Ex Parte Ghosh et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14048958 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/048,958 10/08/2013
98665 7590 06/28/2019
Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP
P.O. Box 381
Cos Cob, CT 06807
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Debashis Ghosh
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.
POl 157-US-UTIL 1607
EXAMINER
MILEF, ELDA G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBASHIS GHOSH and RANDY SHUKEN 1
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Technology Center 3600
Before EDWARD A. BROWN, JAMES P. CALVE, and
MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CAL VE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-23. Appeal Br. 1. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 MasterCard International Incorporated is identified as the real party in
interest and also is the Applicant pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.46. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to the analysis of payment card transaction data.
Spec. 1:9-13. Payment databases can be mined to estimate total receipts at a
merchant based on a knowledge of the total spending with a particular credit
card at that merchant during a given time period, the market share of that
card in that region, and the market share of all payment cards for that region.
Id. at 13:12-14:5. Such scaling requires calculation of the market shares of
each credit card used in the region as recited in independent claims 1, 10, 18,
and 19. Id. at 14:20-18:30. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method comprising the steps of:
obtaining access to a database including a set of records
of payment transactions in a NACHA-format electronic bill
payment system connecting a plurality of customers with a
plurality of billers, a subset of said plurality of said billers
comprising payment card issuers;
querying said database, with a database module
embodied in a non-transitory computer readable medium and
executing on at least one hardware processor within said
NACHA-format electronic bill payment system, to identify a
regional subset of said records in said database, which regional
subset of said records are for a subset of said plurality of
customers in a region of interest;
querying said database, with said database module
embodied in said nontransitory computer readable medium and
executing on said at least one hardware processor within said
NACHA-format electronic bill payment system, to identify, in
said regional subset of said records, transactions comprising
payments to said payment card issuers, said transactions
comprising said payments to said payment card issuers having a
total amount;
within said transactions comprising payments to said
payment card issuers, determining a respective proportional
amount of said total amount attributable to each individual
brand of a plurality of brands of payment card products, with an
2
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
analytics module embodied in said non-transitory computer
readable medium and executing on said at least one hardware
processor within said NACHA-format electronic bill payment
system; and
making said proportional amount available for
computation, with an interactivity module embodied in said
non-transitory computer readable medium and executing on
said at least one hardware processor within said NACHA-
format electronic bill payment system;
wherein:
in said step of obtaining access to said database of
transactions in said NACHA-format electronic bill payment
system connecting said plurality of customers with said
plurality of billers, said NA CHA-format electronic bill payment
system further has bill presentment capability and includes
presentment records for current bill presentment account
balances and prior period bill presentment account balances;
and
in said determining of said proportional amount
attributable to each of said plurality of brands of payment card
products:
actual amount paid is used for scaling for
those of said transactions comprising said payments to said
payment card issuers where outstanding balance is not greater
than the actual amount paid; and
new spending is used for scaling for those of
said transactions comprising said payments to said payment
card issuers where outstanding balance is greater than said
actual amount paid, said new spending being calculated as prior
period bill presentment account balance less current bill
presentment account balance less interest on that portion of said
prior period bill presentment account balance not paid off.
Appeal Br. 28-29 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-23 are rejected as directed to a judicial
exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
3
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
ANALYSIS
Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims
Appellants argue the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 24--32. We select
claim 1 as representative (see 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv)) and address the
arguments for claim 7 separately.
The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of a
bill payment method for gathering business/market intelligence and analysis
of electronic payment techniques. Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner determines
the individual claimed steps correspond to concepts identified by the courts
as abstract ideas such as collecting, analyzing, and displaying information
and results of the collection and analysis, organizing and manipulating the
information through mathematical correlations, and also certain methods of
organizing human activities. Id. at 3--4. In particular, the Examiner finds
that claim 1 recites steps such as accessing a database of records of payment
transactions, performing mathematical calculations such as determining
proportions, scaling using proportional amounts, and displaying the results
as in Figures 6 and 7, and these steps have been held to be abstract ideas in
decisions by the courts. Ans. 3--4.
The Examiner determines that the additional elements recited in the
claims (electronic bill payment system, database, hardware processor) are
recited at a high level of generality and represent routine, generic functions
performed by generic computers and components and therefore do not
amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas or improve particular
technologies or technical fields. Id. at 4--5. Instead, these elements merely
link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Id. at 5.
4
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Appellant argues that gathering business/market intelligence and the
analysis of electronic payment techniques is not a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce, and the Examiner has
oversimplified and mischaracterized the claims without accounting for
particular details recited in the claims. Appeal Br. 15-17; Reply Br. 2-5.
Appellant argues that embodiments of the claims have concrete and
tangible applications that represent significant improvements to technology
in the marketplace such as "an automated way of determining scaling factors
as compared to the current ad hoc nature of computing scaling factors" by
leveraging an online bill pay platform to calculate a particular card brand's
share of the payment card market by scaling data from system 1000 shown
in Figure 3. Appeal Br. 18-19. Appellant argues that the claims are directed
to computer-functionality improvement rather than using existing computers
as tools to aid processes focused on abstract ideas. Reply Br. 8. Appellant
argues that the claims recite specific arrangements of individual steps that
are performed by a database module, analytics module, and interactivity
module, each embodied on a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues that an inventive concept can be found in
the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
pieces. Id. at 22. Appellant argues that claimed invention has a significant
technical improvement over conventional technologies because a wealth of
transaction data is available based on the use of payment card accounts and
may involve a claimed set of rules or mathematical relationships. Reply Br.
10-11. Finally, Appellant argues that this specific set of rules does not
preempt approaches that use rules of a different structure or technique.
Appeal Br. 24.
5
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
The patent laws provide that "[ w ]hoever invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to
the conditions and requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. However,
"this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
v. CLS Bank Int'!, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (citation omitted).
Mayo Collaborative Services established a framework to distinguish
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)). First, we determine whether the claims are directed
to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, we next consider the claim elements
individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether additional
elements transform the claims into a patent-eligible application. Id. This
search for an inventive concept seeks an element or combination of elements
"sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself." Id. at 217-218.
Recently, the PTO published guidance for evaluating subject matter
eligibility. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Revised Guidance"). Under Step One, a
determination is made whether the claims are in a statutory category of
patentable subject matter, i.e., whether they recite a process, machine,
manufacture, or a composition of matter, identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53-54; See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216; Mayo,
566 U.S. at 70.
6
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Next, at Revised Step 2A, Prong One, an evaluation is made whether
a claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea set forth in Section I
of the Revised Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Specific limitations that recite an abstract
idea must be identified (individually or in combination), and a determination
made whether the limitation(s) falls within the subject matter groupings in
Section I of the Revised Guidance. Id. (A. Revised Step 2A). The groupings
cover ( 1) mathematical concepts, relationships, formulas, or calculations,
(2) certain methods of organizing human activity, fundamental economic
principles and practices, commercial interactions, managing personal
behavior, relationships, or interactions, and (3) mental processes and
concepts formed in the human mind. Id. at 5 2.
If a claim recites a judicial exception, Prong Two of Revised Step 2A
requires a determination to be made whether the claim as a whole integrates
the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. "A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will 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." Id. at 53. If a judicial
exception is integrated, the claim is patent eligible. See id. at 54--55.
If a claim does not "integrate" a recited judicial exception, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception, and we proceed to Step 2B to determine if
the claim contains an inventive concept. Id. at 56. In particular, Step 2B
considers whether the claim adds a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present. Id.
7
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Step One: Does Claim 1 Fall within a Statutory Category of§ 1 OJ?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a method and thus
fall within the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Final Act. 3.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In
fact, claim 1 recites several abstract ideas. These abstract ideas include
(1) certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental economic
principles or practices, (2) commercial interactions in the form of sales
activities or behaviors; and (3) mathematical concepts-mathematical
relationships and calculations. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52.
The first step "access[ es] a database including a set of records of
payment transactions in a NACHA-format electronic bill payment system
connecting a plurality of customers with a plurality of billers, a subset of
said plurality of said billers comprising payment card issuers." This step
recites a fundamental economic practice of marketing and sales activity for
determining market share. It is a precursor to the mathematical calculations
performed later in the claim using the sales data in the database to determine
market shares. See Spec. 13:12-14:27. The data must be accessed before it
can be manipulated with mathematical formulas.
The next steps involve querying the database "to identify a regional
subset of said records in said database, ... for a subset of said plurality of
customers in a region of interest" and "transactions comprising payments to
said payment card issuers ... having a total amount." These steps involve
methods of organizing human activity as a fundamental economic practice
of calculating market share based on records of commercial transactions of
sales activity. See id. at 14:28-16:9, 19:28-20:6, Fig. 7.
8
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
The next step of "determining a respective proportional amount of
said total amount attributable to each individual brand of a plurality of
brands of payment card products, with an analytics module" involves the
abstract idea of mathematical concepts, relationships, and calculations. This
step simply determines the market share/percentage of sales in a region that
are attributable to each payment card. These "proportional amount[ s ]" are
then made "available for computation, with an interactivity module" that can
perform business analytics such as predicting total sales for a merchant, a
category, or an entire industry. See id. at 13:12-14:19, 20:7-18, Fig. 7.
The final steps recite "determining of said proportional amount
attributable to each of said plurality of brands of payment card products" as
"actual amount paid" and "new spending" are used for scaling of those said
transactions. These steps involve abstract ideas of mathematical concepts,
relationships, and formulas used to determine proportional amounts and
market shares. These steps include amounts of commercial sales activities
and transactions that are incurred in a period of time ( e.g., a month) and the
payments made by cardholders on accounts. See id. at 16:10-18:30, Fig. 6.
The Examiner identifies claim limitations that recite the abstract ideas
of using mathematical relationships and calculations to analyze information
that is collected representing human activity involved in sales activities and
other commercial transactions. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner explains that
these abstract ideas are financial in nature and recite an abstract idea of a bill
payment method for gathering business or market intelligence and analysis
of electronic payments. Ans. 3. Appellants do not address these limitations
as analyzed by the Examiner or explain why these limitations do not recite
abstract ideas. Appeal Br. 13-27; Reply Br. 2-24.
9
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Step 2A, Prong Two: Is There Integration into a Practical Application?
Because we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract ideas identified
above, we next determine whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
are sufficient to integrate those abstract ideas into a patent-eligible practical
application. Claim 1 recites the abstract ideas as basic data collection and
analysis based on basic mathematical formulas and relationships, which are
not sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (holding that steps of collecting information, even when limited to
particular content (which does not change its character as information), do
not make claims patent eligible and analyzing information by steps people
go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, are
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category). Mere data
collection and analysis, without more, is insufficient to integrate the abstract
ideas recited in claim 1 into a practical application.
Nor does claim 1 tie the abstract ideas to a particular machine that is
integral to the claim sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application. MPEP § 2106.05(b ). Instead, claim 1 recites a generic database
with records of payment transactions and a database module for querying the
database. An analytics module determines a respective proportional amount
of the total amount attributable to each card product, and an interactivity
module makes the proportional amount available for computation. Each of
these elements is recited as a generic computer or component that performs
generic functions of making calculations, which are abstract ideas as
discussed above. The database module can be a relational database and the
analytics module can include a spreadsheet. Spec. 26: 12-31.
10
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
These elements are recited at a high level of generality without
integrating the abstract ideas into a practical application. Nor do these other
elements apply the abstract ideas in a meaningful way or impose meaningful
limitations on the abstract ideas sufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into
a practical application. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a
generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention" merely by stating an abstract idea and adding the
words "apply it" on a computer); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ("Accenture
attempts to limit the abstract idea of claim 1 by applying it in a computer
environment and within the insurance industry. However, those types of
limitations do not 'narrow, confine, or otherwise tie down the claim.' ...
[S]imply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without
meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible
claim into a patent-eligible one."); Bancorp Servs., L.L. C. v. Sun Life
Assurance Co. or Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("To
salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be integral
to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a person
making calculations or computations could not."); see also SAP America,
Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("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.").
The claimed method can be implemented on a programmed general
purpose computer(s), e.g., servers or personal computers interconnected by
generic networks. Spec. 27: 1-23. We find no integration here.
11
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Nor are we persuaded that an electronic bill payment system with bill
presentment capability ( claim 1) or a payment processing network operated
by a single entity ( claim 7) integrates the abstract ideas into a practical
application. The elements are recited as generic components at a high level
of generality without meaningful limitations imposed on the abstract ideas.
Nor does claim 1 transform an article beyond linking it to electronic
bill payment systems that do not transform or reduce an article to a different
state or thing. See MPEP § 2106.05(c). The claim manipulates data using
basic mathematical relationships without changing its nature as information.
Claim 1 recites generic databases that store data for queries to perform
calculations. See In re TL! Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612
(Fed. Cir. 2016) ( claims "to the use of conventional or generic technology in
a nascent but well-known environment" are not patent eligible).
Thus, claim 1 ( and claim 7) lack additional elements sufficient to
integrate the abstract ideas recited therein into a practical application.
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Recite an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any elements, individually
or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573
U.S. at 21 7-18. "The second step of the Al ice test is satisfied when the
claim limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine
[and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Berkheimer
v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and
citation omitted); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 ( explaining
that the second step of the Alice analysis considers whether a claim adds a
specific limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not "well-understood,
routine, conventional" activity in the field).
12
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Appellant argues that the embodiments "improve upon a current
scenario by leveraging an online bill pay platform." Appeal Br. 18. In
particular, Appellant argues that the claimed invention provides significant
technical improvements over conventional technologies by using the wealth
of transaction data available from the use of payment card accounts and thus
providing "an automated way of determining scaling factors as compared to
the current ad hoc nature of computing scaling factors." Id.; Reply Br. 10.
This argument is not persuasive. Mere automation of a process,
without improving a technical aspect of that process, does not integrate the
abstract ideas into a practical application. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("merely
adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of the
process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract idea.").
"To salvage an otherwise patent-ineligible process, a computer must be
integral to the claimed invention, facilitating the process in a way that a
person making calculations or computations could not." Bancorp Svcs., 687
F.3d at 1278-79 (holding that the claims merely employ computers to track,
reconcile, and administer a life insurance policy; they perform more
efficiently what otherwise could be accomplished manually and do not make
the abstract ideas patent-eligible).
Here, claim 1 recites a business solution, not a technological solution.
It does not improve any computer, network, database or credit card payment
technologies. Instead, it recites a process of calculating the market share of
a credit card in a region of interest by calculating and comparing the amount
attributable to each individual brand of credit card to the total amount spent
in the region of interest using all credit cards.
13
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Therefore, the alleged inventive concept involves the abstract idea of
using mathematical formulas and mathematical relationships of credit card
sales to determine relative market shares of the cards using basic formulas or
calculations, namely, calculating the market share based on credit card sales
in a region divided by the total credit card sales in that region. See, e.g.
Spec. 13: 13-14:5.
Even if this calculation/method represents a new business intelligence
idea, such abstract ideas does not provide the necessary inventive concept.
See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 88-90 (the patent eligibility of an abstract idea
does not depend on its alleged novelty or non-obviousness); SAP America,
898 F.3d at 1163, 1170 ("No matter how much of an advance in the finance
field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas,
with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm.
An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting."; holding that the
invocation of computers and networks that are not even inventive is not
enough to establish an "inventive concept" and the invocation of such
computers for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations
amounts to recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional);
Two-Way Media, Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Eligibility and novelty are separate inquiries.");
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("But, a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.");
Versata Develop. Grp., Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ( affirming unpatentability of claims that improved an abstract
idea, but not a computer's performance).
14
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
The decision in Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) also illustrates the distinction. Appeal Br. 28. Enfish involved a
patent-eligible application that improved a computer database through a
claimed self-referential table. Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336. The claims recited
"a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied in the self-
referential table." Id.; see id. at 1337 (finding that the self-referential table
functions differently than conventional database structures with increased
flexibility, faster search times, and less memory). Thus, the claimed data
storage and retrieval system for a computer memory was not directed to an
abstract idea because it involved more than storing, organizing, and
retrieving memory in a logical table. Id. at 1336-37.
Here, claim 1 recites a generic database with generic modules that
perform data calculations and share the calculations. See BSG Tech LLC v.
BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims
focused on guiding database users by presenting summary comparison
information before they input data is not "'necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of' wide access databases;" it "amounts to having users consider previous
item descriptions before they describe items to achieve more consistent item
descriptions. Whether labeled as a fundamental, long-prevalent practice or a
well-established method of organizing activity, this qualifies as an abstract
idea."); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) ("the claims describe the automation of the fundamental
economic concept of offer-based price optimization through ... generic
computer functions."). Accordingly, claim 1 also lacks an inventive concept
sufficient to make it patent-eligible.
15
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
The limitations of claim 1, considered individually or as an ordered
combination, do not amount to significantly more than a claim to the abstract
ideas. The individual limitations recite steps of collecting and analyzing
information with mathematical formulas as abstract ideas. In combination,
they involve organizing human activities regarding commercial sales, basic
mathematical relationships, and data collection and analysis at a high level
of generality. Claim 7 merely applies this abstract idea on a generic
electronic bill payment system and payment processing network.
The decision in Bascom Global Internet Services also is instructive.
The claims recited a hybrid Internet filtering system with a filter on a local
computer and a filter on an Internet Service Provider server, which improved
existing filtering technologies by adapting different users' preferences while
being installed remotely in a single location. Bascom Global Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(finding an inventive concept in a filtering system that associates individual
accounts with individual filtering schemes while locating the system on an
ISP server). The decision emphasized that "[t]he claims do not merely recite
the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it
on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components."
Id. at 1350 ("Such claims would not contain an inventive concept.").
Here, we have no inventive filtering of a database or records therein.
Any improvement is entirely within the realm of abstract ideas. Appellant
has not shown that the claimed method improves computer hardware or
software or database efficiency. Instead, it applies mathematical concepts or
relationships to existing generic databases and transactional data to calculate
proportional amounts of sales attributable to a particular card product.
16
Appeal2018-005304
Application 14/048,958
Arguments about preemption (Appeal Br. 31-32) are resolved by our
§ 101 analysis. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371,
1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also Two-Way Media, 874 F.3d at 1339 (where
patent claims are deemed patent ineligible, "preemption concerns are fully
addressed and made moot").
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of
claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-23 as directed to a judicial exception to§ 101.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-7, 10-15, and 17-23 as directed
to a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
17