APPLIED PREDICTIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2020003986 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
14/448,501 07/31/2014 Mark D'Agostino APT009-US-UTIL 7862
22428 7590 12/02/2020
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
3000 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 600
WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
SADANANDA, ABHIJIT B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARK D'AGOSTINO, ALEX SVISTUNOV,
DAVID NEDZEL, and SCOTT INGS
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501
Technology Center 3600
Before JUSTIN BUSCH, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–25. See Final Act. 1. 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 MasterCard
International Inc. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to systems and methods for generating a
location specific index of economic activity. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
displaying, by a first computer, a user interface on a
website displayed on a plurality of second computers, the user
interface configured to receive one or more inputs from a
plurality of users operating the plurality of second computers;
receiving, by the first computer, a plurality of electronic
transmissions via the website from the plurality of second
computers including a plurality of electronic messages where
each message comprises a first criterion corresponding to a
subject location, a second criterion corresponding to an inputted
geographic parameter, and a request for an index value of activity
for the subject location for a selected timeframe;
for the electronic message from each second computer:
querying, by the first computer, a database to identify the
subject location based on the first criterion in the respective
electronic message;
querying, by the first computer, the database to receive a
plurality of activity data points for each of a plurality of locations
within a network in relation to the subject location;
querying, by the first computer, the database to determine
a geographic area defined by the inputted geographic parameter
of the subject location stored in the database;
determining, by the first computer, a subset of locations
within the plurality of locations of the network that are within the
geographic area of the subject location;
for each second computer, determining, by the first
computer, a distance between each location within the subset of
locations and the subject location;
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

3
querying, by the first computer, the database, to receive an
aggregate of the plurality of activity data points for the subset of
locations within the plurality of locations corresponding to a first
period of time and a second period of time defined by the selected
time frame;
calculating, by the first computer, a normalized unit-less
indicator representing activity corresponding to each subject
location by calculating an index value for each location within
the subset of locations based on a change in the plurality of
activity data points between the first period of time and the
second period of time and dividing the index value by a baseline
value,
wherein the index value is weighted based on an
overlapping portion of a trade area associated with each location
within the subset of locations with the geographic area of the
subject location, the overlapping portion being determined based
on each location’s respective distance from the subject location,
wherein the baseline value corresponds to an average
attribute for each location within the subset of locations, the
baseline value masking a magnitude of the plurality of activity
data points,
whereby the index value is weighted differently for each
subject location based on each respective first criterion, second
criterion, request, and its relative distance and overlapping
portion of the trade area with its respective subset of locations;
and
in response to the electronic message, displaying, by the
first computer, the website on each second computer showing the
normalized unit-less indicator for its respective subject location
where each normalized unit-less indicator does not indicate a
magnitude of any underlying activity data for the subset of
locations or a value of the baseline value.
Appeal Br. 12–13 (Claims Appendix).
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

4
REJECTION
Claims 1–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 8.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is in error. To the extent
Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular
claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues claims 1–25 as a group. Appeal Br. 5.
Given our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the § 101
rejection of claims 1–25 based on representative claim 1.
Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. 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. 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 Court’s two-part 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
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

5
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
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (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 waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); 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
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; see also id. at 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 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. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

6
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
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 ensure ‘that the [claim] is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id.
(alterations in original) (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.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101.2 The Manual of
Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) now incorporates this revised
guidance and subsequent updates at Section 2106 (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019, rev.
June 2020).3
Under MPEP § 2106, we first look to whether the claim recites:

2 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”). In response to received public
comments, the Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019,
clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance. USPTO, October 2019 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October 2019 Update”). “All USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019
(Last Revised June 2020), unless otherwise indicated.
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

7
(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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4
MPEP § 2106.04(a)) and § 2106.04(d).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application,5 do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field; 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.6
MPEP § 2106.05(d).

4 “Examiners evaluate integration into a practical application by (a)
identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements
individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole
integrates the exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.04(d)II.
5 This corresponds to Alice part one where it is determined whether the claim
is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219. If a claim is “not
directed to an abstract idea under part one of the Alice framework, we do not
need to proceed to step two.” (Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).).
6 This corresponds to Alice part two where it is determined whether the
claim contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed
abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

8
Step 1
Claim 1, as a method claim, falls within the process category of
§ 101. See Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54 (citing MPEP
§§ 2106.03, 2106.06).
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined that claim 1 recites an abstract fundamental
economic practice, which is a certain method of organizing human activity.
Final Act. 9. The Examiner determined that the claim recites limitations that
describe a process of accessing and evaluating economic activity data to
generate and report an index value of economic activity, “which describes
fundamental economic practices, marketing activities, and/or managing
business relations.” Id.
The Examiner identified the following steps as part of the recited
abstract idea:
receiving . . . a plurality of . . . messages where each
message comprises a first criterion corresponding to a subject
location, a second criterion corresponding to an inputted
geographic parameter, and a request for an index value of
activity for the subject location for a selected timeframe;
[. . .] identify the subject location based on the first
criterion;
[. . .] receive a plurality of activity data points for each of
a plurality of locations within a network in relation to the
subject location;
[. . .] determine a geographic area defined by the inputted
geographic parameter of the subject location;
determining a subset of locations within the plurality of
locations of the network that are within the geographic area of
the subject location;
determining . . . a distance between each location within
the subset of locations and the subject location;
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

9
[. . .] receive an aggregate of the plurality of activity data
points for the subset of locations within the plurality of
locations corresponding to a first period of time and a second
period of time defined by the selected timeframe;
calculating . . . a normalized unit-less indicator
representing activity corresponding to each subject location by
calculating an index value for each location within the subset of
locations based on a change in the plurality of activity data
points between the first period of time and the second period of
time and dividing the index by a baseline value,
wherein the index value is weighted based on an
overlapping portion of a trade area associated with each
location within the subset of locations with the geographic area
of the subject location, the overlapping portion being
determined based on each location's respective distance from
the subject location,
wherein the baseline value corresponds to an average
attribute for each location within the subset of locations, the
baseline value masking a magnitude of the plurality of activity
data points,
whereby the index value is weighted differently for each
subject location based on each respective first criterion, second
criterion, request, and its relative distance and overlapping
portion of the trade area with its respective subset of locations;
and
[. . .] displaying . . . the normalized unit-less indicator for
its respective subject location where each normalized unit-less
indicator does not indicate a magnitude of any underlying
activity data for the subset of locations or a value of the
baseline value.
Appeal Br. 3–9.
Consistent with Appellant’s description of the claims (see, e.g., Spec.
¶ 13), the limitations we summarize above describe accessing economic data
and calculating and displaying a normalized unit-less indicator representing
the activity, which is fairly characterized as a fundamental economic
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

10
activity, and which falls into the “certain methods of organizing human
activity” category of abstract ideas. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erred because claim 1 is not
“directed towards any of the enumerated abstract ideas,” and is “directed
towards calculating masked and anonymized indexes and customizing the
display of the anonymized indexes for different end users.” Appeal Br. 6
(emphasis added).
We are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. The question in Step
2A, Prong 1, is whether the claim “recites” an abstract idea. Appellant’s
arguments are directed to whether the claim “is directed to” an abstract idea.
Because we agree with the Examiner that the claim recites an abstract
idea, we proceed to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine if the idea is
integrated into a practical application, in which case the claim as a whole
would not be “directed to” merely an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
We next determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated
into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
We use the term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations,
or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. See
Revised Guidance at 55 n.24. In claim 1, the Examiner determined that the
additional elements include the first “displaying” limitation, the first
“receiving” limitation in part; the four “querying” limitations, the first two
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

11
“determining” limitations, and the final “displaying” limitation, as recited in
claim 1. See Final Act. 10.
To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional
claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or
any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the
judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect
a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in
some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)). See 2019 Revised Guidance.
The Examiner determined that none of the additional limitations is
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the additional computer elements “amount to nothing more [than]
mere instructions to automate the abstract idea in a generic network
computing environment, and they fail to impose meaningful limits that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.” Final Act. 11–12.
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites “an improvement upon
conventional software solutions.” Appeal Br. 6. Specifically, Appellant
argues that claim 1 integrates “the alleged abstract idea into a practical
application by reciting meaningful limitations that describe how a central
server can receive data from disparate electronic sources and present
anonymized data customized for each end user (if necessary, in real-time).”
Id. Appellant argues that “[c]onventional approaches do not create real-time
customizable results because they receive data on infrequent basis.” Id. at 7.
Appellant further argues that “[c]onventional software solutions provide
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

12
results that create a negative user experience and are highly dependent on
the end user’s subjective understating.” Id. Appellant argues that claim 1
“do[es] not just recite querying and analyzing data but limit[s] those features
based on a series of positively recited rules.” Id. at 8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Considering the additional
limitations identified by the Examiner (Final Act. 10), Appellant has not
persuaded us that “displaying, by a first computer, a user interface on a
website” and “receiving” data (“messages”) from the website involve more
than using a generic computer to collect or gather data. Thus, we agree with
the Examiner that the first “displaying” and “receiving” steps amount to
mere data gathering. See Final Act. 11. The four “querying” steps, as recited
in claim 1, are also data gathering steps because they merely provide input
for the recited data processing steps. Thus, the first “displaying” and
“receiving” steps and the four “querying” steps constitute insignificant extra-
solution activity. Tying a claimed method for organizing human activity to
specific data cannot turn an abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter
because “mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an otherwise
nonstatutory claim statutory.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted); OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(collecting and analyzing data amounted to mere data gathering); In re
Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as
insignificant extra-solution activity).
We further determine that the additional limitation directed to
“displaying” the website on each second computer constitutes insignificant
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

13
post-solution activity. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (citing
MPEP § 2106.05(g)); see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1354-55 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“merely presenting the results of
abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more . . .
is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). Moreover,
the “determine” step (determine a geographic area) and the two
“determining” steps (determining a subset of locations, and determining a
distance between each location) do not add meaningful limitations that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Indeed, those
steps recite abstract mental processes, as no details are recited as to how
such determinations are made.
Here, there is no claimed improvement to technology or a technical
field. Real-time customizable results are not technical improvements. See
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the fact that the web site returns the pre-designed ad
[selected based on analysis of the user’s information] more quickly than a
newspaper could send the user a location-specific advertisement insert does
not confer patent eligibility.”) At best, claim 1 provides an improved
analytical way, i.e., an improved abstract idea, for providing more cost-
effective, relevant economic index data. Yet, as the court expressly
recognized in Enfish, 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. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft
Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The alleged advantages that
the Appellant touts do not concern an improvement to computer capabilities,
but instead relate to an alleged improvement in a method of selecting and
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

14
displaying customized economic index data based on the analysis of
performance data -- a process in which computer components are used as
tools in their ordinary capacities.
Claim 1 as a whole, then, merely uses instructions to implement the
abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a
tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the additional limitation(s) do not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. More
particularly, the claims do not recite (i) an improvement to the functionality
of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a “particular
machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular
transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other
meaningful limitation. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, claim 1 recites an
abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), supra, and none of the additional
limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application.
Therefore, because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application, we conclude that the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we
must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to
determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of
the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of
Tex,, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We
look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that
constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

15
patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine,
conventional activity.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79.
The Examiner determined that the additional elements in claim 1
“require nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional
computer functions of receiving and transmitting data over a network,
retrieving and storing data in memory, and performing repetitive
calculations.” Ans. 10.
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s allegation that the recited
server is a generic computer does not satisfy his burden of showing that the
claims are well known, routine, and conventional.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant
further argues that “the claimed solution improves conventional software
solutions because it includes steps that are not conventionally performed.”
Reply Br. 7. Appellant argues, for instance, that “the claims recite how a
central server creates a novel index that is customized for each end user.” Id.
at 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. Appellant states in a conclusory manner that the additional elements
recited in the claims are not conventionally performed, but does not direct
our attention to anything in the Specification that indicates the computer
components perform anything other than well-understood, routine, and
conventional functions, such as receiving data, looking up data in a database,
processing data, and displaying data in a web interface. See buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer
receives and sends the information over a network—with no further
specification—is not even arguably inventive”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

16
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (server that receives data,
extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the
digital images insufficient to add an inventive concept); Alice, 573 U.S. at
225–26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient
to add an inventive concept).
The Specification states that “well-known or conventional details are
not described in order to provide a concise discussion of embodiments of the
present invention.” Spec. ¶ 30. The Specification describes that “[t]he
embodiments can be implemented on known devices such as a personal
computer.” Id. at ¶ 79. Paragraphs 60–62 of the Specification describe
storing and retrieving data from a “database,” with no further description.
Spec. ¶¶ 60–62. The Specification further describes that
throughout the description, discussions utilizing terms such as
“processing” or “computing” or “calculating” or “determining"
or “displaying” or “identifying” or “detecting” or the like, can
refer to the action and processes of a data processing system, or
similar electronic device, that manipulates and transforms data
represented as physical (electronic) quantities within the
system’s registers and memories into other data similarly
represented as physical quantities within the system's memories
or registers or other such information storage, transmission or
display devices.
Spec. ¶ 77.
Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general
terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim limitations
may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer
components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellant’s
Appeal 2020-003986
Application 14/448,501

17
Specification, as cited above. See Berkheimer Memo7 § III.A.1; Spec. ¶¶ 30,
60–62, 77, 79. We conclude claim 1 does not have an inventive concept
because the claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based
elements along with no more than mere instructions to implement the
identified abstract idea using the computer-based elements.
Because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more, we sustain the Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent
claim 1 and grouped claims 2–25, not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–25 101 Eligibility 1–25
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

7 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.)” at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018) (explaining that a specification that describes
additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements
are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe
the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional).