Ex Parte England et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 8, 2018

13466441 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 8, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/466,441 05/08/2012
33438 7590 06/12/2018
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Aron England
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.
DC-19241 8938
EXAMINER
AIRAPETIAN, MILA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2018 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):
tmunoz@tcchlaw.com
heather@tcchlaw.com
USPTO@dockettrak.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARON ENGLAND and STEVEN TEDJAMULIA
Appeal2017-001267
Application 13/466,441 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to "managing catalog resources within a social
commerce environment." Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Dell Products L.P.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-001267
Application 13/466,441
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A computer-implementable method for managing catalog
resources in a social commerce environment, comprising:
receiving social data associated with a user, the social data
provided by an affiliate;
processing catalog data associated with a set of available
products to identify a subset of available products corresponding
to the affiliate, the subset of available products comprising a set
of purchasable products;
processing the social data and catalog data associated with
the set of purchasable products to generate product catalog data,
the product catalog data being consolidated into batches for
processing, the processing facilitating managing catalog
resources in a social commerce environment via an information
handling system;
providing the product catalog data to the user;
wherein, the processing catalog data associated with a set
of available products is performed via a first user interface, the
first user interface presenting a representation of the set of
available products and enabling a user to identify a subset of
available products corresponding to the affiliate.
Rejections2
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4--5.
2 Rather than repeat the Examiner's positions and Appellants' arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the above mentioned Appeal Brief, as well as the
following documents for their respective details: the Final Action mailed
November 24, 2015 ("Final Act.") and the Examiner's Answer mailed
August 30, 2016 ("Ans.").
2
Appeal2017-001267
Application 13/466,441
ANALYSIS
Section 101 defines patent-eligible subject matter as "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
"long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:]
Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."
Ass 'nfor Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589
(2013) (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012)).
To distinguish "patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts," the Supreme Court has set up an analytical framework. Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566
U.S. at 71-73). In the first step of the analysis, we determine whether the
claims at issue are "directed to" a judicial exception, such as an abstract
idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355. If not, the inquiry ends. Thales Visionix Inc.
v. US., 850 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017); Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016). If the claims are determined to
be directed to an abstract idea, then we consider under step two whether the
claims contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to "transform the nature of
the claim into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355
(quotations and citation omitted).
Here, the Examiner determined "[t]he claims are directed to the
abstract idea of managing catalogs, which is a method of organizing human
activities involving mathematical correlations." Final Act. 4.
3
Appeal2017-001267
Application 13/466,441
Appellants argue that the claims "are significantly more than the mere
execution of mathematical algorithms" and "overcome a problem
specifically arising in graphical user interfaces." App. Br. 3--4. In other
words, Appellants do not question the Examiner's determination that the
claims are directed to an abstract idea, but instead argue that the claims
contain an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter.
In response to Appellants' argument that the claims "are necessarily
rooted in computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in
graphical user interfaces" (id. at 4; see also Reply Br. 3), the Examiner states
"[ m ]anaging a marketplace of goods or services such as the one in the claims
is an abstract commercial enterprise, not a technology" and the claims recite
"nothing particular to the Internet or computers that is improved" by the
specific elements. Ans. 3--4. The Examiner likens the case to Versata
Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed.
Cir. 2015), stating that "[ t ]he routine usage of generic computer components
does not change the fundamental character of the invention, which is 'aimed
at processing business information despite being applied on a general
purpose computer."' Ans. 4. As to the claims as an ordered combination,
the Examiner determines "[ n ]one of the additional elements recited 'offers a
meaningful limitation beyond generally linking "the use of the [method] to a
particular technological environment," that is, implementation via
computers."' Id. (quoting Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (citing Bilski v. Kappas,
561 U.S. 593, 610----611 (2010)).
4
Appeal2017-001267
Application 13/466,441
We are persuaded by the Examiner's reasoning, which Appellants do
not persuasively rebut, that the claims are directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-2 0.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5