Cognitive Scale, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2021

2020006484 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 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.
15/374,137 12/09/2016 Manoj Saxena COGSC-16-015.2 4071
33438 7590 04/15/2021
TERRILE, CANNATTI & CHAMBERS, LLP
P.O. BOX 203518
AUSTIN, TX 78720
EXAMINER
KASSIM, HAFIZ A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
celeste@tcciplaw.com
tmunoz@tcciplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MANOJ SAXENA,
MATTHEW SANCHEZ,
and RICHARD KNUSZKA
____________

Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES P. CALVE, and
NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Manoj Saxena, Matthew Sanchez, and Richard Knuszka (Appellant2)
seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–6, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of performing cognitive inference and
learning operations. Spec. para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method for providing commerce-related, blockchain-
associated cognitive insights comprising:
[1] receiving data from a plurality of data sources,
at least some of the plurality of data sources comprising
commerce related data sources and blockchain data
sources,
the blockchain data sources providing blockchain data;
[2] providing the blockchain data to a cognitive inference and
learning system,
the cognitive inference and learning system comprising a
cognitive platform,
the cognitive platform comprising a cognitive graph,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed May 4, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June
11, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 10, 2019).
2 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 Cognitive
Scale, Inc. (Appeal Br. 1).

Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

3

the cognitive graph being derived from the plurality of
data sources,
the cognitive graph comprising an application cognitive
graph,
the application cognitive graph comprising a cognitive
graph associated with a cognitive application,
interactions between the cognitive application and the
application cognitive graph being represented as a set of
nodes in the cognitive graph;
[3] performing a cognitive learning operation via the cognitive
inference and learning system using the blockchain data,
the cognitive learning operation implementing a
cognitive learning technique according to a cognitive
learning framework,
the cognitive learning framework comprising a plurality
of cognitive learning styles and a plurality of cognitive
learning categories,
each of the plurality of cognitive learning styles
comprising a generalized learning approach
implemented by the cognitive inference and
learning system to perform the cognitive learning
operation,
each of the plurality of cognitive learning
categories referring to a source of information used
by the cognitive inference and learning system
when performing the cognitive learning operation,
an individual cognitive learning technique being
associated with a primary cognitive learning style and
bounded by an associated primary cognitive learning
category,
the cognitive learning operation applying the cognitive
learning technique via a machine learning algorithm to
generate a cognitive learning result;
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

4

[4] updating a knowledge model using the cognitive learning
result,
the updating being performed via the cognitive platform
of the cognitive inference and learning system;
[5] processing the data from the plurality of data sources and
the cognitive learning result
to provide a commerce-related, blockchain-associated
cognitive insight;
and
[6] providing the commerce-related, blockchain-associated
cognitive insight to a destination,
the destination comprising the cognitive application,
the cognitive application enabling a user to interact with
the cognitive learning result.
Claims 1–6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. A blockchain broadly refers to a decentralized, distributed data
structure whose contents are replicated across a number of
systems. These contents are stored in a chain of fixed structures
commonly referred to as “blocks.” Each of these blocks contains
certain information about itself, such as a unique identifier, a
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

5

reference to its previous block, and a hash value generated from
the data it contains. Spec. para. 123.
Facts Related to Appellant’s Disclosure
02. In general, the distributed and replicated nature of a blockchain
makes it difficult to modify historical records. In particular, while
prior records can be read and new data can be written to a
blockchain, existing transactions cannot be altered unless the
protocol associated with a given blockchain implementation
allows it. For example, existing data may be revised if there is
consensus within a group of participants to do so. More
particularly, a change in one copy of the blockchain would
typically require all other participants agree to have corresponding
changes made to their own copy. As a result, the data a given
blockchain contains is essentially immutable. Spec. paras. 126–
127.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

6

STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use 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 judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

7

additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites receiving data, providing data to a system, performing a
cognitive learning operation implementing a cognitive learning technique
according to a cognitive learning framework, updating a model, processing
data, and providing insight data. Providing data is transmitting data.
Performing a generic cognitive learning operation is by its terms generic. A
generic cognitive learning operation is an example of basic human
apprehension. Doing so by implementing a cognitive learning technique is
using some basic human apprehension technique. Doing so according to a
cognitive learning framework is using prior learning as a framework for
further learning, again generic human mental activity. This combination is
accordingly generic data analysis, and it is devoid of technological
implementation details. Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, transmitting,
updating, processing, and analyzing data. None of the limitations recites
technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite
only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

8

include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are concepts
performed in the human mind. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the
concept of forming a cognitive insight. Specifically, claim 1 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to process data
from an updated model created from cognitive learning operations upon
commerce related and blockchain data. The advice to process data from an
updated model created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce
related and blockchain data involves receiving data, which is a mental
process act, and providing a cognitive insight, which is an act ordinarily
performed in the stream of mental activity. For example, claim 1 recites
“receiving data,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
performing mental processes. Similarly, claim 1 recites “provide a . . .
cognitive insight,” which is also characteristic of mental processes.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to providing
commerce-related, blockchain-associated cognitive insights. Final Act. 7.

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

9

The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in forming a cognitive insight by processing data from
an updated model created from cognitive learning operations upon
commerce related and blockchain data absent any technological mechanism
other than a conventional computer for doing so.
The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is a method for providing
commerce-related, blockchain-associated cognitive insights. The steps in
claim 1 result in forming a cognitive insight by processing data from an
updated model created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce
related and blockchain data absent any technological mechanism other than
a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitation 1 recites receiving data.
Limitations 2–6 recite generic and conventional receiving, transmitting,
updating, processing, and analyzing of commerce related and blockchain
data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The
limitations thus recite advice for processing data from an updated model
created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related and
blockchain data. To advocate processing data from an updated model
created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related and
blockchain data is conceptual advice for results desired and not
technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
performing cognitive inference and learning operations. Thus, all this
intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites forming a cognitive insight.
This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

10

This in turn is an example of forming a cognitive insight as a concept
performed in the human mind because cognitive insights are mental
processes. The concept of forming a cognitive insight by processing data
from an updated model created from cognitive learning operations upon
commerce related and blockchain data is one idea for forming such an
insight. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might conceptually
be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
674 F.3d 1315, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“computer aided” mental process
claims, unlimited in scope, preempted the idea of “selectively forwarding”
credit data); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that can be performed by human
thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under
§ 101.”).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
forming a cognitive insight by processing data from an updated model
created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related and
blockchain data, which are concept performed in the human mind, one of
mental processes identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract
idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

11

some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept, i.e., integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “‘to a new and useful end,’” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “‘buildin[g] block[s]’”
of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks
into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Step 1 is a pure data gathering step.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 2 and 4
recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and
storing data. Step 6 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing,
transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 3 and 5 recite generic computer
processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible
means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported
inventive aspects reside in how the data are interpreted and the results
desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

12

interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
In particular, the limitations regarding (1) using blockchain data,
(2) using a cognitive inference and learning system having a cognitive
platform, a cognitive graph, an application cognitive graph, and a cognitive
graph associated with a cognitive application, and (3) performing a cognitive
learning operation implementing a cognitive learning technique according to
a cognitive learning framework comprising a plurality of cognitive learning
styles and a plurality of cognitive learning categories are generic functional
descriptions devoid of technological implementation details.
A blockchain broadly refers to a decentralized, distributed data
structure whose contents are replicated across a number of systems.
Blockchains are literally chains of linked blocks. This encompasses a
conventional linked list. While not part of the definition, the data in
blockchains typically are protected so as to be immutable. Claim 1 recites
no more than simply using such data. As a result, claim 1 recites no
technological implementation or use of blockchain data, and in particular, no
reliance on or application of the attributes, such as linkage and security, of
blockchain data. Indeed, claim 1 relies on such data only as a generic source
of data.
Using a cognitive inference and learning system having a cognitive
platform, a cognitive graph, an application cognitive graph, and a cognitive
graph associated with a cognitive application is no more than using a series
of labelled generic structures with no recitation of technological
implementation or application. All such labels are sufficiently broad to
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

13

encompass generic and conventional learning approaches as performed by a
computer.
Performing a cognitive learning operation implementing a cognitive
learning technique according to a cognitive learning framework comprising
a plurality of cognitive learning styles and a plurality of cognitive learning
categories is also no more than using a series of labelled generic structures
with no recitation of technological implementation or application. Again, all
such labels are sufficiently broad to encompass generic and conventional
learning approaches as performed by a computer.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
forming a cognitive insight by processing data from an updated model
created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related and
blockchain data as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than
conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and does not
recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different
generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of forming a cognitive insight by processing data from an
updated model created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce
related and blockchain data under different scenarios. It does not describe

8 The Specification describes a general purpose computer, special purpose
computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus. Spec. para. 25.
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

14

any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,
claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply forming a cognitive insight by processing data from an updated model
created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related and
blockchain data using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of forming
a cognitive insight by advising one to process data from an updated model
created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related and
blockchain data, as distinguished from a technological improvement for
achieving or applying that result. This amounts to concepts performed in the
human mind, which fall within mental processes that constitute abstract
ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

15

STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, transmitting, updating, processing, and analyzing
data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic,
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

16

routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing
Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible
narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’
. . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer
without special programming.”). None of these activities is used in some
unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-transmission-
update-processing-analysis is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

17

controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept. There are no structural claims. As a corollary,
the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of mental
processes as exemplified by the concepts performed in the human mind of
forming a cognitive insight by advising one to process data from an updated
model created from cognitive learning operations upon commerce related
and blockchain data, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claims as a
whole claim more than a method of organizing human activity by itself,”
where the only support for this is simply reciting the claim limitations.
Appeal Br. 4. This is a conclusory argument without reasoning in support.
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

18

Further, as our reviewing court held with regard to 37 C.F.R. § 41.37
disallowing such conclusory arguments,
we hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a
mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.
In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). This applies as equally
to eligibility arguments as to those with respect to obviousness.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the claimed cognitive graph which is derived from the plurality
of data sources, where the cognitive graph comprises an
application cognitive graph, the application cognitive graph
comprising a cognitive graph associated with a cognitive
application, interactions between the cognitive application and
the application cognitive graph being represented as a set of
nodes in the cognitive graph is at least one example in the claims
which is more than a generic computer system.
Appeal Br. 4. The step at issue is “providing the blockchain data to a
cognitive inference and learning system.” The nature of the cognitive graph
within a cognitive platform within the cognitive inference and learning
system has no effect upon the step of providing, and such providing does not
affect the graph, platform, and system. Thus the limitations Appellant argue
are aspirational rather than functional. More to the point, the limitations are
merely descriptive labels, not even functional specifications, and recite no
technological implementation or improvements. At best, the limitations
recite the aspirational use of representing a graph as a set of nodes, which is
little more than definitional.
At that level of generality, the claims do no more than describe
a desired function or outcome, without providing any limiting
detail that confines the claim to a particular solution to an
identified problem. The purely functional nature of the claim
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

19

confirms that it is directed to an abstract idea, not to a concrete
embodiment of that idea.
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the interaction of
these components is claimed throughout the claims.” Appeal Br. 4. This
argues no more than that a process claim is a recitation of a series of steps.
We determine above that each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions and that the sequence of
data reception-transmission-update-processing-analysis is generic and
conventional.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claimed
components are not generic computer components but rather specific
components that perform functions that cannot be practically performed per
se (i.e., solely) within a human mind.” Appeal Br. 4. Practicality of data
size is not a factor in conferring eligibility.
[W]e do not rely on the pen and paper test to reach our holding
of patent eligibility in this case. At the same time, we note that,
in viewing the facts in FairWarning’s favor, the inability for the
human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer
patentability. As we have explained, “the fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed
subject matter.”
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citations omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claims as a
whole were found to distinguish over the cited art.” Appeal Br. 5. “[A]
claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101
Appeal 2020-006484
Application 15/374,137

20

inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–6 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–6 is affirmed.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6 101 Eligibility 1–6

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED