SEARCH

PTAB.US: Decisions of PTAB Patent Trial and Appeal Board Updated Daily.

Showing posts with label affinity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label affinity. Show all posts

Monday, May 8, 2017

affinity, apple2, intellectual ventures, enfish

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1782 Ex Parte Petri et al 12661196 - (D) ROSS 103 Legal Department (M-495) LAN, YAN

Tech Center 2600 Communications
2688 Ex Parte KANBE et al 13764144 - (D) POTHIER 103 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC PENDLETON, DIONNE

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3611 Ex Parte Barrett et al 13748437 - (D) ASTORINO 103 JEFFREY H. RODDY WILLIAMS, MAURICE L

3623 Ex Parte Uthe 11688319 - (D) WIEDER 103 101 MOORE & VAN ALLEN, PLLC For IBM GURSKI, AMANDA KAREN

With regard to the first part of the [Alice] framework, we agree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to a method of organizing human activities and, in particular, to the abstract idea of creating a priority order of a list of rules and presenting a graphic user interface to edit the list. (See Answer 3, see also Claim 1.) “The ‘abstract idea’ step of the inquiry calls upon us to look at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this case, the Specification discloses that the invention is directed to “processes that may involve user or human interaction, and more particularly to a method and system to automate a user out of a process flow.” (Spec. 11.) And claim 1, as a representative claim, recites “determining ... if a process template . . . exists,” determining ... if a rule exists for automatic completion ... of the process template,” “at least partially completing ... the process template,” and presenting a GUI “for creating, editing, and controlling activation of the list of rules.” (Claim 1.) Courts have treated claims directed to similar subject matter as directed to an abstract idea. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1237, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (providing a GUI interface to generate menus, i.e., “list[s] of options available to a user displayable on a computer,” with certain functions); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1369—70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (providing an interactive interface to the user). Additionally, “the claims are not directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate. Cf. Enfish [LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].” Apple, Inc., 842 F.3d at 1241. Therefore, we are not persuaded that these claims are not directed to an abstract idea.

3649 Ex Parte Sanchez 13750818 - (D) HILL 102/103 QUARLES & BRADY LLP MCPARTLIN, SARAH BURNHAM

Monday, April 10, 2017

affinity, alice

custom search

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1746 Ex Parte Brown et al 13435503 - (D) GARRIS 103 THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY DULKO, MARTA S

1782 Ex Parte Brandenburger et al 12663930 - (D) INGLESE 103 OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP LAN, YAN

Tech Center 3600 Transportation, Construction, Electronic Commerce, Agriculture, National Security, and License & Review
3624 Ex Parte Sundstrom 14026622 - (D) MEDLOCK 101/102 SCENERA RESEARCH, LLC COUPE, ANITA YVONNE

3626 Ex Parte MCCOY 12256502 - (D) SCHOPFER 103 101 WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION - MD 3601 HUNTER, SEAN KRISTOPHER

Adding generic computer parts and functions to a container does not elevate the claims to eligibility. Rather, we find that the steps of the claims, taken both individually and as an ordered combination, do not transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294) (“Limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render any claims any less abstract.”)

Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. _, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) 2103 2106

Tech Center 3700 Mechanical Engineering, Manufacturing, and Products & Design
3765 Ex Parte Tyrer 13387238 - (D) McCARTHY 102/103 112(2) MAIER & MAIER, PLLC SZAFRAN, BRIEANNA TARAH LARELL

REHEARING

DENIED
Tech Center 1700 Chemical & Materials Engineering
1734 Ex Parte Lenze et al 13156260 - (D) RANGE 103 REINHART BOERNER VAN DEUREN P.C. LEE, REBECCA Y

REEXAMINATION

AFFIRMED
Tech Center 2800 Semiconductors, Electrical and Optical Systems and Components
2878 Q.I. PRESS CONTROLS B.V., Requester, v. QUAD/TECH, INC., Patent Owner. Ex Parte 6867423 et al 10/245,469 95000526 - (D) SIU 103 Foley & Lardner LLP Quad/Graphics NGUYEN, MINH T original LEE, PATRICK J