. Step 2A, Prong One, concerns whether
the claim at issue recites ineligible subject matter and, if an abstract idea is
recited, Step 2A, Prong Two, addresses whether the recited abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application. Id. at 54–55. Unless such integration
exists, the analysis proceeds to Step 2B, in order to determine whether any
additional element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly
more than the identified abstract idea. Id. at 56.
The Appellants argue claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20 as a group. See
Appeal Br. 12–21. Claim 1 is selected for analysis herein. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In the present Appeal, there is no dispute that the claims satisfy Step 1
of the 2019 Revised Guidance — i.e., that the claims are drawn to subject
matter within the scope of § 101.
In relation to Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the
Examiner identifies certain selections of claim limitations as corresponding
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

6
to abstract ideas. See Final Action 3–5. In particular relation to the analysis
herein, the Examiner identifies the following claim limitations of
independent claim 1 as corresponding to a judicial exception: “determine,
based on analysis of the first set of data, instructions for the one or more
sensor devices to take a series of readings regarding the damage to the
insured property”; “transmit the instructions to the one or more sensor
devices”; “determine one or more loss events regarding the damage to the
insured property based on an analysis of the received first and second sets of
data”; “identify one or more relevant sections of an insurance policy
associated with the insured property that relate to the one or more loss events
regarding the damage to the insured property”; “determine, by applying
predefined business rules using the determined one or more loss events and
the relevant sections, that the insurance policy covers an insurance claim
regarding the one or more loss events and that recoverable depreciation is
applicable to the determined insurance claim”; and “provide notification to
an insured associated with the insured property on a display that identifies:
the insurance claim for the one or more loss events covered by the insurance
policy; and a repairing party regarding at least one of the one or more loss
events.” Id. at 4. The Examiner regards these limitations as describing
“processing loss related data,” which the Examiner regards as an abstract
idea. Id. at 5 (citations omitted).
The Examiner’s characterization of the foregoing claim limitations is
consistent with the 2019 Revised Guidance, which identifies “fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk)” as among “[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” that
constitute judicially excepted abstract ideas. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

7
Fed. Reg. at 52. In addition, the Examiner’s characterization of the
identified limitations of claim 1 is consistent with determinations by our
reviewing court. In Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire, 728 F.3d 1336,
1342 (Fed. Cir. 2013) claimed language describing “generating tasks to be
performed in an insurance organization” was held to be an abstract concept.
Further, in Bancorp Servs. LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co., 687 F.3d 1266,
1277 (Fed. Cir. 2012) claim language describing “a life insurance policy
management system” was held to be an abstract concept.
The Appellants contend that the Examiner applies “an overly broad
characterization of the subject matter in the present application that ignores
numerous features of the claims” — in particular, “the Office at no point
addresses the claimed features of” “[d]etermine, based on analysis of the
first set of data, instructions for the one or more sensor devices to take a
series of readings regarding the damage to the insured property[.]” Appeal
Br. 17. Contrary to the Appellants’ assertion, however, the Examiner
included this very claim limitation among those identified as describing an
abstract idea in claim 1. See Final Action 4. The Appellants do not
otherwise explain adequately the basis for the proposed “overly broad
characterization” employed by the Examiner (Appeal Br. 17) or the assertion
that “[t]he Final Office Action improperly describes the claims at a high
level of abstraction rather than fully considering the language of the claims”
(id. at 20). Indeed, “[a]n abstract idea can generally be described at different
levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d, 1229, 1240
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the Appellants have not explained why the
Examiner’s selection and description of the identified claim limitations
results in any error in the analysis.
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

8
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s analysis
that corresponds to Step 2A, Prong One, of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
With regard to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised Guidance,
unless a claim that recites a judicial exception (such as an abstract idea)
“integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that
exception,” then the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. The analysis of such an “integration
into a practical application” involves “[i]dentifying . . . any additional
elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and
“evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.”
Id. at 54–55. “[W]hether an additional element or combination of elements
integrate the exception into a practical application should be evaluated on
the claim as a whole.” Id. at 55 n.24.
In relation to Step 2A, Prong Two, the Appellants contend that the
claimed subject matter effects improvements to a computer system and
solves a problem arising in computer technology. Appeal Br. 15–16.
According to the Appellants, “the claimed technology improves computer
systems by increasing the accuracy and efficiency of[ ]warning and loss
mitigation systems.” Id. at 15. Similarly, the Appellants assert that the
claimed subject matter concerns “an improvement to address a problem
associated with employing smart home devices to collect and make use of
dwelling and telematics data in operational cost mitigation systems.” Id.
at 16 (citing Spec. 2, 25–29). The Appellants argue that information
gathered about an insured property “may be underutilized with respect to
notifying parties of current damage and offering recommendations to
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

9
anticipate and/or prevent future damages.” Id. (quoting Spec. 2). The
Appellants explain:
This flaw in existing computer-based integration with smart
home devices is addressed by the pending claims, for example,
by determining “based on analysis of the first set of data,
instructions for the one or more sensor devices to take a series
of readings regarding the damage to the insured property,” as
recited by the pending independent claims.
Id. at 16–17.
However, the Appellants do not rely upon any element that may
properly be regarded as an “additional element[ ] recited in the claim beyond
the judicial exception(s).” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Rather, the Appellants point to a claim limitation (“determine, based on
analysis of the first set of data, instructions for the one or more sensor
devices to take a series of readings regarding the damage to the insured
property”) that the Examiner relies upon to describe the identified abstract
idea. See Final Action 4.
Furthermore, the Appellants do not sufficiently explain how the
claimed subject matter “improves computer systems.” See Appeal Br. 15.
To the contrary, the identified claim limitation appear as part of “a process
that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely
as a tool” for the performance thereof. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Notably, an “additional element” that
“does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use” does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

10
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s analysis
that corresponds to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the 2019 Revised Guidance.
With regard to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance, the Appellants
contend that, claim 1 includes a non-conventional arrangement of features
that, in combination, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea.
Appeal Br. 17–18; Reply Br. 2.
Yet, the Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 17–18) relies upon a
combination of claim limitations, in claim 1, that includes limitations that
the Examiner identifies (Final Action 4) as representing an abstract idea:
“determine, based on analysis of the first set of data, instructions for the one
or more sensor devices to take a series of readings regarding the damage to
the insured property”; “determine one or more loss events regarding the
damage to the insured property based on an analysis of the received first and
second sets of data”; “identify one or more relevant sections of an insurance
policy associated with the insured property that relate to the one or more loss
events regarding the damage to the insured property”; and “determine, by
applying predefined business rules using the determined one or more loss
events and the relevant sections, that the insurance policy covers an
insurance claim regarding the one or more loss events and that recoverable
depreciation is applicable to the determined insurance claim.”2 Therefore,
the Appellants do not identify additional elements that might amount to

2 The Reply Brief (page 2) refers to a different selection of claim limitations,
but, nevertheless, includes the following limitations identified by the
Examiner (Final Action 4) as describing an abstract idea: “determine, based
on analysis of the first set of data, instructions for the one or more sensor
devices to take a series of readings regarding the damage to the insured
property”; and “transmit the instructions to the one or more sensor devices.”
Appeal 2018-004448
Application 14/273,889

11
significantly more than the identified abstract idea. “It has been clear since
Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is
directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v.
BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Furthermore, the Appellants do not adequately explain why the
combination of claim limitations — as identified in either the Appeal Brief
or the Reply Brief — might amount to significantly more than an abstract
idea.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of any error in the rejection, with
regard to analyses corresponding to Step 2B of the 2019 Revised Guidance.,
whereby any additional element might amount to significantly more than the
identified judicial exception.
Therefore, in view of the foregoing, we are not persuaded of error by
the Examiner and we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3–8, and 10–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–8,
and 10–20 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).
AFFIRMED