Raymond Seetoh

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2020

15147074 - (R) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2020)

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.
15/147,074 05/05/2016 Raymond Seetoh 2622
139649 7590 07/30/2020
Credenx PTE. LTD.
5001 Beach Road #03-10
Golden Mile Complex
Singapore, 199588
SINGAPORE
EXAMINER
NOVAK, REBECCA R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2020 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 RAYMOND SEETOH
____________

Appeal 2019-003714
Application 15/147,0741
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING

Appellant has filed a Request for Rehearing (hereinafter “Req.
Reh’g”) under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(3) of our Decision entered on May 29,
2020 (hereinafter “Decision”).
Our Decision affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 and affirmed the rejection of claims 7 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b). Decision 25. Both of which affirmances are the subject of
Appellant’s Request for Rehearing.
For the reasons identified below, we deny the Request for Rehearing.

1 Appellant identifies Raymond Seetoh as the real party in interest. Appeal
Br. 2.

Appeal 2019-003714
Application 15/147,074
2

REQUEST FOR REHEARING ARGUMENTS
Appellant asserts:
Claim 1 improves the functioning of computers because it
enables computers to evaluate subjective information. The
subjective information may include behavioural information,
personality traits, corporate culture, character, qualities and
qualitative information. Conventional computers are designed
to process numeric information. The advance of Claim 1 is to
evaluate behavioural information and subjective information.
Claim 1 increases the abilities of computers to process
behavioural information, personality traits, corporate culture,
character and qualities.
Req. Reh’g 4.
We disagree with Appellant. First, Appellant’s distinction based on
the content of the data being processed by the computer (“behavioural
information, personality traits, corporate culture, character and qualities”) is
unpersuasive because “even if a process of collecting and analyzing
information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that
limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.”
(Quoting Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (citing cases)). Informational content difference alone is not
patentably consequential. This is so because “[c]laim limitations directed to
the content of information and lacking a requisite functional relationship are
not entitled to patentable weight because such information is not patent
eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.” Praxair Distribution, Inc. v.
Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Ltd., 890 F.3d 1024, 1032 (Fed. Cir.
2018).
Second, an improvement in efficiency alone does not render claims
patent eligible because “[w]hile the claimed system and method certainly
Appeal 2019-003714
Application 15/147,074
3

purport to accelerate the process of analyzing audit log data, the speed
increase comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer, rather
than the patented method itself.” See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he
fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a
computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.”). FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
We disagree with Appellant that claim 1 is not directed to “managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people.” Req.
Reh’g. 4. Our decision explicitly states that “evaluating the suitability of an
applicant for a team is a form of managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people.” Decision 13. It should be
well understood that deciding who makes a team and who does not is
managing interaction between people.
Concerning Appellant’s arguments to dependent claims 8, 11, and 12
(Req. Reh’g. 6–7), in which Appellant asserts that the recited functions of
these claims require a computer, we find these arguments unpersuasive
because Appellant has not provided evidence showing that the claims
implement its process using anything other than the ordinary capabilities of
a general purpose computer. As early as Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584
(1978)), the Supreme Court held that calculations, while “primarily useful
for computerized calculations producing automatic adjustments in alarm
settings,” “can [still] be made by pencil and paper calculations.” Parker,
437 U.S. at 586. As such, the Court did not deem the alleged primacy of
computer implementation to be persuasive in its 35 U.S.C. § 101 analysis.
Appeal 2019-003714
Application 15/147,074
4

Appellant here has not produced evidence showing that the claimed
computations cannot be made by human interaction using a pen and paper.
Also, to the extent Appellant’s arguments to dependent Claims 8, 11,
and 12 add new argument to that which was presented in the appeal brief, we
note that arguments which “Appellants could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived.”
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
Concerning Appellant’s arguments to claims 7 and 19 rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite, we are unpersuaded. Appellant
asserts that “[i]n Claims 7 and 19, ‘adjusted frequency values’ are used to
define a different item from ‘frequency values’.” Req. Reh’g. 8. While this
may be true, the claims on their face do not reflect how frequency values and
the adjusted frequency differ, or, in other words, what happens to the
frequency values to become adjusted frequency values.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
For the reasons above, we are not convinced that Appellant has
shown, with particularity, points believed to have been misapprehended or
overlooked in our Decision. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1)(2011).
The Request for Rehearing is denied.
Outcome of Decision on Rehearing:
Claims 35 U.S.C § Basis Denied Granted
1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24
7, 19 112(b) Indefiniteness 7, 19
Overall
Outcome
1–24

Appeal 2019-003714
Application 15/147,074
5

Final Outcome of Appeal after Rehearing, as to all appealed claims.
Claims 35 U.S.C § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24
7, 19 112(a) Written
Description
7, 19
7, 19 112(b) Indefiniteness 7, 19
1-9, 11, 13-21,
23
103 LaPasta,
Mondal
1-9, 11,
13-21, 23
10, 22 103 LaPasta,
Mondal,
Kleeman
10, 22
12, 24 103 LaPasta,
Mondal,
Busboom
12, 24
Overall
Outcome
1–24

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).

REHEARING DENIED