Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2021003766 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
14/453,016 08/06/2014 Dmitriy Glinberg 4672-08692GUS 3964
12684 7590 12/02/2021
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, KITO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3619
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DMITRIY GLINBERG, TAE S. YOO,
DALE A. MICHAELS, and EDWARD GOGOL

Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016
Technology Center 3600
Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, BRANDON J. WARNER, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

WOODS, 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 1–4, 6–9, 11–14, and 16–20. Appeal
Br. 2. Claims 5, 10, and 15 have been cancelled. Id. at 20–24 (Claims
App.). 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(a). Appellant identifies Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The application is titled “System and Method of Margining Fixed
Payoff Products.” Spec. 1. Claims 1 and 11 are independent. See Appeal
Br. 20–24 (Claims App.). We reproduce independent claim 1, below:
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
reducing, using a computer processor, an amount of data
necessary to compute a minimal margin requirement for a
portfolio comprising first and second products of a plurality of
products, each of the plurality of products having a payoff based
of at least one outcome of an event, the first product having a
first payoff based on a first outcome of a first event and a second
product having a second payoff based on a second outcome of
the first event, the second outcome being different from the first
outcome, each of the first and second products having an
associated fixed payoff value based on an occurrence of one of a
finite set of at least two outcomes of the first event, the reducing
including:
determining, using the computer processor, only a
subset of non-redundant outcomes, out of the finite set of
all possible outcomes which includes both non-redundant
and redundant outcomes, at which each of the plurality of
products, including the first and second products, may
settle and a resultant change in value thereof, the subset of
non-redundant outcomes being less than the set of all
possible outcomes;
generating, using the computer processor, a risk
array data structure comprising a plurality of data entries
indexed by product and outcome which permits the
processor to access data indicative of particular outcomes
at which each of the plurality of products may settle and
storing the risk array data structure in a memory coupled
with the computer processor, the risk array data structure
being generated to minimize the number of data entries to
those corresponding to the subset of non-redundant
outcomes, the risk array not including any data entries
corresponding to the redundant outcomes of the set of all
possible outcomes;
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

3
assigning, using the computer processor, a
probability weight to each outcome of the subset of non-
redundant outcomes representative of a probability of an
occurrence thereof, wherein determination of the
probability weight is based at least in part on one or more
parameters reflecting a desired degree of risk coverage;
and
storing, using the computer processor, each
assigned probability weight in the associated data entry of
the risk array data structure in the memory;
the method further comprising:
accessing, using the computer processor, the risk array
data structure based on the first and second products of the
portfolio and each of the subset of non-redundant outcomes
thereof to retrieve the probability weight assigned thereto;
computing, using the computer processor, the amount of
the margin requirement for the first and second products based
on the resultant change in value resulting from each of the subset
of non-redundant outcomes and the retrieved probability weight
assigned thereto, a contribution to the computed amount of the
margin requirement based on the first product being at least
partially offset by a contribution to the computed amount of the
margin requirement based the second product, the computed
amount of the margin requirement being reduced thereby; and
outputting, using the computer processor, the computed
amount of the margin requirement to cause one of crediting or
collecting the computed amount.
Id. at 20–21 (emphases added to certain limitations discussed in this
decision).
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

4
REJECTION2
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–4, 6–9, 11–14,
16–20
101 Eligibility
OPINION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–4, 6–9, 11–14, and 16–20 as patent-
ineligible under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 7–11.
Appellant argues these claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 5–19. We select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim, with claims 2–4, 6–9, 11–
14, and 16–20 standing or falling with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

1. Governing Law and USPTO Guidance
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 Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
exclude “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” 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 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.

2 The Examiner withdrew a nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting
rejection. See Adv. Act. (dated Dec. 9, 2020); see also Final Act. 12–13.
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

5
Concepts that have been determined to be abstract ideas, and thus
patent-ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity. Id.
at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). These also include
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)) and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
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 (citation 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. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77) (alterations in original).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
For purposes of implementing the Supreme Court’s two-step
framework, the USPTO Director issued 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (issued January 7, 2019) (hereinafter,
the “Guidance,” and now incorporated into MPEP §§ 2103–2106.07(c)).
Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Guidance involves first determining whether the
claim recites any judicial exception, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity, or mental processes). See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
If the claim is determined to recite a judicial exception, Step 2A,
Prong 2, of the Guidance involves next determining whether the claim
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

6
recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application. See id.; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Only if the claim both recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B
of the Guidance. At Step 2B, we determine whether the claim adds a
specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-
understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

2. Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo Analysis—Statutory Category
Claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented method . . . .” Appeal Br.
20 (Claims App.). A computer-implemented method is directed to one of
the statutory classes of subject matter eligible for patenting, namely, a
process. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process . . . .”).

3. Step 2A, Prong 1—Recitation of Judicial Exception
The Examiner determines that “the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea of tracking transaction risk in a portfolio without significantly
more.” Final Act. 7. In particular, the Examiner finds that “the claims recite
a fundamental economic practice of computing a minimal margin
requirement for a portfolio which is a ‘method of organizing human
activity.’” Id. at 8. The Examiner specifically identifies the steps of
“reducing . . . an amount of data necessary to compute a minimal margin
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

7
requirement for a portfolio” including the sub-steps of “determining . . . only
a subset of non-redundant outcomes,” “generating a risk array data
structure,” and “assigning a probability weight to each outcome.” See id. at
7–8. The Examiner also identifies the steps of “accessing the risk array data
structure” and “computing . . . the amount of the margin requirement.” See
id. at 8.
The Examiner cites to the Specification to further support the position
that “the claims recite a fundamental economic practice of computing a
minimal margin requirement for a portfolio which is a ‘method of organizing
human activity.’” Final Act. 8 (citing Spec. ¶ 21). The cited portion of the
Specification reads:
In order to minimize risk to the Exchange while
minimizing the burden on members, it is desirable to
approximate the requisite performance bond or margin
requirement as closely as possible to the actual positions of the
account at any given time. Accordingly, there is a need to
improve the accuracy and flexibility of the mechanisms which
estimate performance bond requirements.
Spec. ¶ 21 (emphasis added).
Appellant contends that “the claim does not recite any method of
organizing human activity, such as a fundamental economic concept or
managing interactions between people.” See Appeal Br. 12 (citing
Example 37 of the Guidance).
In addressing Step 2A, Prong One, Appellant argues that the “claims
are not directed to tracking or even mitigating risk . . . and instead are
directed to generating a specifically defined minimized data structure storing
data for a plurality of products which can be used to subsequently compute a
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

8
margin requirement for a portfolio containing a subset of those products.”3
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant explains that “[t]he claims are specifically
directed, not to the margin calculation or the minimization of risk itself, but
to enabling a computer processor to generate a minimal data set . . . so as to
process, with the reduced amount of data, discontinuous data to efficiently
compute a minimal margin requirement.” Id. at 11 (emphases added).
Appellant further explains that the claimed invention “improve[s] . . .
systems . . . by reducing the volume of data needed to be processed and
providing a readily accessible specifically implemented minimal data
structure to further improve data access.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant
also explains that “the claims describe a specific application of a
system/method for enabling a computer processor to generate a specified
minimal data structure having a reduced amount of data . . . thereby
allowing improved accuracy in the computation thereof while reducing the
necessary computing resources.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant explains
that “the claimed invention generates a unique and specifically defined data
structure which stores a reduced amount of data . . . and does NOT include
data associated with redundant outcomes, and thereby improves the
computer’s ability to perform the claimed process using less data to output a
more accurate result.” Id. at 11–12 (emphasis added). Appellant further
explains that “the claims call[] for generating a specific data structure which
minimizes the number of data entries therein which is a technical

3 We address Appellant’s arguments under Step 2A, Prong 1, here, following
Appellant’s own analysis (see Appeal Br. 10–13 (addressing Step 2A, Prong
1)), even though Appellant’s arguments may also be addressed under Step
2A, Prong 2.
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

9
improvement which reduces the amount of data that needs to be further
processed.” Reply Br. 1 (emphasis added). Appellant also explains that “the
data structure has been minimized to eliminate []redundant outcomes,
necessarily improves the processor’s ability to access the data in the data
structure.” Id. at 2 (emphasis added).
Notwithstanding Appellant’s extensive argument focusing on the
recited reduction of “redundant outcome” data, we agree with the Examiner
that the claimed steps (identified above) recite the abstract method of
organizing human activity. See, e.g., Final Act. 8; see also supra n.3. We
further agree with the Examiner that “Appellant’s claims lack[] an
improvement in the functioning of the computer itself or any other
technology or technical field.” Ans. 4. As highlighted above, Appellant’s
argument to the contrary focuses reducing “redundant outcome” data in the
“risk array data structure.”
Even assuming arguendo Appellant’s position that “the claims call[]
for generating a specific data structure which minimizes the number of data
entries therein which is a technical improvement which reduces the amount
of data that needs to be further processed” (Reply Br. 1), we agree with the
Examiner that this is merely filtering data (see Ans. 5).
Our reviewing court has held that filtering data is one of certain
methods of organizing human activity, and therefore an abstract idea. See,
e.g., Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“filtering content is an abstract idea because it
is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior,
similar to concepts previously found to be abstract”); see also Ans. 5
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

10
(“Filtering content has been determined by the Courts as an abstract idea
because it is a well-known method of organizing human behavior.”).
Indeed, Appellant’s own characterization that “the data structure has
been minimized to eliminate []redundant outcomes” (Reply Br. 2) supports a
determination that the claimed steps merely filter data. In particular, the
data structure of Appellant’s claimed invention has been minimized by
filtering out, or eliminating, redundant outcomes. See, e.g., id. (arguing that
“the data structure has been minimized to eliminate []redundant outcomes,
necessarily improves the processor’s ability to access the data in the data
structure”); see also, e.g., Appeal Br. 11–12 (asserting that the claimed “data
structure which stores a reduced amount of data . . . does NOT include data
associated with redundant outcomes, and thereby improves the computer’s
ability to perform the claimed process”).
Because Appellant’s invention involves filtering “redundant outcome”
data from the claimed “risk array data structure,” and because “filtering
content is an abstract idea . . . [of] organizing human behavior” (see Bascom,
827 F.3d at 1348), the Examiner is correct in that the claims recite one of
certain methods of organizing human activity identified as an abstract idea
(see, e.g., Final Act. 8).
Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error under Step 2A,
Prong 1.

Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

11
4. Step 2A, Prong 2—Additional Elements that Integrate the
Exception into a Practical Application
Having agreed with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a judicial
exception, namely, a method of organizing human activity identified as an
abstract idea, we next consider whether the claim recites “additional
elements [that] integrate the exception into a practical application.” See 84
Fed. Reg. at 54.
Under our Guidance, this determination involves: (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 they integrate the exception into a
practical application. See id. at 54–55. An exemplary consideration
indicative of an additional element (or a combination of elements) that may
integrate the exception into a practical application is an additional element
that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an
improvement to other technology or technical field. See id. at 55. This
evaluation requires one to determine whether an additional element or a
combination of additional elements in the claim applies, relies on, or uses
the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the exception. Id. If the recited judicial exception is
integrated into a practical application, then the claim is not “directed to” the
judicial exception. Id.
The Examiner determines that the claim “do[es] not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception.” Final Act. 10. The Examiner explains that “the additional
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

12
elements in [claim 1] do no more than automate the compute [sic] and output
a minimal margin requirement, using the computer as a tool.” Id. The
Examiner further explains that “there is no change to the computers or other
technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and
thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology.”
Id.
Appellant argues that “the current claims are integrated into a
practical application of using a specifically defined minimized data structure
which reduces the amount of data needed for subsequently computing a
margin requirement.” Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis added). Appellant explains
that “the claimed invention reduces an amount of data and generates a
specific and unique data structure to store that reduced data which improves
the computer’s ability to perform the claimed process using less data to
output a more accurate result.” Id. (emphases added). Appellant asserts that
the “claimed invention directly addresses a technological issue in risk
management computation systems . . . and it does so by generating a unique
data structure which reduces the amount of data which must be stored.” Id.
(emphasis added). Appellant further asserts that “the claims are tied to a
specific application (electronic data computation systems) and do not
attempt to cover the entire field” (id. at 14), rather, “the claims provide an
improvement to a specific technology” (id. at 15). Appellant explains that
“the claims do not merely recite using computer processor and a risk array
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

13
data structure but specifically and particularly claim how the risk array data
structure is generated.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Even if the “claimed invention reduces an amount of data and
generates a specific and unique data structure to store that reduced data,” we
agree with the Examiner that the “risk array data structure is recited at a high
level of generality and represents insignificant extra solution activity (i.e.
storing data).” Ans. 5. Indeed, storing data is insignificant extra-solution
activity. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Appellant’s assertion that the claims recite
“how the risk array data structure is generated” does not persuade us
otherwise. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s arguments are presented at such a
high level of generality that we cannot discern Appellant’s precise point of
contention might be.
As to Appellant’s assertion that the claims are tied to the specific
application of “electronic data computation systems” and “provide an
improvement to a specific technology” (Appeal Br. 14–15), we disagree. As
discussed above, the claimed steps, including the step of “reducing, using a
computer processor, an amount of data necessary to compute a minimal
margin requirement,” do not improve another technology. We agree with
the Examiner that “there is no change to the computers and other
technology.” Final Act. 10.
Claim 1 recites a “computer processor” for carrying out various
generic computer steps of “reducing . . . an amount of data,” “determining
. . . only a subset of non-redundant outcomes,” “generating . . . a risk array
data structure,” “assigning . . . a probability weight to each outcome of the
subset of non-redundant outcomes,” “storing . . . each assigned probability
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

14
weight,” “accessing . . . the risk array data structure,” “computing . . . the
amount of the margin requirement,” and “outputting . . . the computed
amount of the margin requirement.” Appeal Br. 20–24 (Claims App.). We
agree with the Examiner that “[t]he computer processor is recited so
generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that it is a
‘computer processor’) that it represents no more than mere instructions to
apply the judicial exceptions on a computer.” Ans. 5. As such, the claim
does not recite a “particular machine” (84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see also MPEP
§ 2106.05(b)), and has no meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(e)), as it
merely recites instructions to execute the recited judicial exceptions with a
computer processor as a tool (84 Fed. Reg. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Moreover, the method does not transform matter. 84 Fed. Reg. at 55;
see also MPEP § 2106.05(c). To the extent Appellant believes that
“reduc[ing] the amount of data needed for subsequently computing a margin
requirement” (Appeal Br. 13) effects a transformation of a particular article
to a different state, our reviewing Court has also held that “[t]he mere
manipulation or reorganization of [electronic] data . . . does not satisfy the
transformation prong.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (emphasis added).
To summarize, claim 1 does not recite any additional elements (e.g.,
computer processor) that (1) improves the functioning of a computer or other
technology, (2) is applied with any particular machine, (3) effects a
transformation of a particular article to a different state, or (4) is applied in
any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

15
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner
error under Step 2A, Prong 2.

5. Step 2B—Inventive Concept
The next consideration is whether claim 1 adds a specific limitation
beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)), or simply appends well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines that
[T]he recitation of the using a processor which tracks transaction
risk in a portfolio data stored in a memory and enabling a
computer processor to process, with a reduced amount of data,
discontinuous data to compute and output a minimal margin
requirement, are recited at a high level of generality, is also well-
known amounting to storing and retrieving information in
memory and outputting/displaying data which are well
understood routine and conventional activity. These limitations
therefore remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon
reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more. Even
when considered in combination, these additional elements
represent generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment and insignificant extra-
solution activity, which cannot provide an inventive concept
(Step 2B: NO).
Final Act. 11 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)) (emphasis added).
Appellant disagrees with the Examiner, arguing that “[t]he claims
recite limitations that amount to significantly more than the exception itself,
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

16
limitations that are not well-understood, routine or conventional in the
field.” Appeal Br. 16. In reciting the entirety of claim 1, Appellant
contends that “the steps impose meaningful limits that enable a computer to
reduce the resources needed to generate a minimal margin amount based on
discontinuous data using a reduced amount of stored data.” Id. at 17.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner has failed to expressly support
the “rejection in writing” by providing either:
(1) An explanation based on an express statement in the
specification . . . that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s);
(2) A citation to one or more of the court decisions
discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s);
(3) A citation to a publication . . . that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s); or
(4) A statement that the Examiner is taking official notice
of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the
additional element(s) and the Examiner is certain, based upon his
or her personal knowledge, that the additional element(s)
represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
Id. at 18–19 (paraphrasing and paragraphing added for clarity).
The Examiner has the better position.
As to Appellant’s assertion that the Examiner has failed to support the
rejection explaining why the additional elements are well-understood,
routine, and conventional (see Appeal Br. 18–19), the Examiner cites to
MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) (see Ans. 6). The relevant portion of the MPEP
explains that storing and receiving information in memory is a well-
understood, routine, and conventional function when recited in a high level
Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

17
of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) (citing in part Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am.,
Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). This citation to the MPEP
supports the Examiner’s rejection. See Ans. 6 (“the recitation of generating,
using the computer processor, a risk array data structure . . . the risk array
data structure being generated to minimize the number of data entries . . . is
merely the storing of data that is recited at a high level of generality, and . . .
is also-well known”).
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that using a computer
processor to track transaction risk and enabling that processor to compute,
even with a reduced amount of data, a minimal margin requirement, is a
well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See Final Act. 11–12.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner that the steps recited in claim 1
simply amount to “storing and retrieving information in memory and
outputting/displaying data.” Id.; see also Ans. 6 (“the recitation of
generating, using the computer processor, a risk array data structure . . . is
recited at a high level of generality, and, . . . is also well-known”).
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument does not apprise us of Examiner
error under Step 2B.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 1, and of claims 2–4, 6–9, 11–14, and 16–20, which fall therewith (see
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)), as patent-ineligible under the judicial exception
to 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2021-003766
Application 14/453,016

18
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–9, 11–
14, 16–20
101 Eligibility 1–4, 6–9, 11–
14, 16–20

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