Ex Parte GallagherDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJul 9, 201914059315 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 9, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/059,315 10/21/2013 29540 7590 DAY PITNEY LLP One Canterbury Green 201 Broad Street Stamford, CT 06901 07/11/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Steven J. Gallagher 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 170865.005700 6007 EXAMINER LAU,TUNGS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2863 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/11/2019 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): Patents@daypitney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Exparte STEVEN J. GALLAGHER Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 Technology Center 2800 Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and N. WHITNEY WILSON, Administrative Patent Judges. HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's decision finally rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed October 21, 2013, the Examiner's Final Office Action ("Final Act.") dated November 13, 2017, Appellant's Appeal Brief ("Appeal Br.") filed March 27, 2018, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") dated April 19, 2018, and Appellant's Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 19, 2018. 2 Appellant is the Applicant, Caliper Life Sciences, Inc., which is identified in the Appeal Brief as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2). Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The invention relates to the graphical display of chromatographic separation data in the form of a series of measurements indicating presence of constituents in a sample at a scanning location over time as a series of bands. Spec. 1: 19-21; 4: 19-21. Such chromatographic data obtained in the form of optical intensity, e.g., fluorescence, UV absorbance, as a function of time yielding a chromatogram, can be displayed in a band format, such as a vertical ladder. Id. at 4: 11-14. Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal Brief, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method of acquiring and displaying chromatographic separation data, comprising: acquiring, using a device that analyses a plurality of samples, first a series of measurements indicating presence of constituents and at least one marker in a first sample at a detection system and then a series of measurements indicating presence of constituents and at least one marker in a second sample at the detection system; displaying the series of measurements for the first sample as a first series of bands; identifying at least one peak in the series of measurements for the first sample the corresponds to the at least one marker; identifying at least one peak in the series of measurements for the second sample that corresponds to the at least one marker; transforming the measurements for the second sample by scaling the series of measurements for the second sample based on the identified at least one peak in the first and second samples, so that the displayed bands that correspond to the at least one marker in the first and second samples are aligned when displayed; and 2 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 displaying the series of measurements for the second sample as a second series of bands adjacent to the first series of bands. Appeal Br. 13 ANALYSIS Appellant argues the rejected claims together as a group. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as the representative claim on which we focus in deciding this appeal. After review of the Examiner's and Appellant's opposing, articulated positions, the claims and the Specification, we determine that the Appellant's arguments are insufficient to identify reversible error in the Examiner's rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, we affirm the stated rejection for substantially the fact findings and the reasons set forth in the Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer. We offer the following for emphasis only. The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of a method of acquiring and displaying chromatographic separation data, "an idea of itself," and a mathematical relationship/formula. Final Act. 2, 4-5, 6, 7. The Examiner finds that the claims do not recite additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps of the recited method are recited at a high level of generality, and are routine or conventional elements necessary to facilitate the application of the abstract idea. Id. In particular, the Examiner finds that the steps of acquiring, displaying, identifying, and transforming do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they are recited at a high level of generality and because they represent extra-solution activity to 3 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 provide data necessary for the abstract idea. Id. at 3. The Examiner concludes that, when considered individually and in combination, the additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Id. The Examiner further finds that because claim 1 fails to identify a particular use or application, it does not qualify as an improvement to a particular technology or technical field. Final Act. 7. Instead, the Examiner finds that claim 1 only generally and broadly links the method to a technological environment. Id. The Examiner also finds that the method does not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computing device itself because it only recites a device generically. Id. at 7-8. Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under Enfzsh. Appeal Br. 4-7, citing Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellant contends that claim 1 represents an improvement to computer functionality which is supported in the Specification. Id. at 6. Appellant expresses a belief that claim l's "transforming step alone involves much more than simply 'acquiring and displaying chromatographic separation data."' Id. at 5. Appellant urges that displaying the data such that at least one marker in the first and second samples are aligned distinguishes further from a simple display. Id. at 5-6. Appellant asserts that among the benefits the recited method provides is an ability to display serially collected data in a more conventional format using a single standard ladder, thereby saving time and expense. Id. at 6. In addition, Appellant asserts that another advantage of the recited method is the ability to automatically align the various constituents represented in two or more samples to markers. Id. at 7. Therefore, invoking Enfzsh, Appellant contends that the rejection impermissibly describes the claims at a high level 4 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 of abstraction untethered from the claim language. Id. at 6; see also Reply Br. 8-10. Given the above, Appellant considers that analysis of the second step of the test for subject matter eligibility, the identification of significantly more than a judicial exception, is not required. Appeal Br. 7. However, Appellant argues that even if claim 1 recites an abstract idea, this claim recites elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. Appellant contends that there is no support for the Examiner's finding that claim 1 is directed to a mathematical relationship or formula. Id. at 8. Appellant also contends that the Examiner determination that claim 1 fails to identify a particular use or application and does not qualify as an improvement to a particular technology or technical field is wrong. Id., citing generally to Spec. 1: 19-4:4 and the claim 1 preamble. Appellant next argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea under McRO. Appeal Br. 9-10, citing McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Reply Br. 10- 11. Appellant contends that McRO, like claim l's scaling step, recited claim elements for alignment of auditory data with visual data based on certain rules. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant urges that claim 1 recites claim elements for alignment of display of a first sample with a second sample based on at least one marker. Id. Appellant further urges that McRO provided for achieving results similar to those achieved manually, and claim 1 "provides a computer implemented method of displaying chromatographic separation data." Id. Appellant next attempts to distinguish the claims from Electric Power Group, arguing that claim 1 is directed to a new source of information and 5 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 recites new techniques for analyzing it. Appeal Br. 10-11. Appellant urges that claim 1 has been examined and, in view of the prior art, been found to contain novelty. Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 7-8. Appellant also urges that claim 1 contains technology that does more than merely make use of a computer as a tool to implement conventional techniques. Appeal Br. 11. Rather, according to Appellant, claim 1 recites improvements to computer technology. Id. Legal Framework 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 include implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, our inquiry focuses on the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk."). 6 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 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 (Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981 )); "tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267-68 (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 Supreme Court held that "[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; 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 Supreme Court also indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, ... and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment." Id. ( citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection."). 7 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent- eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotation marks omitted). "A claim that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Id. The Office recently published revised guidance on the application of § 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"), 84 Fed. Reg. 50. Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites: ( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)). Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See generally Memorandum. 8 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 Analysis Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, we sustain the Examiner's rejection under§ 101 that claims 1-5 and 7-20 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Revised Step 2A, Prong One-Directed to a Judicial Exception The Memorandum instructs us first to determine whether each claim recites any judicial exception to patent eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Memorandum identifies three judicially-excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Id. at 52. The Examiner identifies that claim 1 recites an abstract idea-a method of acquiring and displaying chromatographic separation data-but does not indicate in which of the above groupings this abstract idea fits. The Examiner does indicate that claim 1 is directed both to the above abstract idea and a mathematical relationship or formula, but does not indicate which steps correspond to the mathematical relationship or formula or how the claim otherwise recites a mathematical relationship or formula. For the reasons given below, as well as in the Final Office Action and the Answer, we determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea that encompasses either or both mental processes and mathematical concepts. Claim 1 includes steps of identifying at least one peak in each of the series of measurements for the first and second samples that corresponds to at least one marker. As the Examiner recognizes, these steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they can be performed in the human mind by merely observing the displayed first series of bands and then finding a similar location for the marker in the second series of measurements. Both 9 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 these identifying steps require judgment and may be performed in the human mind. As such, claim 1 recites a mental process of identifying peaks in a pair of series of measurements. Claim 1 also includes steps of displaying the series of measurements for the first and second samples as first and second series of bands, and a step of transforming the measurements for the sample by scaling these measurements based on the identified peaks in the first and second samples, so that the displayed bands corresponding to the marker in are aligned when displayed. In the Specification, Appellant discloses that the position and intensity of the standard marker is determined so that the position and intensity of each band for each detected constituent in a sample may be scaled or appropriately calculated. Spec. 34: 12-17; Fig. 12. This scaling process is described as normalizing the display of the series of measurements. Spec. 28: 1-29:5 and 30:3-17; Figs. 7 and 9. This normalization calculates according to the scaling determined using the standard marker position and intensity, the position and intensity of each of the series of bands in each displayed sample. Thus, the steps of displaying and transforming recited in claim 1 recite a mathematical concept. The remaining step of claim 1, acquiring series of measurements for first and second samples using a device that analyses a plurality of samples, is recited at a high level of generalization and merely provides information to be used in the process. As Appellant acknowledges, claim 1 is directed to a method providing a new way to display chromatographic data. Although Appellant urges that the source of that data is new, Appellant fails to direct our attention to any evidence that the chromatographic separation data acquired in the first step of claim 1 is a new source of this information. To 10 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 the contrary, Appellant discloses that the chromatographic separation data is that which was obtained in the prior art by known techniques and apparatus. Spec. 4:7, 12-13; 6:3-7:12; 9:6-11; and 10:5-9. The Federal Circuit noted that "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category," and "merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more" is abstract and thus the claims focused on the combination of these abstract ideas. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has summarized such a situation in this way: We have explained that claims focused on "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis" are directed to an abstract idea. Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. "Information as such is an intangible," hence abstract, and "collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), [i]s within the realm of abstract ideas." Id. ( citing cases). So, too, is "analyzing information ... by mathematical algorithms, without more." Id. at 1354 (citing cases, including Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 98 S. Ct. 2522, 57 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1978), and Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 93 S. Ct. 253, 34 L. Ed. 2d 273 (1972)). And "merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis." Id. ( citing cases). The claims here are directed [to] abstract ideas under those principles. SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Like the claims in Electric Power Group and SAP America, "[t]he claims in this case are directed to abstract ideas. The focus of the claims, as 11 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 is plain from their terms, quoted above, is on selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis. That is all abstract." SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167. Thus, in accordance with the PTO's policy guidance, we identify claim 1 as reciting both mental processes and mathematical concepts. Revised Step 2A, Prong Two - Practical Application Having determined that claims 1-15 and 26 recite the abstract concept of a mental process, we next look to determine whether the claims recite "additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h); Memorandum, 84 F.3d at 53-54. Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to "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 exception." Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application). Here, we find none. We find that the additional elements claim 1 recites, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Although Appellant argues that the claims recite an improvement to the functioning of a computer, we disagree. Initially, we note that claim 1 does not recite that the method is computer-implemented. Nor does claim 1 recite that the method is performed using a computer, processor, or similar computing device. The only apparatus recited in claim 1 are the "device that analyses a plurality of 12 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 samples" and the "detection system," neither of which expressly or necessarily implicate a computer. The Specification discloses a variety of such devices and systems, none of which are or necessarily include a computer. Spec. 4:7, 12-13; 6:3-7:12; 9:6-11; and 10:5-9. We acknowledge that Appellant discloses that the invention provides a computer implemented method of displaying chromatographic separation data. Id. 4:18-19, 5:3-4, 16-17; Fig. 2. However, while we construe claims in light of the Specification, we do not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed.Cir. 2005) (en bane). Thus, there is no computer in claim 1 that would have improved functionality. Further, the transforming and display steps of claim 1 are not used to improve the performance or any capability of a computer. Instead, these steps merely enable the display of the same data in a different, albeit improved, manner to improve an observer's ability to visually compare chromatographic data for a plurality of samples. Although the claimed method permits the use of a single standard over a plurality of samples, Appellant does not explain how this single standard improves the functioning of a computer. Indeed, any time and expense savings would be not because a computer has been improved, but because the performance of a standard run does not have to be repeated over a variety of samples, though standard markers must still be included in every sample. Therefore, Appellant's argument that the claimed invention represents an improvement to the functioning of a computer is unsupported on the record. For this reason and for the reasons given by the Examiner (see Ans. 3-6), we agree 13 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 with the Examiner that the claims before us in this appeal distinguish from those in Enfish. We next tum to the question as to whether claim 1 represents an improvement to another technology or technical field. As the Examiner indicates, claim 1 recites a method of acquiring and displaying chromatographic data. The acquisition step is merely a step for gathering and providing data to be used in the process. This step is recited at a high level of generality and merely includes known techniques for obtaining the chromatographic data. This step, therefore, represents insignificant extra- solution activity. The process of claim 1 converts this data into a series of bars each representing a different constituent in a sample, wherein each bar represents a peak in the data associated with a particular constituent. This conversion of data is implicit and is recited at a high level of generality. Claim 1 recites transforming the data for the second sample based on identifying the peak in the data for a marker and scaling the data based on the identified peak. Claim 1 does not recite, in any detail, how this scaling is done, though the Specification indicates that scaling normalizes the position and intensity of each constituent peak based on the position and intensity of the marker peak. But claim 1 is not so limited. Thus, claim 1 merely takes conventionally obtained data and converts that data from one form of display to another form of display. Claim 1 is not, nor are any of its elements, directed to a particular machine or transformation. The device and detection system are generically recited and the transformation step converts the information from one form to another, and is not a physical transformation. As such, these recited structures do not integrate the mental processes or mathematical concept 14 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 recited or implicated in claim 1 into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (setting forth examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application). We further note that these steps are similar to other concepts the courts have identified as abstract mental processes. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (methods of logic circuit design, comprising converting a functional description of a level sensitive latch into a hardware component description of the latch); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (organizing information through mathematical correlations). In Electric Power Group, our reviewing court explained that concepts of collecting and analyzing information, when broadly claimed, fall within the "realm of abstract ideas": Information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 550 U.S. 437,451 n.12 (2007); Bayer AG v. Housey Pharm., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Accordingly, we have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which does not change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat'! Ass 'n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs.for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In a similar vein, we have treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TL! Commc'ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App'x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 15 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int'! Trade Comm 'n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589-90 (1978); Gottschalkv. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). And we have recognized that merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In McRO, the Federal Circuit disagreed with a district court's determination that claims were "drawn to the [abstract] idea of automated rules-based use of morph targets and delta sets for lip-synchronized three- dimensional animation." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313 (quoting McRO, Inc. v. Sony Computer, Entm 't Am., LLC, 55 F.Supp.3d 1214, 1226 (C.D. Cal. 2014)). Instead, the Federal Circuit determined that "the claims are limited to rules with specific characteristics." Id. More specifically, the Federal Circuit stated: [a]s the district court recognized during claim construction, "the claims themselves set out meaningful requirements for the first set of rules: they 'define[] a morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and times associated with said phoneme sequence."' Id. The Federal Circuit determined "[t]he specific, claimed features of these rules allow for the improvement realized by the invention." Id. Moreover, the Federal Circuit recently stated: "[ o Jur recent abstract idea exception decisions likewise have stressed that a claimed invention must embody a 16 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 concrete solution to a problem having 'the specificity required to transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving it."' Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021-22 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (collecting cases)). A comparison of claim 1 here to claim 1 of McRO demonstrates substantial differences between the facts of this appeal and the facts of McRO. Claim 1 of McRO recites a method for automatically animating lip synchronization and facial expression of 3-D characters comprising, among other things, "obtaining a first set of rules that define output morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme sequence and time of said phoneme sequence." McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307-08. As noted above, the Federal Circuit determined "the claims are limited to rules with specific characteristics." Id. at 1313. In contrast, Appellant's claims 1 does not recite any rules with specific characteristics. Although mathematical relationships and algorithms are implicated in the recitations of claim 1, this claim does not actually recite any particular rules. Claim 1 generally recites acquiring a series of chromatographic measurements for first and second samples; displaying the series of measurements for the first sample as a first series of bands; identifying a peak in the series of measurements for the first sample that corresponds to a marker; identifying the peak in the series of measurements for the second sample that corresponds to the marker; transforming the measurements for the second sample by scaling based on the identified peak in the first and second samples, to align the bands when displayed; and displaying the series of measurements for the second sample as a second 17 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 series of bands adjacent to the first series of bands. Such a level of generality does not limit the claims to rules with specific characteristics, as inMcRO. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that claim 1 recites "additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application." Step 2B-Inventive Concept Because we determine that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and does not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, we look to whether this claim provides an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Again, we find none. As we've determined above, claim 1 merely recites acquiring chromatographic data for a plurality of samples each containing at least one marker, using a "device that analyses a plurality of samples" and a "detection system." The Examiner finds that this acquisition step using these apparatus is recited at a high level of generality and are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the industry. Appellant does not challenge this finding. In addition, this finding is supported by Appellant's disclosure which teaches the acquisition of chromatographic data using such a device and detection system was known in the industry, thus recognizing the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of this step. See Spec. 4:7, 12-13; 6:3-7:12; 9:6-11; and 10:5-9. Accordingly, we conclude that method claim 1-5 and 7-20 are directed to patent ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. They ensnare the basic idea of acquiring and manipulating data for display based 18 Appeal2018-007077 Application 14/059 ,315 on abstract mental processes and a mathematical concept, and do not recite additional elements that integrate those mental processes into a practical application. Further, acquiring that data using a device and detection system that analyze a plurality of samples does not transform the method into a patentable process; the idea remains a pre-empted mental process and mathematical concept. Alice, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) ("We have described the concern that drives this exclusionary principle as one of pre- emption.") (citing Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) ("[U]pholding the patent 'would pre-empt use of this approach in all fields, and would effectively grant a monopoly over an abstract idea."')). Here, the manipulation and display steps of the claims are abstract ideas, and the use of a generically recited analytical device does not transform the nature of the abstract decision-making process design output into something that is patent eligible. DECISION Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given above and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner's Answer, the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). AFFIRMED 19 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation