Home Depot Product Authority, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 27, 2021

2021000662 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/062,081 03/05/2016 Hari Ramamurthy 072031.123US1 7214
34018 7590 05/27/2021
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
77 W. Wacker Drive
Suite 3100
CHICAGO, IL 60601-1732
EXAMINER
WARREN, JASON BENJAMIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/27/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
chiipmail@gtlaw.com
clairt@gtlaw.com
jarosikg@gtlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HARI RAMAMURTHY,
ANGIE BROWN, THOMAS GAMBLE,
STEPHEN JACOBS, and DAVID ROGERS
__________________

Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, JAMES P. CALVE, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–6, 8–13, and 21–28, which are all of the
pending claims.2 See Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Home Depot Product Authority, LLC and The Home Depot, Inc.
as the real parties in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 7 and 14–20 are cancelled. See Appeal Br. 28, 32 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 21 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. An order management system for processing user orders
for products, the order management system comprising:
a data storage subsystem configured to store last known
inventory data and offline demand data;
an order processing subsystem configured to communicate
with an inventory management system over a first
network connection and configured to:
receive, over the first network connection, a last
known inventory quantity of a product from the
inventory management system;
store the last known inventory quantity of the product
in the last known inventory data;
after receiving the last known inventory quantity of
the product from the inventory management
system, transmit one or more further
communications to the inventory management
system over the first network connection;
receive no response from the inventory management
system to a predetermined number of the one or
more further communications;
receive an order for an order quantity of the product
from a user computing device, the order received
over a second network connection;
based on the receiving no response to the
predetermined number of the one or more further
communications, determine that the order
processing subsystem cannot communicate with
the inventory management system to reserve the
order quantity of the product and, in response:
retrieve the last known inventory quantity of
the product from the last known inventory
data;
retrieve an offline demand quantity for the
product from the offline demand data;
compare the sum of the order quantity and the
offline demand quantity of the product with
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

3
last known inventory quantity of the
product;
transmit a confirmation of the order to the user
when the sum of the order quantity and the
offline demand quantity of the product is
less than or equal to the last known
inventory quantity of the product; and
transmit a denial of the order to the user when
the sum of the order quantity and the offline
demand quantity of the product is greater
than the last known inventory quantity of the
product.
Appeal Br. 26–27 (Claims App.).
REJECTION3
Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 21–28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1–6, 8–13, and 21–28
Appellant argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 8–18. We select
claim 1 as representative and address Appellant’s arguments for claim 21
separately. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner analyzes the limitations of claim 1 and determines that
they recite commercial interactions such as deciding how to process orders
when a form of communication is interrupted and thus recite certain methods
of organizing human activity. Final Act. 16–17. The Examiner determines
that comparing the order and offline demand quantity to the latest known
inventory levels to confirm or decline the order recites actions that can be
completed entirely in the human mind and/or with pen and paper. Id. at 17.

3 The Examiner withdrew rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Ans. 13.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

4
The Examiner determines that additional elements of a data storage
subsystem, an order processing subsystem communicating with an inventory
management system over a network connection, storing the last known
inventory quantity of a product, transmitting communications, and receiving
an order quantity of a product implement the abstract idea on a computer as
a tool and link the idea to a technological environment without improving
computers or other technology or using a particular machine or manufacture
integral to the claim but instead are recited at a high level of generality as
general purpose technologies. Final Act. 19–21. The Examiner determines
that the functions are well-understood, routine, and conventional and include
post-solution data gathering activities as indicated by the Specification’s
description. Id. at 21–24. The Examiner determines the limitations “apply”
the abstract idea without providing an inventive concept. Id. at 23–24.
Principles of Law
Whoever 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. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

5
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.4 Id. at 52–55.
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) amounts to an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Alice, Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity such as commercial interactions (sales activities)
and mental processes. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.

4 “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.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

6
The claims focus on processing product orders received when an
inventory management system is offline. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 15. Essentially, the
order processing system serves as an intermediary to facilitate commercial
sales transactions for purchasing products. Such intermediary functions are
similar to other concepts held to be fundamental economic practices and
long-standing commercial activities that, when recited at such a high level of
generality, recite an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (intermediated
settlement of financial transactions is a fundamental economic practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce); cxLoyalty, Inc. v. Maritz Holdings
Inc., 986 F.3d 1367, 1376–77 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (claims recited a longstanding
commercial practice of transferring information between parties to a sales
transaction, vendor systems, and an intermediary by collecting and relaying
information); Elec. Commc’n Techs., LLC v. ShoppersChoice.com, LLC, 958
F.3d 1178, 1181–82 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (claims to monitoring the location of a
mobile thing and notifying a party in advance of its arrival recited the
fundamental business practice of providing advance notification of pickup or
delivery of the mobile thing and the longstanding commercial business
practice of advising customers of the status of the delivery of their goods);
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054–55 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) (processing an application to finance a purchase and maintaining
an inventory of a dealer’s items is a fundamental economic practice long
prevalent in our system of commerce and an abstract idea).
The preamble of claim 1 recites this fundamental economic practice
and commercial activity as “[a]n order management system for processing
user orders for products.” Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

7
The order management system includes a data storage subsystem that
is configured to store a last known inventory data and offline demand data.
Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.). The order management system comprises an
order processing subsystem communicating with an inventory management
system over a first network connection to receive and store the last known
inventory quantity of a product, further communicating with the inventory
management system, and receiving product orders over a network. Id.
These elements recite the abstract idea identified above without any
technical details. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But merely selecting information, by content or
source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing significant to
differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit
exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of abstract
ideas.”); see also In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims . . . are simply directed to the abstract idea of
classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner. . . . [W]e
have applied the ‘abstract idea’ exception to encompass inventions
pertaining to methods of organizing human activity.”).
The final limitations recite the same abstract idea. After receiving no
response from the inventory management system for a preselected number
of communications, the order processing system determines it cannot reserve
orders with the inventory system. It retrieves the last known inventory
quantity of the product and an offline demand quantity, compares the sum of
the offline and order quantities with the last known inventory quantity, and
confirms the order if the sum is less than/equal to the last known inventory
quantity or denies the order if the sum is not. Appeal Br. 26 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

8
These features perform the intermediary function of order fulfillment
for a commercial sales transaction based on a last known inventory quantity
of a product. As such, they perform the fundamental economic practice that
is identified above for commercial sales activities. They can be performed
as mental processes by retrieving inventory and offline demand quantities,
summing the order quantity and offline demand quantity, and comparing the
sum to the last known product inventory quantity to determine whether there
is sufficient product in inventory to complete the transaction. Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1354 (“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.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtaining credit card transaction information can
be performed in the human mind as can obtaining information from a
database, mapping credit card numbers, and comparing the map to Internet
transactions to identify fraudulent transactions that use different credit cards
from the same IP address including the logical reasoning steps).
The Specification describes these features generically. For example,
order processing subsystem 98 retrieves an offline demand quantity of the
product as a single value stored in offline demand data 106. Spec. ¶¶ 57, 58,
For each product of the order, order processing subsystem 98 compares the
sum of the order quantity (X) and the offline demand quantity (Y) with the
last known inventory quantity (Z). Id. ¶¶ 60–62. If the sum of the order
quantity and offline demand quantity is less than or equal to the last known
inventory quantity, this calculation indicates sufficient stock exists to fulfill
the order, and the order may be confirmed for that product. Id. ¶ 63.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

9
Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s determination that the
claims recite an abstract idea. Appellant argues that, even if the claims do
recite such an abstract idea, the claims are not directed to the idea but instead
are directed to a practical application of the idea and thus are patent-eligible.
Appeal Br. 8–9. We address these arguments in the following section under
Alice Step One/Step 2A, Prong Two of the Revised Guidance.
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified
above.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
improve a computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in
conjunction with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Id. at 55.
Nor does it include additional elements that transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful
way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. Id.
Appellant argues that the claims are directed to the actual processing
of computer-based orders when a computer-based inventory system is not
available. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that the claims retrieve and store
last known inventory data using network-based communications between the
order processing and inventory management systems to create new data. Id.
Appellant argues that the claims establish communications are unavailable
between two computing resources based on network-based communications
and process an order according to the status of communications. Id. at 9–11.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

10
These arguments are not persuasive because the features identified as
additional elements are part of the abstract idea. As such, they cannot serve
to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24 (“additional elements” are features, limitations, and
steps recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception); see Alice,
573 U.S. at 221 (a claim to an abstract idea must include additional features
to ensure it does not monopolize the abstract idea and must do more than
simply state an abstract idea with the words “apply it” for a transformation).
Even if we treat the features as additional elements, the Specification
confirms that the claimed components are generic computer components that
perform generic functions of receiving, processing, and transmitting data.
Last known inventory data 104 may be a list of last known inventory or last
known quantity in stock for a plurality of products. Spec. ¶ 38. It may be
less information than in inventory management system 82 to provide faster
access to stored information. Id. ¶ 39. Order processing subsystem 98 may
store inventory quantity in last known inventory data 104. Id. ¶ 52. It may
cache last known inventory product quantities. Id. ¶ 53. Order processing
subsystem 98 retrieves a last known inventory quantity from data storage
subsystem 100. Id. ¶ 60. Even if some technical details are disclosed, they
are not claimed. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd.,
955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful
in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . . [but] the specification must
always yield to the claim language’ when identifying the ‘true focus of a
claim.’”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the
Asserted Claims themselves.”). The components are claimed generically.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

11
Appellant’s arguments that the claims embody technical innovations
are not commensurate with the claims. As Accenture held in a similar case,
“the complexity of the implementing software or the level of detail in the
specification does not transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept
into a patent-eligible system or method.” Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v.
Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
To retrieve offline demand quantity of a product, order processing
subsystem 98 may retrieve a single value stored in offline demand data 106
or sort through records of orders stored in offline demand data. Spec. ¶ 58.
This description confirms the abstract nature of the data retrieval without a
transformation. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (parsing to extract parts to reassemble into composite files is similar
to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction and Transmission
LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and
classifying in an organized manner of TLI); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355.
The claimed comparison merely sums the order quantity of a product
for a customer with the offline demand quantity and compares that sum to
the last known inventory quantity of the product. Thus, for Product A with
an order quantity of 5 and offline demand quantity of 30, the sum of 35 is
compared to the last known inventory quantity of 100, and the order may be
confirmed because 5 + 30 = 35 < 100. Spec. ¶¶ 61–63. This calculation and
data processing retrieval and comparison illustrates the broad, generic scope
of claim 1 as reciting a mental process without any technical details.
Establishing that communications are unavailable between order
processing subsystem 98 and inventory management system 82 involves
similar generic communication steps. No technical details are claimed.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

12
The Specification describes communications as a reservation request
or periodic communication. Spec. ¶ 68. If order processing subsystem 98
receives no response from inventory management system 82 to a specific
number N of attempted communications, set as desired by an operator, order
processing status 102 is set to OFFLINE. Id. ¶ 69. No technical details are
described. Only generic data communications are described and claimed.
Transmitting a confirmation or denial of the order recites mere extra-
solution activity of the data receiving, storing, analysis, and communication
steps recited in the claim as the abstract idea. As such, it is an ancillary part
of that abstract idea. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[M]erely 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.”).
Mere computer implementation is not enough for an integration.
[A] “computer” is “an automatic electronic device for
performing mathematical or logical operations.” As the
Supreme Court has explained, “[a] digital computer . . .
operates on data expressed in digits, solving a problem by doing
arithmetic as a person would do it by head and hand.” Those
meanings conveniently illustrate the interchangeability of
certain mental processes and basic digital computation, and
help explain why the use of a computer in an otherwise patent-
ineligible process for no more than its most basic function—
making calculations or computations—fails to circumvent the
prohibition against patenting abstract ideas and mental
processes. As we have explained, “[s]imply adding a
‘computer aided’ limitation to a claim covering an abstract
concept, without more, is insufficient to render the claim patent
eligible.”
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1277–78 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

13
“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, 687 F.3d
at 1278. Here, the claimed order processing system uses generic computer
technology to perform generic functions of retrieving and storing data,
processing orders, and establishing and transmitting communications with
no indication that technological innovations are required or that a particular
machine integral to the claim is used to perform these generic functions.
Here, “[t]he order management system 84 may be a computerized
environment that may include an order processing sub-system 98 and a data
storage sub-system 100, in various embodiments.” Spec. ¶ 32. The order
management system and its components may be configured for network
communications with each other and inventory management system 82. Id.
Data storage sub-system 100 stores a number of categories of data useful for
carrying out the methods of receiving and processing user orders. Id. ¶ 33.
These components are illustrated as black boxes in Appellant’s Figure 2.
The order management system 84 is described generically as being
configured to determine and store the status of the inventory management
system 82 and to receive and process orders so as to present generally the
same or a similar ordering experience to users regardless of the status of the
inventory management system 82, i.e., whether the inventory management
system 82 is online or offline. Spec. ¶ 31. The inventory management
system may be an inventory management module of a Sterling distributed
order management system commercially available from IBM or appropriate
inventory management system used to store the location of each and every
item of stock of the retailer, fulfill orders, and resupply. Id. ¶ 29.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

14
These descriptions of the claimed components and their functions
confirms that they are generic components that perform generic functions.
They are not particular machines that are integral to the claims. They do not
improve computers or other technology. See Ans. 13–15; Final Act. 18–21.
Appellant argues that the Specification identifies a technical problem
that is specific to the state of the art of electronic order processing to handle
orders when electronic communications with the inventory management
system are unavailable or inadequate. Appeal Br. 11–12. Appellant asserts
that the prior art dealt with this problem either by confirming every order
and later cancelling orders as needed for inventory shortages or rejecting all
orders while the inventory management system is offline. Id. at 12 (citing
Spec. ¶ 16). Appellant argues the claimed system improves retailers’ ability
to continue to receive and process orders and to generate revenue during
inventory management system outages while addressing customer’s needs
for order certainty. Id. at 12–13 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 16, 78). Appellant further
argues that the technology-based solution enables the inventory management
system to resynchronize with orders placed while it was offline. Id. (citing
Spec. ¶¶ 17, 31, 78).
We recognize that “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements
to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes
the improvements can be accomplished through either route.” Enfish, LLC
v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “[T]o be directed
to a patent-eligible improvement to computer functionality, the claims must
be directed to an improvement to the functionality of the computer or
network platform itself.” Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp.,
951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

15
Here, claim 1 recites generic components used to perform generic
functions as tools to implement the abstract idea. As such, the components
do not improve computers or other technology or require a machine that is
integral to the claim. See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs.
Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the asserted claims
‘purport[s] to improve the functioning of the computer itself’ or ‘effect an
improvement in any other technology or technical field.’ Nor do the claims
solve a problem unique to the Internet. In addition, the claims are not
adequately tied to ‘a particular machine or apparatus.’”) (citations omitted).
No technical details are recited for the way that the order management
system receives and stores last known inventory quantities of a product or
communicates with the inventory management system or fulfills orders
when the inventory management system is offline. Nor does claim 1 recite
any steps, technical or not, for resynchronizing the inventory management
system based on cached inventory data as argued. In short,
the claims here do not “ha[ve] the specificity required to
transform a claim from one claiming only a result to one
claiming a way of achieving it.” SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Ericsson does not
deny that its claims are drafted functionally, but argues that the
process of requesting and controlling access as recited in the
claim is a specific technique for improving computer
performance. . . . As discussed above, we disagree. The claims
are silent as to how access is controlled. They merely make
generic functional recitations that requests are made and then
granted. Merely claiming “those functions in general terms,
without limiting them to technical means for performing the
functions that are arguably an advance,” does not make a claim
eligible at step one.
Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328 (brackets in original).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

16
The Examiner correctly determined that the computer components
merely apply the abstract idea in a computerized environment and do not
improve technology but instead manage information to provide more up to
date information to fulfill a user’s order. Ans. 13–16; Final Act. 19–21. The
Examiner also determined that the disclosed invention is implemented using
known, existing, and generic hardware and data gathering and presentation
limitations that transmit an order confirmation as insignificant pre- and post-
solution activity as we determined above. See Final Act. 21–22. Thus, the
Examiner has considered these limitations. See Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
has not provided evidence or argument to contradict the Examiner’s findings
that the claimed computer components and functions are generic in nature.
Even if the Examiner treated some aspects of the abstract idea as additional
elements, the Examiner correctly determined that such limitations do not
improve computers or other technology or tie the abstract idea to a machine
that is integral to the claim but merely limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. See Final Act. 8–9.
As claimed, the determination that the order processing subsystem
cannot communicate with the inventory management system to reserve the
order quantity of the product is “based on the receiving no response to the
predetermined number of the one or more further communications.” Appeal
Br. 26 (Claims App.). No technical details are recited. The system treats the
absence of a response to a predetermined number of communications as an
indication that the inventory management system is offline. Spec. ¶ 69.
Communicating over a network for device interaction is a building block of
the modern economy rather than a technical advance. See ChargePoint, Inc.
v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 773 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

17
As claimed, any improvements to order and inventory management is
entirely within the abstract realm, without improving computers or other
technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea
(encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Apple,
Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract
idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”);
Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an
abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,
1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding claims that improved an abstract idea without
reciting computer improvements were not patent eligible).
Example 2 of the Patentable Subject Matter Guidance does not dictate
a different result. Appeal Br. 16–17; see 2014 Interim Eligibility Guidance,
Examples, at 4–6. Example 2 relies on DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). DDR Holdings illustrates why claim 1
here is not patent eligible. There, the court emphasized that:
these claims stand apart because they do not merely recite the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-
Internet world along with the requirement to perform it on the
Internet. Instead, the claimed solution is necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.
DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. DDR claimed a new web server configuration. If a
website visitor clicked on an advertisement for a third party’s product on a
host’s website, the visitor was directed to a hybrid web page that combined
the look and feel elements of the host website with the product information
of the third party’s website on an outsource provider’s web server. Id.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

18
Here, claim 1 essentially recites a system of electronic recordkeeping
that uses the last known inventory quantity for a product when an inventory
management system goes offline, and records of orders received when the
inventory management system is offline, to determine whether new orders
can be fulfilled. See Spec. ¶¶ 37–42. As the Supreme Court held in Alice:
Using a computer to create and maintain “shadow” accounts
amounts to electronic recordkeeping—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. See, e.g., [Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63, 65 (1972)] (noting that a computer “operates . . . upon
both new and previously stored data”). The same is true with
respect to the use of a computer to obtain data, adjust account
balances, and issue automated instructions; all of these
computer functions are “well understood, routine, conventional
activit[ies]” previously known to the industry.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Here, claim 1 creates shadow accounts by retrieving
and storing last known quantities of products in the inventory management
system and orders made for those products while the inventory management
system is offline so orders can be processed and fulfilled as if the inventory
management system is online. When the inventory management system is
back online, the unofficial order confirmations can be verified. See Spec.
¶¶ 33–43. Furthermore, the Specification indicates the claimed system may
improve retailers’ uptime and ability to continue to generate revenue during
inventory management system outages. Id. ¶¶ 16, 17, 66, 78.
Example 21 of the PTO’s July 2015 Update Appendix: Examples is
not relevant. See Appeal Br. 17. Example 21 involves transmitting an alert
over a wireless channel to activate a stock viewer application and cause an
alert to display and enable connection of the remote subscriber computer to
the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer
comes online. July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, at 1–5.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

19
Here, claim 1 recites no comparable wireless communication channel
or activation of an application on a remote subscriber computer or display of
an alert when a user’s computer comes online.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 does not recite any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 21
Appellant argues that claim 21 “further improves the functionality of
the inventory management system by providing an orderly method by which
the inventory management system resynchronizes with orders placed while
the inventory management system was offline.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant
asserts that synchronizing the inventory management system with a first one
or more orders after receiving a response by the order management system
and while synchronizing the one or more orders and processing a second one
or more orders for the product according to a last known inventory quantity
is a technological improvement to the function of computer-based inventory
systems. The inventory system becomes updated after communications with
the inventory system are available while ensuring offline orders are handled
appropriately rather than lost. Id. at 17–18.
As claimed, the features of claim 21 recite the abstract idea identified
under Prong One above implemented on the same generic computer systems
that perform the same generic functions of data processing, communication,
and now synchronizing, recited at high levels of generality without technical
details. Indeed, no technical details are recited for the step of synchronizing
the inventory management system with the first one or more orders. While
the synchronizing occurs, orders are processed according to the last known
inventory quantity, which recites the abstract idea identified in claim 1.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

20
The Specification indicates that the order management system 84 may
assist the inventory management system 82 in resynchronizing after coming
back online. Spec. ¶ 31. The Specification describes a number of steps for
synchronizing inventory management system 82 with orders received while
the system was offline. Id. ¶¶ 73–75, Fig. 8. Claim 21 does not recite any of
these steps or any technical features. Thus, the analysis provided for claim 1
is applicable to claim 21. No integration results from the generic functions.
Accordingly, we determine claim 21 does not recite any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do Claims 1 and 21 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claims 1 and 21 recite additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; see also Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers
if a claim adds a specific limitation beyond the recited judicial exception that
also is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the limitations of claims 1 and 21 recite the abstract idea
identified under Prong One implemented on generic computer components
that perform generic functions as tools that implement the abstract idea.
Without the computer limitations nothing remains in these claims but the
abstract idea of inventory management for commercial sales activities as a
fundamental economic practice and longstanding commercial practice. See
Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280.
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

21
“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is
directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention
‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v.
Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As our reviewing court held regarding similar limitations:
The claims’ invocation of computers adds no inventive concept.
The computer functionality is generic—indeed, quite limited: a
computer receives a request for a guarantee and transmits an
offer of guarantee in return. There is no further detail. That a
computer receives and sends the information over a network—
with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (“In short, each step does no more than require a
generic computer to perform generic computer functions.”).
The ordered combination recites no more than when the limitations
are considered individually. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a claim’s
only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); SAP
Am., 898 F.3d at 1170 (“[T]his court has ruled many times that ‘such
invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive
are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of
an abstract idea.’”) (citation omitted); Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (absent the
specification of a particular technology to display defined content, a user-
downloadable application that presents a GUI is not inventive); Trading
Tech. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data
gathering and displaying are well-understood, routine, and conventional).
Appeal 2021-000662
Application 15/062,081

22
In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1 and
claims 2–6, 8–13, 27, and 28, which fall with claim 1. We also sustain the
rejection of claim 21 and claims 22–26, which fall therewith. BSG, 899 F.3d
at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea
does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); see Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013) (“Groundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101
inquiry.”); SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“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.”).
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §  
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–13,
21–28
101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–13,
21–28

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED