Greg Verego et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardSep 3, 201910902442 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 10/902,442 07/29/2004 Greg Verego AMDCP250 2994 98995 7590 09/03/2019 Zilka-Kotab, PC - AMDC 1155 N. 1st St. Suite 105 San Jose, CA 95112 EXAMINER WHITAKER, ANDREW B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3629 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/03/2019 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): zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GREG VEREGO, WILLIAM GUINN, MAXINE CAMPBELL, MICHAEL AXFORD, KEVIN EDWARDS, and CRAIG HANSON ____________ Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30, which constitute all pending claims. Br. 8–14. Appellants have canceled claims 1–13, 15– 17, 19–21, and 23–28. See id. at 15–18; Final Act. 1–2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.2 1 Appellants state the real parties in interest are Amdocs Development Limited and Amdocs, Inc. Br. 3. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 3, 2017, “Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a component-based data processing system that may be tailored according to a plurality of different business’s needs. Abstract; Spec. ¶ 18. In a disclosed embodiment, the system includes multiple data processing components “that provide function, role, or task- specific processing” and “may be adapted and selectively invoked according to data processing requirements of [each] business organization.” Spec. ¶ 18. Invention Claims 14, 18, and 22 are independent. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of claim 14, which is reproduced below. 14. A method comprising: storing, by an application server of a computer system, a plurality of separable and preconfigured data processing components that are each executable to perform a particular data processing function on a particular type of data to carry out a specific business function, role or task; making, by the application server, the data processing components available to a plurality of different business organizations; receiving, by the computer system from each of the business organizations, a selection of a subset of the data processing components to deploy; (mailed February 9, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed December 27 2016, “Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed July 29, 2004, and as amended April 23, 2008, “Spec.”) for their respective details. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 3 deploying, through the application server of the computer system for each of the business organizations, the selected subset of the data processing components, including: (a) receiving, from a client, customer data via a plurality of interfaces of the computer system including an automated computer telephony interface (CTI), an interactive voice response system, a graphical user interface (GUI), and an e-mail system; (b) determining, by the computer system, one or more of the deployed data processing components that is executable to perform a particular data processing function on a type of the received customer data; (c) organizing, in a database of the computer system, the received customer data according to the determined one or more data processing components, including associating, in the database of the computer system, the received customer data with he [sic] determined one or more data processing components; (d) based on the association in the database, executing, through the application server of the computer system, the determined one or more data processing components on the received customer data including performing the data processing functions of the determined one or more data processing components on the received customer data; and (e) providing, to the client by the application server of the computer system, a result of performing the data processing functions on the received customer data. Rejections 1. Claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 3–6. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 4 2. Claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 6,067,525; May 23, 2000) (“Johnson”) and Mikurak (US 7,130,807 B1; Oct. 31, 2006). Id. at 7–12. We have reviewed the rejections of claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30 in light of Appellants’ arguments. We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 8–14. CLAIMS 14, 18, 22, 29, AND 30: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER. Appellants present arguments regarding claims 14, 18, 22, and 29 as a group. See Br. 8–11. We decide the appeal of the § 101 rejections with reference to representative claim 14,3 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). PRINCIPLES OF LAW A. 35 U.S.C. § 101 An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.4 The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include 3 Our § 101 analysis for claim 14 applies equally to claims 18, 22, 29, and 30. 4 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the patent-eligibility inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 5 implicit exceptions: “‘[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas’ are not patentable.” Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)). In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See id. 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. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”). Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; see also Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent-eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 183 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))). Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 6 In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the 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. at 191 (citing Benson, 409 U.S. at 63; Flook 437 U.S. at 594); see also 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.”). Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under this guidance we must, therefore, ensure at step one that we articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”). If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotations and citations Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 7 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 (alteration in original)). “[M]erely requiring generic computer implementation fails to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id. at 212. B. United States Patent and Trademark Office Revised Guidance5 The USPTO recently published revised guidance in the Federal Register concerning the application of § 101. Under the Revised 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);6 and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).7 Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to 5 USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised Guidance,” or “Rev. Guid.”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-07/pdf/2018- 28282.pdf). 6 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”). 7 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance (hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”). Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 8 whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are 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.8 See Revised Guidance. Step 2A(i) — Abstract Idea Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation: (a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations; (b) Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and (c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the 8 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 9 enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis, except in rare situations identified in the Revised Guidance.9 However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception in Step 2A(ii). Step 2A(ii) — Practical Application If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A(i), we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The seven identified “practical application” sections of the MPEP,10 cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are: (1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field 9 In the rare circumstance in which an Examiner believes a claim limitation that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in of the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Guidance, Section III.C. 10 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer to revision [R-08.2017]. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 10 (2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine (3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation (4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations (5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception (6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity (7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-eligibility inquiry ends. If not, then analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More” Under our precedent, it is possible that a claim that does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is nonetheless patent-eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional elements that render the claim patent-eligible even though a judicial exception is recited in a separate claim element.11 The Federal Circuit has held claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B) because the additional elements recited in the claims provided “significantly more” than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional elements were unconventional in combination).12 Therefore, if a claim has been 11 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187. 12 See, e.g., Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings, Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 11 determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step 2A, we must evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself).13 Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an additional element or combination of elements: (1) “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;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance, III.B.14 LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014). 13 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325. (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 14 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner’s finding that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (USPTO Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018, “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 12 In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the Examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following: 1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . . 2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well- understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). 3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . . 4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s) See Berkheimer Memo. The analysis in Step 2B further determines whether an additional element or combination of elements: (a) 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; or (b) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)”) (hereinafter “Berkheimer Memo”). Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 13 present. Revised Guidance; see also Berkheimer Memo. If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility analysis. However, if a determination is made that the element and combination of elements does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for lack of subject matter eligibility. ANALYSIS Step 1 Claim 14 is a method (process) claim by reciting one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Based upon our de novo review15 of the record in light of the Revised Guidance16 with respect to patent-eligible subject matter rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we reverse the rejection of claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30. Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception? The Examiner concludes the claims are directed to abstract ideas. Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–4. In particular, the Examiner determines the claims 15 “Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 16 Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 50–57. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 14 “are directed towards providing a result of performing data processing functions from the determined one or more processing components deployed and executed based upon received customer data which is similar to a method of organizing human activity such as the receiving, processing, and storing data . . . , and electronic record keeping.” Ans. 3 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26); see also Final Act. 3–5. The Examiner also determines that the “making the data processing components available to a plurality of different business organizations limitation is also similar to . . . collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in a memory.” Final Act. 3–4 (emphasis omitted) (citing Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). The Examiner further determines the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Final Act. 5–6. Here, the Examiner explains the additional steps of storing and receiving various data and providing a data result “are simply data gathering activities,” and that the additional elements are “recited in a merely generic manner and functioning in well-understood, routine, and conventional manners to store, calculate, retrieve, and transmit information.” Id. at 6; see also Ans. 3–4. Appellants contend [t]he claims are directed towards a centralized application server that selectively deploys data processing components for different business organizations, where specifically each of the different business organizations can customize which data processing components are deployed for that business organization (i.e. to process the data of that business organization in a customized manner). Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Appellants further contend the “claim limitations Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 15 recite specific computer implemented operations that specify how the business organization-specific deployment is provided.” Id. at 8–9. The preamble of claim 14 recites: “A method comprising.” Table I compares the remaining limitations of claim 14 to the categories of abstract ideas set forth in the Revised Guidance. Claim 14 Revised Guidance [a]17 storing, by an application server of a computer system, a plurality of separable and preconfigured data processing components that are each executable to perform a particular data processing function on a particular type of data to carry out a specific business function, role or task; Merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.30 (“For example, a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, without specifying how”). [b] making, by the application server, the data processing components available to a plurality of different business organizations; Additional limitation discussed further in Step 2A(ii). [c] receiving, by the computer system from each of the business organizations, a selection of a subset of the data processing components to deploy; “Receiving”—Adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31 (“mere data gathering”); “A selection of a subset of the data processing components to deploy”— additional limitation discussed further in Step 2A(ii). [d] deploying, through the application server of the computer Additional limitation discussed further in Step 2A(ii). 17 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” added to facilitate discussion. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 16 system for each of the business organizations, the selected subset of the data processing components, including: [d1] receiving, from a client, customer data via a plurality of interfaces of the computer system including an automated computer telephony interface (CTI), an interactive voice response system, a graphical user interface (GUI), and an e-mail system; Adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31 (“mere data gathering”). [d2] determining, by the computer system, one or more of the deployed data processing components that is executable to perform a particular data processing function on a type of the received customer data; Mental processes, e.g., concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. [d3] organizing, in a database of the computer system, the received customer data according to the determined one or more data processing components, including associating, in the database of the computer system, the received customer data with he [sic] determined one or more data processing components; “Organizing”–Certain methods of organizing human activity—e.g., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 52 n.13 (discussing, for example, that claims directed to organizing business or legal relationships in the structuring of a sales force (or marketing company) were held ineligible); see also id. at 52 n.12 (“claims to a ‘process of organizing information through mathematical correlations’ are directed to an abstract idea”); Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 17 “Associating”– Additional limitation discussed further in Step 2A(ii). [d4] based on the association in the database, executing, through the application server of the computer system, the determined one or more data processing components on the received customer data including performing the data processing functions of the determined one or more data processing components on the received customer data; and Additional limitation discussed further in Step 2A(ii). [d5] providing, to the client by the application server of the computer system, a result of performing the data processing functions on the received customer data. Adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception. Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, 55 n.31 (“postsolution activity”). Thus, under Step 2A(i), we find limitations [a], [c], [d1]–[d3], and [d5] recite steps which the Revised Guidance categorizes within the “mental processes” or “organizing human activities” groupings of abstract ideas. Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application? If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in which we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. The Revised Guidance is “designed to more accurately and consistently identify claims that recite a practical application of a judicial exception . . . Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 18 and thus are not ‘directed to’ a judicial exception.” Rev. Guid., 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellants’ claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field.” “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’” or “any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.05(a). Appellants contend their “independent claims improve the existing computer-related technology of a centralized application server shared by multiple business organizations to process the data of those business organizations, namely by allowing each business organization to customize the processing of the business organization’s data by the centralized application server.” Br. 10 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner responds the instant claims simply amount to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer, based upon the received customer data. The deployment and execution steps are simply just the electronic query and retrieval of a component, i.e. downloading of a component which “may include software, documents, files, and objects to carry out a data particular data processing business function [0036]” to be run on a client device. Ans. 3. We agree with Appellants that the claims recite additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea that improve existing computer technology. In particular, claim 14 recites the following additional elements: [b] making, by the application server, the data processing components available to a plurality of different business organizations; . . . Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 19 [c] . . . a selection of a subset of the data processing components to deploy; [d] deploying, through the application server of the computer system for each of the business organizations, the selected subset of the data processing components, including: . . . [d3] . . . associating, in the database of the computer system, the received customer data with the . . . one or more processing components [determined executable to perform a particular data processing function on a type of the received customer data]; and [d4] based on the association in the database, executing, through the application server of the computer system, the determined one or more data processing components on the received customer data including performing the data processing functions of the determined one or more data processing components on the received customer data. As Appellants contend, these elements represent a specific sequence of functions (or rules) that improve the capability of claim 14’s centralized application server by allowing each business organization to select which data processing components of the application server are deployed for that business organization (i.e. to process the data of that business organization in a customized manner), and by then deploying only the selected data processing components to identify and process the data of each business organization in a specific way. Br. 10. Similarly, in McRO, the Federal Circuit held that claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a specific asserted improvement in the animation technology based on the use of a particular set of rules. McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 20 2016). There, the court distinguished the traditional process of subjective determinations of human animators from the newly claimed method of applying specific, limited rules to achieve a similar result (i.e., realistic animations of facial expressions for lip-synchronization). Id. at 1313–16. As with the claims in McRO, the claims here “are limited to rules with specific characteristics,” and “[t]he specific, claimed features of these rules allow for the improvement realized by the invention.” Id. at 1313. The claims also resemble certain claims found patent-eligible in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. ADP, LLC, 772 F. App’x 890 (Fed. Cir. 2019). In Uniloc, the Federal Circuit concluded claims directed to the centralized management and distribution of software applications were patent-eligible because they described “a particular improvement in how this is done—i.e. by use of a file packet to enable the further functionality of initiating on- demand registration of the application.” Uniloc, 772 F. App’x 897. Similarly, the instant claims recite an improvement in how the claimed computer system, including the centralized application server, operates to deploy a customized and tailored set of data processing components to a plurality of different business organizations. See Abstract (“A component- based customer care management provides a flexible, modifiable, and customizable data processing system that may be tailored according to a business’ needs.”); Spec. ¶ 4 (“The enterprise system may be adapted according to a business’ data processing needs and customized for a business’ product offering and/or services.”). More specifically, the data processing components of the application server are made available to each business organization, which then is allowed to select those data processing components of the application server it desires to have deployed. The Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 21 claimed computer system then performs a specific sequence of determining, associating, and executing steps in order to deploy the selected data processing components to the respective business organization in a suitable manner. We recognize that, as with the claims in Uniloc, “the goal of the claims is functional: to allow centralized distribution of software.” Uniloc, 772 F. App’x 897. But “[m]uch of the advancement made in computer technology consists of improvements to software that, by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes.” Trading Techs. Int’l Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x. 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (quoting Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). For the foregoing reasons, and in applying the guidance of MPEP § 2106.05(a), we find the judicial exception recited in Appellants’ claims is integrated into a practical application and, thus, the claims are patent-eligible. Thus, on the record before us, Appellants persuade us the Examiner errs in determining claim 14 is “directed to” an abstract idea. See Final Act. 3–6; Ans. 3–5. Accordingly, we conclude our analysis at Step 2A(ii) of the Alice/Mayo analysis, and we do not sustain the § 101 rejection of claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30. CLAIMS 14, 18, 22, 29, AND 30: OBVIOUSNESS. In rejecting claim 14, the Examiner finds, among other things, Johnson teaches “receiving, by the computer system from each of the business organizations, a selection of a subset of the data processing components to deploy” with its disclosure Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 22 that an event manager recognizes events occurring in the system and determines on the basis of the event the context in which the event occurs, what operations should be carried out by the system, notifies the appropriate component of the needed action, grants the component access to any needed data, and instructs the component to carry out the operation. Final Act. 8 (citing Johnson 8:36–43). Appellants contend “Johnson . . . does not teach or suggest different business organizations each selecting certain data processing components to deploy on a shared application server for processing the data of that business organization,” but instead “discloses a salesperson support system that processes events using various components” such that “certain components are instructed to process certain events.” Br. 12. The Examiner responds that Johnson teaches “the ability to deploy, determine and organize the selected data processing components” with its disclosure of a plurality of intelligently-integrated components, such as its order management, training, support process, and customer retention components. Ans. 5–6 (citing Johnson 6:26–48). The Examiner explains that “[t]he Johnson reference reads on the ‘different business organizations’ as there can be different business organizations within the same company or even department” and the cited components of Johnson “are all able to be utilized by the salesperson which can be considered to be ‘from different business organizations’ (i.e. training from human resources, order management from customer service).” Id. at 6. The Examiner further explains that Johnson could also be interpreted such that “the customer and the salesperson represent different business organizations within the system, wherein the order management component is able to automatically generate the tasks needed based upon an action (i.e. the subsets of the components Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 23 dependent upon the organization).” Id. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments of Examiner error. Setting aside whether the Examiner’s interpretation of “different business organizations” is reasonable, the Examiner still has not established, and we do not readily find, where the cited portions of Johnson teach the disputed limitation. Johnson teaches a sales force automation system including a plurality of components that are intelligently-integrated to assist sales personnel in multiple phases of the sales process. See Johnson, Abstract. For example, when certain events in one component are recognized by the system, certain actions or tasks that need to be performed (e.g., a to-do list) may be generated or implemented in another component. See, e.g., Johnson, Fig. 1, 5:7–12, 5:32–6:63, 8:34–44. Be that as it may, the Examiner has not established, and we do not readily find, that these actions or tasks are being generated or implemented based on selections by sales personnel (or any other entity) of a subset of the data processing components to deploy. In other words, we find no evidence that when sales personnel are using one component of Johnson’s sales force automation system such that an event occurs—thereby triggering an action or task in another component—that the sales personnel’s activity amounts to “a selection of a subset of the data processing components to deploy.” Nor does the Examiner cite Mikurak or provide an adequate rationale to remedy the aforementioned deficiency. See Final Act. 7–11; Ans. 5–6. To affirm the Examiner on this record would require considerable speculation on our part—an exercise in which we decline to engage. “A rejection . . . must rest on a factual basis . . . .” In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, Appeal 2018-005872 Application 10/902,442 24 1017 (CCPA 1967). “The Patent Office has the initial duty of supplying the factual basis for its rejection. It may not . . . resort to speculation, unfounded assumptions or hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies in its factual basis.” Id. We “may not resolve doubts in favor of the Patent Office determination when,” as here, “there are deficiencies in the record as to the necessary factual bases supporting its legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For similar reasons, we decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independents claims 18, 19, and 22, and dependent claim 29, which Appellants argue together with independent claim 14 and rely on the same arguments. See Br. 11–13. We also decline to sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 30, which also recites the disputed limitation of claim 14. DECISION The rejection of claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is REVERSED. The rejection of claims 14, 18, 22, 29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation