Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1982
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`P&RO SOLUTIONS GROUP, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`CIM MAINTENANCE, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-00095-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`This Memorandum Opinion construes the disputed claim terms in United States Patent No.
`
`8,209,205 (“the ’205 Patent”). Also before the Court is Defendant CiM Maintenance, Inc.’s
`
`(“CiM”) Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Docket No.
`
`7). The Court held a Markman hearing on February 14, 2017 (Docket No. 60), and heard argument
`
`on CiM’s motion to dismiss on March 6, 2017 (Docket No. 72). For the reasons discussed below,
`
`the Court resolves the claim-construction disputes as stated below and GRANTS CiM’s Motion
`
`to Dismiss (Docket No. 7).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff P&RO Solutions Group, Inc. (“P&RO”) alleges that CiM infringes the ’205
`
`Patent. Docket No. 1 at 4. The ’205 Patent, entitled “Planning and Scheduling Tool Assistant
`
`Assuring High Utilization of Resources,” issued on June 26, 2012 from an application filed May
`
`24, 2004, which claims priority to provisional applications dated May 22, 2003 and June 30, 2003.
`
`The ‘205 Patent generally relates to computerized planning and scheduling programs. The Abstract
`
`provides:
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 1983
`
`Schedulers, Planners, and Maintenance Supervisors in an Industrial facility can use
`the user interface of the present invention to extremely quickly move work order
`schedules, status planning, and manage resources. Additionally, key performance
`indicators or metrics on performance on how well the organization is doing is also
`cumbersome if not impossible in the current practice in these industrial
`organizations. The variables of this management include worker, crew, Work
`Order, Dates, Planning Status, planner, dates, etc. (see tech manual and summary
`sheets). The invention operates by interfacing with the Computerized Maintenance
`Management System (CMMS) database in a thoroughly interactive process. The
`local program constructs a parallel database and reads and feedbacks to the CMMS
`database frequently to stay current and accurate.
`
`’205 Patent Abstract.
`
`The specification describes a scheduling system in which a computerized user interface is
`
`provided for a user to schedule work orders, such as “repair pump.” Id. at Figures 1–2, 5:50–56,
`
`1:20–34. Scheduled jobs and unscheduled jobs are provided in lists that are grouped by work
`
`week. Id. at 2:53–55. A user may use a mouse to drag and drop unscheduled jobs to a desired
`
`work week. Id. The system is described as allowing quick movement of work orders, status
`
`planning and management of resources. Id. at 2:25–30. As work orders are moved, real-time
`
`indication of resource loading is visible so that the schedulers will know they have not overloaded
`
`a particular work group. Id. at 2:53–63. Performance indicators and metrics for the organization
`
`are also provided. Id. at 2:31–35.
`
`The ’205 Patent also explains that, in the prior art, Computerized Maintenance
`
`Management Systems (“CMMS”) were used to implement work orders in an industrial
`
`environment, but those prior art CMMS systems were inefficient. ’205 Patent at 1:35–41.
`
`CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`“It is a ‘bedrock principle’ of patent law that ‘the claims of a patent define the invention to
`
`which the patentee is entitled the right to exclude.’ ” Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312
`
`Page 2 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 1984
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (quoting Innova/Pure Water Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc.,
`
`381 F.3d 1111, 1115 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). To determine the meaning of the claims, courts first
`
`consider the intrinsic evidence. Id. at 1313; C.R. Bard, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 388 F.3d 858,
`
`861 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc., 262 F.3d
`
`1258, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2001). The intrinsic evidence includes the claims themselves, the
`
`specification, and the prosecution history. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1314; C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at
`
`861. The general rule is that each claim term is construed according to its ordinary and accustomed
`
`meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention in the context
`
`of the patent. Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1312–13; Alloc, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 342 F.3d 1361,
`
`1368 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Azure Networks, LLC v. CSR PLC, 771 F.3d 1336, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
`
`(“There is a heavy presumption that claim terms carry their accustomed meaning in the relevant
`
`community at the relevant time.”) (vacated on other grounds).
`
` “The claim construction inquiry . . . begins and ends in all cases with the actual words of
`
`the claim.” Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa’ per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
`
`“[I]n all aspects of claim construction, ‘the name of the game is the claim.’ ” Apple Inc. v.
`
`Motorola, Inc., 757 F.3d 1286, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
`
`1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). A term’s context in the asserted claim can be instructive. Phillips, 415
`
`F.3d at 1314. Other asserted or unasserted claims can also aid in determining the claim’s meaning,
`
`because claim terms are typically used consistently throughout the patent. Id. Differences among
`
`the claim terms can also assist in understanding a term’s meaning. Id. For example, when a
`
`dependent claim adds a limitation to an independent claim, it is presumed that the independent
`
`claim does not include the limitation. Id. at 1314–15.
`
`Page 3 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 1985
`
`“[C]laims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they are a part.’ ” Id.
`
`(quoting Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 52 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (en banc)).
`
`“[T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is
`
`dispositive; it is the single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’ ” Id. (quoting Vitronics
`
`Corp. v. Conceptronic, Inc., 90 F.3d 1576, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1996)); Teleflex, Inc. v. Ficosa N. Am.
`
`Corp., 299 F.3d 1313, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2002). But, “ [a]lthough the specification may aid the court
`
`in interpreting the meaning of disputed claim language, particular embodiments and examples
`
`appearing in the specification will not generally be read into the claims.” Comark Commc’ns, Inc.
`
`v. Harris Corp., 156 F.3d 1182, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Constant v. Advanced Micro-
`
`Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1988)); see also Phillips, 415 F.3d at 1323. “[I]t is
`
`improper to read limitations from a preferred embodiment described in the specification—even if
`
`it is the only embodiment—into the claims absent a clear indication in the intrinsic record that the
`
`patentee intended the claims to be so limited.” Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad, Inc., 358 F.3d
`
`898, 913 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
`
`Although extrinsic evidence can also be useful, it is “‘less significant than the intrinsic
`
`record in determining the legally operative meaning of claim language.’ ” Phillips, 415 F.3d at
`
`1317 (quoting C.R. Bard, Inc., 388 F.3d at 862). Technical dictionaries and treatises may help a
`
`court understand the underlying technology and the manner in which one skilled in the art might
`
`use claim terms, but technical dictionaries and treatises may provide definitions that are too broad
`
`or may not be indicative of how the term is used in the patent. Id. at 1318. Similarly, expert
`
`testimony may aid a court in understanding the underlying technology and determining the
`
`particular meaning of a term in the pertinent field, but an expert’s conclusory, unsupported
`
`assertions as to a term’s definition are entirely unhelpful to a court. Id. Generally, extrinsic
`
`Page 4 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 1986
`
`evidence is “less reliable than the patent and its prosecution history in determining how to read
`
`claim terms.” Id. The Supreme Court recently explained the role of extrinsic evidence in claim
`
`construction:
`
`In some cases, however, the district court will need to look beyond the patent’s
`intrinsic evidence and to consult extrinsic evidence in order to understand, for
`example, the background science or the meaning of a term in the relevant art during
`the relevant time period. See, e.g., Seymour v. Osborne, 11 Wall. 516, 546 (1871)
`(a patent may be “so interspersed with technical terms and terms of art that the
`testimony of scientific witnesses is indispensable to a correct understanding of its
`meaning”). In cases where those subsidiary facts are in dispute, courts will need to
`make subsidiary factual findings about that extrinsic evidence. These are the
`“evidentiary underpinnings” of claim construction that we discussed in Markman,
`and this subsidiary factfinding must be reviewed for clear error on appeal.
`
`Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831, 841 (2015).
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`At issue are claim terms from claim 1 of the ’205 Patent. On February 14, 2017, prior to
`
`the claim-construction hearing, the Court circulated preliminary claim constructions indicating
`
`where it stood after considering the claim-construction briefing. The Court instructed the parties
`
`that it might change its constructions based upon the parties’ arguments at the hearing. Docket
`
`No. 64 at 2:24–3:10 (“Markman Hr’g Tr.”).
`
`I. Agreed Term
`
`Based on the Court’s preliminary claim constructions, the parties reached an agreement
`
`with respect to the term “work week sections.” Markman Hr’g Tr. at 6:14–2, 12:1–13:17.
`
`Claim Terms
`
`Agreed Claim Construction
`
`“work week sections”
`
`“a plurality of portions of a user interface, each
`portion being a grouping of the days of a given
`week during which work takes place”
`
`
`In view of the parties’ agreement on the proper construction of this term, the Court
`
`ADOPTS this construction.
`
`Page 5 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 1987
`
`II. Disputed Terms
`
`i.
`
`“dragging and dropping the work orders”
`
`P&RO’s Proposed Construction
`“moving a graphical representation of work
`orders, resulting in a recalculation of
`relationally linked data”
`
`P&RO states that the claim describes “dragging and dropping the work orders” rather than
`
`CiM’s Proposed Construction
`Plain and ordinary meaning
`
`generically “dragging and dropping,” and thus, the term must be interpreted consistent with the
`
`specification rather than being given its plain and ordinary meaning. Docket No. 45 at 3–4. P&RO
`
`argues that the dragging and dropping of work orders is applied in the specification to “construct[]
`
`a parallel database and reads and feedbacks to the CMMS database frequently to stay current and
`
`accurate.” Id. at 4 (quoting the ’205 Patent at 2:44–46). P&RO contends that CiM’s proposed
`
`generic interpretation of dragging and dropping does not result in either the construction of a
`
`parallel database or feedback to the CMMS database, both of which P&RO states are required by
`
`the specification. Id. P&RO also argues that the specification requires extensive recalculation of
`
`data linked to work orders, because only with such recalculation can the system accurately sync
`
`and feedback to the CMMS database. Id. at 4.
`
`
`
`P&RO further states that source code of a software program embodying the invention was
`
`filed with the provisional parent application of the ’205 Patent. Id. at 4–5. P&RO contends that
`
`decompiling this file shows the actual operations that occur when a user drags and drops a work
`
`order. Id at 5. Specifically, P&RO contends that recalculation of various related values, including
`
`recalculation of an entire work week, occurs when work orders are dragged and dropped into a
`
`week. Id. P&RO’s expert states:
`
`It would not make any sense for a user to drag and drop data, for the purpose of
`modifying a work schedule, without that action affecting the values of variables
`stored in the relational database tables that describe the work schedule. In
`
`Page 6 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 1988
`
`particular, without such recalculations, it would be impossible to implement the
`functionality of the claims, which include providing metrics about the work
`schedule.
`
`Docket No. 45-1 at ¶ 27 (“Sherman Delcaration”).
`
`
`
`P&RO finally contends that the specification distinguishes generic dragging and dropping,
`
`as referenced in the prior-art Borg reference, which disclosed a manufacturing scheduling program
`
`that included a drag and drop feature, from the dragging and dropping here, which “allows Work
`
`Orders to be assigned into a scheduled work week where the intent is to measure the performance
`
`of the work team executing the work week.” Docket No. 45 at 6 (citing the ’205 Patent at 3:43–
`
`46). Thus, P&RO argues that including the requirement that the dragging and dropping of work
`
`orders must include recalculation of relationally linked data is consistent with the intrinsic
`
`evidence. Id.
`
`In response, CiM argues that “[t]here is no need to read limitations rooted in source code
`
`appendices into this claim. Docket No. 48 at 3. CiM states that P&RO has not cited to any intrinsic
`
`evidence indicating clear intent, by the patentee, to deviate from the ordinary meaning. Id. CiM
`
`contends that P&RO’s expert acknowledged that “drag and drop” has a commonly understood
`
`meaning to a person skilled in the art. Id. (citing Sherman Declaration at ¶ 22). CiM further notes
`
`that P&RO’s expert’s declaration states that “a dragging and dropping action can (and typically
`
`does) change a value in a relationally linked data.” Id. at 4 (citing Sherman Declaration at ¶ 25).
`
`CiM argues that the expert’s use of the word “can” leaves open the possibility that recalculation
`
`might not result upon dragging and dropping and contends that the expert agreed that dragging and
`
`dropping does not require recalculating relationally linked data:
`
`Q. … Do you stand by the statement that dragging and dropping can and typically
`does change a value in relationally linked data?
`A. Yes.
`
`Page 7 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 1989
`
`Q. Do you agree that that statement allows for the possibility that sometimes
`dragging and dropping does not change a value in relationally linked data?
`A. Yes, the sentence allows that.
`Q. And is that sentence consistent with your opinion on claim construction?
`A. It is.
`
`Id. (citing Docket No. 148-1 at 73:18-74:4). CiM contends that there is no support to limit the
`
`claim term to the embodiment described in the specification and that the claim term should
`
`therefore be given its plain and ordinary meaning. Docket No. 148 at 5.
`
`The Court finds that the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning. P&RO has
`
`not pointed to any clear lexicography or disclaimer in the specification mandating a more limited
`
`reading of the claim term. Further, it is undisputed that the term “drag and drop” with reference
`
`to a user-computer interface is well-known and understood in the art.
`
`Additionally, the subsequent recalculations are not described in the claim. P&RO points
`
`to the language “wherein the work orders can be moved from one work week section to another
`
`work week section, from unscheduled to scheduled, to short notice outage, to planned outage, and
`
`to backlog” in support of their limitation, but this language only describes the location of the
`
`movement, not what happens as a result of that movement.
`
`Because the term “drag and drop” is well-known in the art and because P&RO cannot point
`
`to any clear language in the claim or specification that limits this meaning, the Court construes this
`
`term to have its plain and ordinary meaning.
`
`ii.
`
`“short notice section” and “planned outage section”
`
`Claim Term
`“short notice outage section”
`
`“planned outage section”
`
`Court’s Preliminary Construction
`“a portion of the user interface that displays
`planned outages of short duration for the
`purposes of performing maintenance, the
`‘short notice outage section’ and ‘planned
`outage section’ are different sections”
`“a portion of the user interface that displays
`planned outages, the ‘short notice outage
`
`Page 8 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 1990
`
`
`At the hearing, the parties agreed that the Court’s preliminary construction for these terms
`
`section’ and ‘planned outage section’ are
`different sections.”
`
`was correct, but CiM stated that “it would also be correct and potentially helpful to the jury to note
`
`that [the short notice section and the planned outage section] are visibly separate sections.”
`
`Markman Hr’g Tr. at 13:8–10. CiM stated that the specification considers dragging and dropping
`
`between these sections, so the sections must be visibly separate. Id. at 13:1–6. P&RO opposed
`
`the inclusion of additional language to indicate that the two sections were “visibly separate” and
`
`stated that there is no support in the claims or the specification for its inclusion. Id. at 13:25–14:5.
`
`The Court finds that this additional language is not warranted. The claims and the
`
`specification each consider dragging and dropping “from unscheduled to scheduled, to short notice
`
`outage plan, to planned outage plan, to backlog,” ’205 Patent at 2:53–55, 13:42–45, but the patent
`
`makes no mention of dragging and dropping between the short-notice outage section and the
`
`planned outage section.
`
`Having resolved the one remaining dispute between the parties regarding these claim terms,
`
`the Court ADOPTS its above-identified preliminary constructions for “short notice outage
`
`section” and “planned outage section.”
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court construes the claim language in this case in the manner
`
`set forth above.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 1991
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS
`
`On May 24, 2016, CiM filed its motion to dismiss P&RO’s Complaint on the grounds that
`
`claims 1–20 of the ’205 Patent are invalid for failure to claim patentable subject matter under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 101. Docket No. 7. In their responsive briefing, P&RO identified claim-construction
`
`disputes central to the parties’ arguments on the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 26 at 5. Following
`
`the submission of the parties’ claim-construction briefing, the Court allowed supplemental briefing
`
`on the motion to dismiss. Docket No. 64. The Court held a hearing on the motion on March 6,
`
`2017. Having resolved the claim-construction disputes and having considered the briefing and the
`
`argument of the parties, the Court finds that CiM’s motion to dismiss should be GRANTED.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`P&RO’s complaint alleges that CiM infringes claims 1–20 of the ’205 Patent. Docket No.
`
`1 at 3. Claim 1 is the only independent claim of the ’205 Patent, and it recites:
`
`1. A planning and scheduling system running on a computing device, the system
`comprising:
`a user interface; and
`a computing device in communication with said user interface, said computing
`device being programmed to implement:
`work week sections;
`a scheduled job section;
`an unscheduled job section;
`a short notice outage section;
`a planned outage section; and
`work orders, wherein the work orders can be moved from one work week
`section to another work week section, from unscheduled to
`scheduled, to short notice outage, to planned outage, and to backlog,
`by dragging and dropping the work orders using said user interface.
`
`
`’205 Patent at 13:31–46. Claims 2–20 are dependent system claims. Id. at 13:47–14:51.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must dismiss a complaint that
`
`does not state a claim for relief that is “plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678
`
`Page 10 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 1992
`
`(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). To state a plausible claim,
`
`Plaintiffs must plead facts sufficient to allow the Court to draw a reasonable inference that
`
`Defendants are liable for the alleged patent infringement. See id. (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at
`
`556). At this stage, the Court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true and views those facts in the
`
`light most favorable to the Plaintiffs. Bustos v. Martini Club, Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461 (5th Cir.
`
`2010).
`
`The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for patent eligibility. Alice Corp. Pty.
`
`v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). In determining whether a claim is patent-
`
`ineligible under Alice, the Court must “first determine whether the claims at issue are directed to
`
`a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. Claims directed to software inventions do not automatically
`
`satisfy this first step of the inquiry. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2016). Rather, “the first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks whether the focus of the claims is
`
`on [a] specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on . . . an ‘abstract
`
`idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36.
`
`If the Court determines that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, it must then
`
`determine whether the claims contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed
`
`abstract idea into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. An inventive concept is
`
`“some element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim in practice amounts
`
`to ‘significantly more’ than a patent on an ineligible concept.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
`
`L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Court “consider[s] the elements of each claim
`
`both individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether the additional elements
`
`transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355
`
`(internal quotation omitted). Even if each claim element, by itself, was known in the art, “an
`
`Page 11 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 1993
`
`inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
`
`conventional pieces.” Bascom Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341,
`
`1350.
`
`I. Alice Step One
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`CiM argues that the Asserted Claims are directed to the abstract idea of “scheduling
`
`business activities using a computer and computer network.” Docket No. 7 at 6. CiM contends
`
`that claim 1 recites conventional means of scheduling that are well-known in the industrial
`
`business context. Id. at 7. Additionally, CiM states that the specification of the ’205 Patent
`
`acknowledges most industrial sites use computer programs and user interfaces for scheduling. Id.
`
`CiM further argues that the scheduling activities of the claim can be performed using pen and
`
`paper and that this indicates that the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Id. at 7–8.
`
`Next, CiM argues that claim 1 is not directed to an improvement in computer technology.
`
`Id. at 8. CiM states that the specification does not identify any problems in the prior art with the
`
`functionality of a computer, but instead notes that prior art scheduling methods were “tedious and
`
`cumbersome.” Id. at 8–9. CiM contends that the specification therefore proves that the computing
`
`device is merely a conduit for the abstract idea of scheduling business activities. Id. at 9. CiM
`
`argues that the claims are not directed to an improvement of a CMMS database, as P&RO
`
`contends, because the claims make no mention of a CMMS database, but requires only “a
`
`computing device.” Docket No. 23 at 3–4. Similarly, CiM states that the “drag and drop” feature
`
`of the claims cannot show that the claims are directed to an improvement in computer functionality
`
`because the claims merely recite “dragging and dropping,” not any improved version of the feature.
`
`Id. at 4.
`
`Page 12 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 1994
`
`CiM finally argues that the dependent claims do not alter this analysis, as they “merely
`
`recite slight variations” of the system of claim 1 or are directed to additional ways of using a
`
`generic computer to administer a scheduling system. Id.
`
`In response, P&RO states that the claims of the ’205 Patent are not directed to an abstract
`
`idea because they are “rooted in computer technology” and are directed to an improvement in
`
`computer functionality. Docket No. 12 at 10. Specifically, P&RO argues that the claims are
`
`directed to “a novel organization and management of data tables from a CMMS database, recited
`
`as dragging and dropping of work orders across multiple work week sections, which results in a
`
`complex recalculation of the relationally linked data elements of the CMMS database.” Id. P&RO
`
`argues that the functionality of dragging and dropping work orders using the user interface
`
`provides visibility and intelligent support to the scheduling activity. Id. P&RO states that the
`
`claimed systems are similar to the claims found to be non-abstract in Enfish and provide novel
`
`methods of organizing data tables within a database. Id. at 11. Further, P&RO argues, the claims
`
`provide a solution for more efficient management of a CMMS systems, which is a problem only
`
`present in a networked environment. Id. Thus, P&RO contends, the claims are rooted in computer
`
`technology and are not abstract.
`
`The Court finds that the claims of the ’205 Patent are directed to the abstract idea of
`
`scheduling business activities using a computer and computer network. Claim 1 of the ’205 Patent
`
`describes “a planning and scheduling system running on a computer” where the computer
`
`implements a schedule with work orders that users are able to move to different sections through
`
`a user interface. ’205 Patent at 13:31–46. Unlike the claimed idea in Enfish, the claimed idea here
`
`is not directed to an improvement in computer functionality, but “represents [a] routine task[] that
`
`could be performed by a human.” See eDekka v. 3balls.com, 2015 WL 5579840, at *4 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Page 13 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 1995
`
`Sept. 21, 2015). P&RO claims that the invention is directed to improvements in a CMMS database,
`
`but the claims, which recite a generic computer and the generic function of dragging and dropping,
`
`are not tied to a CMMS database. Further, as CiM notes, the scheduling practices described in the
`
`claims may be achieved using pen and paper. Because the claims can be performed by using pen
`
`and paper or recite generic computer functionality, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. See
`
`CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`II. Alice Step Two
`
`Because the asserted claims are directed toward an abstract idea, the Court must next
`
`determine whether an inventive concept exists sufficient to transform the claims into patent-
`
`eligible subject matter. Such transformation requires more than simply stating the abstract idea
`
`“while adding the words ‘apply it.’ ” Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566
`
`U.S. 66, 72 (2012). Here, the Court finds that no such inventive concept exists.
`
`CiM argues that the limitations of claim 1, taken individually or in combination, do not
`
`contain an inventive concept. Docket No. 7 at 9. CiM contends that the limitations of the user
`
`interface computing device both recite generic computer limitations and do not add an inventive
`
`concept. Id. at 9–10. CiM states that the limitations directed to a weekly scheduling program with
`
`various sections cannot add an inventive concept because these scheduling limitations have long
`
`been practiced in the industrial scheduling world. Id. at 10. CiM argues that the claim’s recitation
`
`of moving work orders between sections by dragging and dropping does not provide an inventive
`
`concept because the ability to re-characterize a work order is a conventional characteristic of
`
`scheduling planning and because dragging and dropping is a generic computer operation. Id. at
`
`10–11.
`
`CiM further argues that the dependent claims do not contain an inventive concept. CiM
`
`states that Claim 2 requires simultaneous display of scheduled and unscheduled jobs, which is a
`
`Page 14 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 1996
`
`conventional way of displaying weekly schedules, and claims 3, 4, and 20 add only limitations
`
`about tracking resources, such as manpower availability, which are a necessary and expected
`
`feature of scheduling. Id. at 13. CiM also contends that claims 6, 5, and 7 each only add color
`
`coding, which has long been used in scheduling. Id. CiM further argues that claims 8 through 16
`
`all add limitations that are directed to generic computer or user interface operations, which cannot
`
`add an inventive concept. Id. Finally, CiM states that claim 17 requires assigning specific dates
`
`and times of an assignment to each work order, while claims 18 and 19 add limitations for tracking
`
`emergent and sponsored work, and argues that these limitations are all conventional scheduling
`
`concepts. Id.
`
`In response, P&RO contends that the claims of the ’205 Patent contain an inventive concept
`
`because they address a computer-specific problem and provide a specific solution to that problem.
`
`Docket No. 14 at 12. P&RO states that the claims disclose improved systems for manipulating
`
`CMMS data tables by adding the functionality of dragging and dropping work orders between
`
`sections in the user interface. Id. at 13. P&RO argues that the presence of dragging and dropping
`
`in the prior art is irrelevant to the § 101 analysis and that no abstract idea is monopolized by the
`
`claims because they are limited to CMMS systems performing a particular method of data
`
`manipulation. Id. at 13–14.
`
`P&RO further contends that the claims of the ’205 Patent disclose features that are not
`
`well-understood, routine or conventional. Id. at 14. P&RO argues that the dragging and dropping
`
`of work orders across multiple work-week sections is a non-conventional limitation because it
`
`results in extensive recalculation of CMMS data tables to effectively allocate resources. Id. at 15.
`
`P&RO further states that, as noted in the specification of the ’205 Patent, prior-art systems
`
`managed work orders by manual entry. Id. at 16. P&RO argues that this disclosure “provides
`
`Page 15 of 18
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-00095-RWS Document 81 Filed 03/31/17 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 1997
`
`convincing evidence that the claimed dragging and dropping and automatic resource allocation of
`
`work orders was not conventional activity in work order management at the time of the invention.”
`
`Id. Finally, P&RO argues that the claims are presumed valid, and that CiM has not provided any
`
`substantive argument to overcome that presumption as to the dependent claims. Id.
`
`The Court finds that none of the limitations of the claims of the ’205 Patent provide an
`
`inventive concept. The first limitation of claim 1 requires a user interface and a computing device
`
`in communication with the interface. ’205 Patent at 13:33–36. This limitation does not provide
`
`an inventive concept, as it recites generic computer components. See Mortgage Grader, Inc. v.
`
`First Choice Loan Services Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Next, the claim recites
`
`various interface sections, such as “work week sections” and “short notice outage sections.” ’205
`
`Patent at 13:37–41. These limitations similarly fail to add an inventive con