Ex Parte Rosjat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 27, 2018

13719845 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/719,845 12/19/2012
32864 7590 07/31/2018
FISH & RICHARDSON, P.C. (SAP)
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Martin Rosjat
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.
13913-0688001/120305US01 2572
EXAMINER
GARCIA-GUERRA, DARLENE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 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):
P ATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Exparte MARTIN ROSJAT and STEFAN HESSE
Appeal2016-007264 1
Application 13/719,845 2
Technology Center 3600
Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BA YAT, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 We make reference to the Specification ("Spec.," filed Dec. 19, 2012),
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Nov. 30, 2015), and Reply Brief
("Reply Br.," filed July 18, 2016), as well as the Examiner's Answer
("Ans.," mailed June 3, 2016) and Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed
June 2, 2015).
2 According to the Appeal Brief, the real party in interest is SAP SE.
App. Br. 4.
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant3 appeals from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
SUBJECT MATTER ON APPEAL
The invention relates to "automatically monitoring occurrence and
initiating actions in response to accidents in operations of an enterprise."
Spec., Abstract. Claims 1, 18, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for automatically
monitoring occurrence and initiating actions in response to
accidents in operations of an enterprise, the method being
executed using one or more processors and comprising:
receiving a plurality of vehicle data sets, each vehicle data
set corresponding to a vehicle of a plurality of vehicles that
support the operations of the enterprise and comprising at least
one of explicit accident indications and implicit accident
indications, the explicit accident indications comprising
information provided by an operator of the vehicle and the
implicit accident indications comprising information about a
location of the vehicle during a stationary state of the vehicle and
a duration of the stationary state;
receiving a first set of accident rules from a data
repository;
processing, by the one or more processors, a first vehicle
data set based on the first set of accident rules; and
3 We use the term "Appellant" herein to refer to any and all appellants
collectively.
2
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
determining, by the one or more processors, that a first
vehicle corresponding to the first data set was likely in an
accident based on the at least one of explicit accident indications
and implicit accident indications, and in response:
retrieving additional data from one or more of the
first vehicle and a repository of the enterprise,
determining, based on the additional data, one or
more remedial actions to be performed, at least one
remedial action remediating a product supply interruption
that would result from the accident,
identifying one or more entities, each entity
performing at least one remedial action of the one or more
remedial actions, and
transmitting a plurality of instruction data seats to
the one or more entities, each entity of the one or more
entities receiving at least one instruction data set.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Murata et al. ("Murata") us 5,487,516 Jan.30, 1996
Burge US 2002/0103622 Al Aug. 1, 2002
Breed US 2009/0043441 Al Feb. 12,2009
Wei et al. ("Wei") US 2009/0326991 Al Dec. 31, 2009
Terlep US 2011/0087505 Al Apr. 14, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as non-statutory subject matter;
claims 1-7 and 9-19 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Burge, Wei, Terlep, and Breed; and
3
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Burge, Wei,
Terlep, Breed, and Murata.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101
In Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, 134 S. Ct. 2347
(2014), the Supreme Court identifies a two-step framework for determining
whether claimed subject matter is judicially excepted from patent eligibility
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. According to the first step of this analysis, "[w]e
must first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to a
patent-ineligible concept," such as an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355. If the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the second step includes
determining whether the claims include 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. at
2355 (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132
S. Ct. 1289, 1294 (2012)).
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner applies
this two-step framework. Final Act. 8-9. Pursuant to the first step, the
Examiner determines the claims are directed to "the abstract idea of
monitoring occurrence of accidents." Id. at 8. Under the second step, the
Examiner determines the claims do not recite significantly more than the
abstract idea because they "require[] no more than a general purpose
computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood in
the art of vehicle management systems." Id. at 9.
4
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
Appellant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under
the first step of the Alice analysis because they are "not directed to some
fundamental truth or business practice that could have existed in the
pre-Internet era." App. Br. 13. Rather, according to Appellant, the claimed
invention is "fundamentally rooted in computer technology." Id.
Appellant's arguments do not apprise us of error.
In determining whether claims are directed to excluded subject matter,
e.g., an abstract idea, under the first step of the Alice analysis, the Federal
Circuit has explained that "the 'directed to' inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether 'their
character as a whok is directed to excluded subject matter."' Enfish, LL(~ v.
A1icrosojt Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active 1Vet1;1/ork, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2015)). For computer-implemented inventions in particular, such
as the present invention, "the first step in the Alice inquiry ... asks whether
the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities ... or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an 'abstract idea'
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Id. at 1335-36.
Here, independent claim 1 recites a series of steps for: receiving
accident indications from a plurality of vehicles that support the operations
of an enterprise; receiving accident rules from a data repository; processing
the accident rules to determine whether a given vehicle was likely in an
accident based on the accident indications; and, in response, retrieving
additional data, determining one or more remedial actions to remediate a
product supply interruption resulting from the accident, identifying entities
5
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
to perform the remedial action, and transmitting instructions to entities. As
such, the claimed steps result in determining remedial actions.
Independent claim 1 further recites computing components, such as
one or more processors. However, the Specification does not describe any
improvement to the computing components. Rather, the Specification
explains that the invention relates to mitigating risks in the operation of an
enterprise which utilizes vehicles. Spec. ,r 1. According to the
Specification, unanticipated events (e.g., vehicle accidents) caused by
external factors outside of a company's control can lead to problems
requiring immediate, short-term, and/or long-term remediation. Id. The
Specification further explains that the claimed invention enables an
enterprise to automatically identify the occurrence of an accident and initiate
remedial actions, thereby "helping the enterprises to provide efficient supply
transportation in safer conditions." Id. ,r 66.
In light of the above, the claimed invention uses the recited computer
components to perform a series of steps that enable remedial actions to be
taken in response to an accident and thereby mitigate risk. The focus of the
claimed invention, therefore, is not on an improvement in computer
capabilities, but rather on a process that qualifies as an abstract idea, i.e.,
monitoring the occurrence of accidents to provide remedial actions to
mitigate risk, for which the computer components are invoked merely as
tools to implement the process.
Seeing no error in the Examiner's determination that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea under the first step of the Alice analysis, we tum
to Appellant's arguments under the second step. Appellant argues the
claims recite significantly more than the abstract idea because the claimed
6
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
invention is rooted in computer technology. App. Br. 14--15. We find
Appellant's argument under the second step of Alice unpersuasive for
essentially the same reasons we found it unpersuasive under the first step.
Namely, the claimed invention being implemented in a computer
environment does not, in and of itself, mean the claimed invention is rooted
in computer technology. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 ("Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort
of "additional featur[ e ]" that provides any 'practical assurance that the
process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [ abstract
idea] itself."' (internal citation omitted) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297)).
Appellant also argues that the claims recite significantly more than the
abstract idea because claimed invention is "directed to a problem that is
unique to automatically monitoring occurrence and initiating actions in
response to accidences in operations of an enterprise." App. Br. 15.
Appellant, however, does not explain what this problem is. Moreover, as set
forth above, the Specification does not describe that the invention addresses
a problem unique to automatically monitoring occurrences and initiating
remedial actions. Rather, the Specification explains that the invention
mitigates risk by providing remedial actions in response to determining an
accident has occurred. Spec. ,r,r 1, 66. Appellant, therefore, does not apprise
us of error in the Examiner's determination that the claims fail to recite
significantly more than the abstract idea under the second step of the Alice
analysis.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's determination that the claims are patent ineligible. We,
therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection.
7
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
In rejecting independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Burge
discloses the invention substantially as claimed, and relies on Wei, Terlep,
and Breed for teaching certain limitations. Final Act. 10-28. In particular,
the Examiner relies on Wei for teaching "determining, based on the
additional data, one or more remedial actions to be performed, at least one
remedial action remediating a product supply interruption that would result
from the accident." Id. at 18-19. The Examiner also finds Breed teaches
"the explicit accident indications comprising information provided by an
operator of the vehicle and the implicit accident indications comprising
information about a location of the vehicle during a stationary state of the
vehicle and a duration of the stationary state." Id. at 24--28.
Appellant argues Wei's teaching of "contacting the driver for
explanation of the delay, and customer notification" cannot be considered "at
least one remedial action remediating a product supply interruption that
would result from the accident" as recited in independent claim 1.
App. Br. 18 (citing Wei ,r,r 54--55) (emphasis omitted). According to
Appellant, "at least the cited portions of Wei are silent as to product supply."
Id. On the other hand, the Examiner determines that under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, consistent with the specification, Wei can
reasonably be said to "remediat[ e] a product supply interruption" because:
(i) the "product" being supplied in Wei is one or more working vehicles; (ii)
the supply of that product can be "interrupted" when, e.g., one of the
vehicles breaks down or is in an accident; and (iii) such an interruption can
8
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
be "remediated" by, e.g., sending another, nearby vehicle to the customer
location. Ans. 43--44 ( citing Wei ,r 59). We agree with the Examiner.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, claim terms
generally are given their ordinary and customary meaning, as understood by
a person of ordinary skill in the art, in the context of the specification. In re
Translogic Tech., Inc., 504 F.3d 1249, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2007). If the
specification does not assign or suggest a pmiicular definition to a claim
term, it is appropriate to consult a general dictionary definition of the word
for guidance in determining the ordinary and custornary meaning of the
claim term as viewed by a person of ordinary skm in the art. Comaper
Corp. v. Antee, Inc., 596 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
Here, the Specification does provide or suggest a particular definition
for "product." The ordinary and customary meaning of "product" is
"something produced" or "something ( such as a service) that is marketed or
sold as a commodity." Product, Merrian-Webster.com,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/product (last visited July 10,
2018). Consequently, given its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, "product" includes Wei's chauffeur service.
Moreover, a vehicle in Wei becoming disabled would constitute a "product
supply interruption," where such interruption could be "remediated" by
redirecting another, nearby vehicle to the location of the disabled one.
Appellant also argues Breed's teaching of determining whether "a
component is operating abnormally" could not be used as "information
about a location of the vehicle during a stationary state of the vehicle and a
duration of the stationary state," as recited in independent claim 1.
App. Br. 19 (citing Breed ,r 807) (emphasis omitted). However, Appellant's
9
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
argument is not persuasive because the Examiner is not relying solely on
Breed's teaching of determining whether a component is operating
abnormally to meet the limitation in question. Rather, the Examiner finds
Breed teaches determining "information about a location of the vehicle
during a stationary state" by virtue of Breed's use of "satellite-based or
ground-based location determining techniques." Ans. 45 (citing Breed
,r 807). Furthermore, the Examiner finds Breed teaches determining
information about the "duration of the stationary state" by virtue of Breed's
periodic evaluations of vehicles' operating status, which, if deemed
"abnormal" for consecutive cycles, would cumulatively show how long a
vehicle has been in the same location. Id. Consequently, the data collected
by the various monitoring means of Breed teaches "information about a
location of the vehicle during a stationary state of the vehicle and a duration
of the stationary state," as recited in independent claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant does not apprise us of error in the
Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and we sustain the Examiner's
rejection. Appellant makes the same arguments for independent claims 18
and 19 (App. Br. 18-19), and we sustain the rejection of these claims for the
same reasons as independent claim 1. Lastly, Appellant does not present
any separate argument as to dependent claims 2-17, and we likewise sustain
the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is affirmed.
10
Appeal2016-007264
Application 13/719,845
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11