Andrew E. Fano et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2019

14142160 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 2019)

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.
14/142,160 12/27/2013 Andrew E. Fano 12587-0225004 1398
26212 7590 11/12/2019
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C. (ACCENTURE)
P.O. BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
HAMILTON, MATTHEW L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3682
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2019 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):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREW E. FANO, CHAD M. CUMBY, RAYID GHANI, and
MARKO KREMA
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision to reject claims 8–13 and 22–33. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Accenture Global
Services Limited. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system for individualized customer
interaction. Claim 8, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
8. A computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining, by one or more computers and over a network,
transaction data from one or more input devices that each
include a respective card reader, the transaction data comprising
customer identifying information obtained by the input devices
using the respective card readers;

associating, by the one or more computers, the
transaction data with a plurality of customers based on the
customer identifying information;

training a plurality of machine learning models on the
transaction data associated with the plurality of customers, each
machine learning model corresponding to a respective customer
and configured to predict a probability that the corresponding
respective customer will purchase products belonging to a
product category during a predetermined period of time;

determining that a plurality of potential customers do not
have a corresponding machine learning model;

associating each of the plurality of potential customers
that do not have a corresponding machine learning model with
an aggregate machine learning model; determining, by the one
or more computers and for each customer of the plurality of
customers, a respective predicted probability that the customer
will purchase products belonging to the product category during
the predetermined period of time using the machine learning
models corresponding to customers;

determining, by the one or more computers and for each
potential customer of the plurality of potential customers, a
respective predicted probability that the potential customer will
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

3
purchase products belonging to the product category during the
predetermined period of time using the aggregate machine
learning model associated with the plurality of potential
customers;

generating, by the one or more computers and based on
the respective predicted probabilities for the customers and the
respective predicted probabilities for the potential customers, a
prediction of an amount of products in the product category that
will be purchased during the predetermined period of time; and

determining a sufficient amount of products in the
product category that should be maintained in inventory based
at least on the prediction of an amount of products in the
product category that will be purchased during the
predetermined period of time.
REJECTION
Claims 8–13 and 22–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 8–13 and 22–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to ineligible subject matter, in the form of abstract ideas.
OPINION
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner separately finds that each of the “associating,”
“training,” and “determining” limitations, a total of six complete limitations,
of independent claim 8, and corresponding limitations in independent
claims 22 and 28, are “not disclosed by the applicant’s [Specification]2.”

2 For the first “associating” limitation the Examiner finds the language is
“not disclosed by the [A]pplicant’s invention.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis
added). We interpret that to be essentially the same as the Appellant’s
Specification.
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

4
Final Act. 3–8. The Examiner finds, for example, that “Paragraph 0044 does
not disclose one or more computers associating the transaction data with a
plurality of customers based on the customer identifying information.” Final
Act. 4.
As noted by the Examiner in the Final Office Action, the Appellant
argued that paragraph 101 discloses implementing the invention on
computers, but the Examiner responds that “paragraph 0101 does not
disclose the limitation, ‘associating, by the one or more computers, the
transaction data with a plurality of customers based on the customer
identifying information.’”3 Final Act. 13. In the Appeal Brief, the
Appellant argues there is support for the first “associating” limitation at
paragraphs 44 and 113 of the Appellant’s Specification. Appeal Br. 5–6. In
response, the Examiner “notes paragraph 0044 discloses grocery stores using
loyalty card programs to capture information associated with customers
making purchase transactions,” and concludes “[p]aragraphs 0044 and 0113
do not disclose the limitation, ‘associating, by the one or more computers,
the transaction data with a plurality of customers based on the customer
identifying information.’” Answer 4–5.
New or amended claims, which introduce elements or limitations
which are not supported by the as-filed disclosure, violate the written

3 Prior to the Final Action, the Appellant refers to paragraph numbers in the
Appellant’s disclosure in US 2014–0114743 A1, published April 24, 2014.
In the Appeal Brief, the Specification cites paragraphs “numbered as filed.”
Appeal Br. 1. Paragraph 101 of the ’743 publication corresponds to
paragraph 113 of the originally-filed Specification. We use the originally-
filed Specification paragraph numbers except in this quotation from the
Final Action.
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

5
description requirement. See, e.g., In re Lukach, 442 F.2d 967 (CCPA
1971). “The purpose of the written description requirement is to prevent an
applicant from later asserting that he invented that which he did not; the
applicant for a patent is therefore required ‘to recount his invention in such
detail that his future claims can be determined to be encompassed within his
original creation.’” Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel Inc., 314 F.3d
1313, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citing Vas Cath Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d
1555, 1561 (Fed. Cir. 1991)). While there is no in haec verba requirement,
newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification
through express, implicit, or inherent disclosure. The fundamental factual
inquiry is whether the Specification conveys with reasonable clarity to those
skilled in the art that, as of the filing date sought, applicant was in
possession of the invention as now claimed. See, e.g., Vas-Cath, Inc., 935
F.2d at 1563–64. When an explicit limitation in a claim is not present in the
written description it must be shown that a person of ordinary skill would
have understood that the description requires that limitation. Hyatt v. Boone,
146 F.3d 1348, 1353, (Fed. Cir. 1998).
The Examiner is essentially arguing that the precise words of the
limitation do not appear in the paragraphs cited by the Appellant, but this is
not a proper application of the law.
Paragraph 44 of the Appellant’s Specification describes that “stores
often use loyalty card programs to capture information about millions of
transactions and purchases, where such information may be associated with
the customers making the transactions and purchases.” Spec. ¶ 44 (emphasis
added). Paragraph 113 describes that “any or all of the runtime system 300
. . . may be implemented on one or more computers.” Spec. ¶ 113 (emphasis
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

6
added). As can be seen, paragraph 44 of the Specification describes
associating transaction data with customer data, and paragraph 113 describes
implementing this on a computer. The ordinary artisan would recognize this
shows possession of the concepts relevant to the claim language
“associating, by the one or more computers, the transaction data with a
plurality of customers based on the customer identifying information.”
In addition, in response, the Examiner introduces the assertion that
“the Appellant is claiming a specific embodiment recited in the
Specification,” but the Examiner interprets that embodiment is disclosed in
paragraph 225, which does not recite the specific language of the various
claim limitations. See Answer 6–8 (“This particular embodiment [in
paragraph 225] does not disclose training a plurality of machine learning
models on the transaction data associated with the plurality of customers,
each machine learning model corresponding to a respective
customer.”).4
The situation is the same for every limitation the Examiner finds
unsupported by the Specification. The Examiner is looking for the exact
claim limitation to appear, verbatim, in a single location in the Specification,
and additionally is selecting the place in the Specification the Examiner
expects that disclosure to be located. See generally Final Act. 3–10; see also
Answer 3–20. This is overly restrictive, and is contrary to the law that

4 A similar statement appears at the end of recited paragraph 225 for each
limitation (Answer 6–20) except the Response to Argument for the first
“associating” limitation. See Answer 5. For this particular “training”
limitation, the Appellant argues support in paragraphs 13, 51–64, and 228 of
the Specification.
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

7
applies here. The rejection, therefore, is in error for these reasons, for each
and every limitation rejected.
On this basis, we do not sustain any of the rejections of claims as
lacking written description support.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

8
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)) “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores,” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187, 191 (“We view
respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws,[] and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a
law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.”), 191 (citing Benson and Flook).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

9
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activity such as a fundamental
economic practice, or mental processes); and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).

Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether
the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance.

Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

10

Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance
The Appellant argues all claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 9–11.
We select claim 8 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds claim 8 is directed to mathematical calculations
and relationships. Final Act. 11.
Claim 8 recites “training . . . models . . . to predict a probability,”
“determining . . . a respective probability,” “generating . . . a prediction of an
amount,” and “determining a sufficient amount.” These steps rely on the
performance of mathematical calculations, and as such are abstract steps.
See Guidance 52; see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(1)(IV)(B).
Claim 8 also recites “associating . . . transaction data with a plurality
of customers based on the customer identifying information,” and
“determining that a plurality of potential customers do not have a
corresponding machine learning model.” App. Br. 13, Claims App. As with
the steps that perform mathematical calculations, these steps can be
performed mentally by a human, because they involve “observation,
evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion.” See Guidance 52; see also MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(1)(III)(A).
The claim recites that the models are “machine learning models.” The
Specification does not define “machine learning,” but describes there “are
several examples of machine learning methodologies, such as decision-tree
based and linear based methodologies. The examples of machine learning
methodologies are merely for illustrative purposes. “Other types of machine
learning methodologies are possible.” Spec. ¶ 61 (cited Appeal Br. 2). The
Specification describes that customer models:
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

11
may comprise one or more sub-models, such as a shopping list
sub-model, or may comprise one or more attributes, such as
behavior, brand loyalty, wallet share, price sensitivity,
promotion sensitivity, product substitution, basket variability,
frequency of shopping, etc. The customer model may thus be
used in any aspect of a retail establishment's operations, ranging
from supply chain management issues, inventory control,
promotion planning, to customer interaction (such as before,
during, or after the retail experience).
Spec. ¶ 32. The Specification further describes that the claimed
invention “may use the customer models for customers of the retail
establishment in order to estimate purchases of a product category for a
predetermined period. The estimated purchases of the product for the
individual customers may be summed in order to provide an estimate for
the predetermined period.” Spec. ¶ 36.
Based on the descriptions in the Specification, we construe the
“machine learning model” of the claims to be a simulation of customer
behavior. Because a simulation is an abstract idea that imitates a customer,
and can be analogized to mental thought, the “machine learning models” of
the claims are encompassed within the abstract ideas recited in the claims.
The Specification describes an embodiment that provides an
“inventory planning component configured to estimate purchases for the
product category in a pre-determined period and configured to aggregate the
estimated purchases.” Spec. ¶ 13. Based on this, and the recited claim
limitations, under Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance, claim 8
recites an abstract idea involving mathematical calculations and steps that
can be performed mentally.

Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

12
Turning to Prong Two of our Guidance, we evaluate whether claim 8
as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application of the
abstract idea. Guidance 54.
Here, claim 8 recites a step that gathers data, by “obtaining, over a
network, transaction data from one or more input devices that each include a
respective card reader, the transaction data comprising customer identifying
information obtained by the input devices using the respective card readers.”
This is insignificant extra-solution activity, because it is merely a data-
gathering step. See Guidance 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Other than the steps above that are encompassed within the abstract
idea, claim 8 recites that the “associating” step, second and third-recited
“determining,” and “generating” steps are performed “by the one or more
computers.” Also, in the data-gathering “obtaining” step, the claim recites a
“network,” and “input devices that each include a respective card reader.”
This means that the only “additional elements,” beyond the abstract ideas to
which the claims are directed, are the “one or more computers,” as well as
the “network” and “card readers” that are used for gathering data.
The method does not improve the underlying “computers,” “network,”
or “card readers,” recited as performing the limitations of claim 8. For
example, any computer can be used to execute the claimed method, and its
operation is essentially unaffected by the claimed method. See Spec. ¶ 113
(“The computer may include one or more processors. The processor may
include any type of device or devices used to process digital information.”).
The “network” is merely a tool for data collection or presenting output, and
similarly is unaffected by the claimed method. Spec. ¶ 139. The “card
reader” is just a generic data-gathering device. Spec. ¶ 140 (“[A] card reader
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

13
or other such device that can obtain a customer’s identifying information
from a credit card, bank card, frequent shopper card, loyalty card, or any
other such card containing information that uniquely identifies the
customer.”). In addition, the method is directed to “improv[ing] the
accuracy and robustness of predictive models used by retail establishments
for inventory control.” Appeal Br. 1 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 7, 160–66).5 As such
the claimed method does not improve another technology. See Guidance 55;
see also MPEP § 2106.05(a). Because a particular computer is not required,
the claim also does not define or rely on a “particular machine.” See MPEP
§ 2106.05(b). Further, the method does not transform matter. See MPEP
§ 2106.05(c). Instead, the claim gathers, gathers, analyzes, and generates
data. As such, the method has no other meaningful limitations, and thus
merely recites instructions to execute the abstract idea on a computer. See
MPEP §§ 2106.05(f), (g).
As such, we determine that claim 8 does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, and thus, is directed to an abstract
idea.

Step 2B of the Guidance
Because we have determined that claim 8 recites, and is directed to,
abstract ideas, and does not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application, we turn to Step 2B and consider whether an additional element

5 Paragraphs 160–66 of the Specification describe a shopping list prediction
module, not an inventory prediction module. We are unclear on its
descriptive value in the context of the pending claims.
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

14
or combination of elements adds a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field, or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry. See Guidance 56.
The only additional elements, beyond the abstract idea of performing
mathematical calculations or performing steps that can be performed
mentally, is the “one or more computers,” “network,” and “card readers.”
These computer components, however, include only a general-purpose
computer, network, and data gathering devices. Spec. ¶¶ 113, 139, 140.
Considering the claimed method steps as an ordered combination, the claim
involves gathering data (“obtaining”), linking data elements (“associating”),
and simulating human behavior to make predictions from the data
(“training,” predicting, “determining,” and “generating . . . a prediction”).
However, the operations of storing, analyzing, receiving, and writing data
are primitive computer operations found in any computer system. See In re
Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed.
Cir. 2011).
Thus, the only additional functional or structural elements, beyond the
abstract idea, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP
§ 2106.05(d). Therefore, claims 8–13 and 22–32 are directed to abstract
ideas, and do not recite limitations that transform the abstract ideas into
eligible subject matter, by integrating the abstract ideas into a practical
application, or by reciting an inventive concept.
We turn to and consider next the Appellant’s arguments.
The Appellant argues the claims “represent improvements to
computer technology, in particular, in the area of machine learning-based
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

15
predictive models.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 60–64). As we
established above, however, we discern no improvement to the underlying
computer technology. Any improvement to the algorithms to make
predictions are encompassed by the abstract ideas, because the techniques
described at paragraphs 60–64 can be performed mentally.
We are unpersuaded by the Appellant’s assertion that the claimed
features “are not generic mental steps.” Appeal Br. 10. The Appellant has
provided no evidence the steps would be unable to be performed mentally,
other than the nominal recitations that they are intended to be performed by
a computer.
We are similarly unpersuaded by the Appellant’s assertion that the
“claims address a problem arising in computer technology and improve”
computer technology described, or improved, in the cited portion of the
Specification. Appeal Br. 10. The Appellant’s argument, citing Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016), amounts to
asserting that any “improvement” in any software automatically is an
improvement in computer technology, which is a claimed method out of the
realm of abstract ideas.
The Appellant has not offered any persuasive evidence or technical
reasoning that the computer implementation improves the functioning of the
computing system itself. An analytical algorithm for making predictions
from data, even if different from known algorithms, does not reflect an
improvement to the functioning of the claimed computing system. There is
a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on
the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular
task, on the other. In Enfish, for example, the court noted that “[s]oftware
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

16
can make non-abstract improvements to computer technology just as
hardware improvements can.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335. The court asked
“whether the focus of the claims is on [a] 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. The court found that the “plain focus of the claims” there was
on an improvement to computer functionality itself (a self-referential table
for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out
its basic functions of storing and retrieving data), not on economic or other
tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity. Id. Thus, we
determine whether the claim as a whole “focus[es] on a specific means or
method that improves the relevant technology” or is “directed to a result or
effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke[s] generic processes
and machinery.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d
1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Claims determined not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation.”).
Unlike Enfish and McRO, we find the focus of the claim as whole here on is
on the latter, because the claimed computing system is merely invoked as a
tool for gathering and linking data, simulating behavior, and making
predictions.
The Appellant finally argues that “[l]ike the claims in Bascom, the
present claims ‘improve[] an existing technological process’ . . . with a non-
obvious arrangement of elements, and are thus patent-eligible.” Appeal
Br. 11.
We disagree with the Appellant. In Bascom Global Internet Services,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

17
Circuit held that “[t]he inventive concept described and claimed in the ’606
patent is the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from
the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.”
Id. at 1350. The court explained that the remote location of a filtering tool
having customizable user-specific filtering features provides the filtering
tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a
filter on the ISP server, which is a technical improvement over prior art
ways of filtering content. Id. at 1350–51. Here, Appellant has not
demonstrated any particular arrangement in the claim as providing an
inventive concept parallel to Bascom in claiming a technology-based
solution.
To the extent that the Appellant is arguing that an improvement in an
abstract idea is non-abstract because it is new, novel, or not well-understood,
routine, or conventional, we disagree because even unconventional abstract
ideas are still unpatentable. See SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890
F.3d 1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “What is needed is an inventive concept
in the non-abstract application realm.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Further, “[i]t has been clear since Alice
that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly
more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claims as directed to an abstract idea. We thus sustain the
rejection of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2018–008711
Application 14/142,160

18
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
8–13, 22–23 112 first paragraph 8–13, 22–33
8–13, 22–33 101 judicial exception 8–13, 22–33
Overall Outcome: 8–13, 22–33

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED