Richard J. Lukes et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 3, 2020

11937055 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020)

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.
11/937,055 11/08/2007 Richard J. Lukes FIS920070224US1 1969
45988 7590 03/03/2020
Roberts Calderon Safran & Cole, P.C.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064
EXAMINER
SCHEUNEMANN, RICHARD N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/03/2020 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):
docketing@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
secretaries@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD J. LUKES, STEPHEN T. McDONALD, and
MICHAEL T. PHELAN
____________

Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–15, and 18–26. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our Decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed Nov. 7, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 2, 2018), and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 2, 2018) and Final Office
Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 7, 2017). Appellant identifies
International Business Machines Corporation as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention “relates generally to materials
requirements planning, and, more particularly, to validating data and
providing on-time updates within a multi-enterprise material[s] requirements
planning environment.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 15, and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of displaying data for validating materials
requirements planning (MRP) results for locating and gathering
required parts to build a desired end-product by providing a
constantly updated planning and inventory control system for
ensuring that sufficient parts are on hand for manufacturing the
desired end-product, comprising:
[(a)] determining, by a processer of a computing device,
for each of a plurality of part numbers corresponding to parts
required to build the desired end-product, that a current aggregate
demand of the part number is greater than or less than a previous
aggregate demand of the part number by more than a first
predetermined tolerance, wherein the current aggregate demand
equals an aggregate demand value from a current MRP cycle,
and the previous aggregate demand equals an aggregate demand
value from a previous MRP cycle; and
[(b)] for each of the plurality of part numbers, in response
to the aggregate demand of the part number being determined to
be greater or less than the previous aggregate demand for the part
number by more than the first predetermined tolerance, the
method further comprises:
[(1)] identifying at least one particular demand for
a quantity of the part number in which a current demand is
greater than or less than a previous demand by more than
a second predetermined tolerance, wherein the current
demand equals a demand value of the at least one
particular demand from the current MRP cycle, and the
previous demand equals a demand value of the at least one
particular demand from the previous MRP cycle;
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
3
[(2)] generating a visual report on a display screen
of a graphical user interface (GUI), the visual report
comprising the at least one particular demand, the current
demand, and the previous demand, by displaying a
historical trend forecast demand and shipment report in
which the current demand for the part number is displayed
on a first portion of the display screen of the graphical user
interface (GUI) adjacent a display of historic demand for
the part number for a plurality of previous MRP cycles on
a second portion of the display screen;
[(3)] displaying parameters of the at least one
particular demand on the display screen, the displayed
parameters comprising a product structure, which includes
an identity of a subassembly of the desired end-product in
which the part is contained, and a supply quantity of the
part, which includes an amount of inventory of the part
which is on hand;
[(4)] receiving a verification of the displayed
parameters, including receiving at least one updated
parameter; and
[(5)] determining whether the at least one updated
parameter brings the current aggregate demand of the part
number within tolerance.

REJECTIONS2
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–15, and 18–26 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 12–15, and 18–26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Katz (US 2002/0138316 A1, pub. Sept. 26,
2002) and Lidow (US 2005/0177435 A1, pub. Aug. 11, 2005).

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Ans. 3, 6.
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
4
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Katz, Lidow, and Singh (US 7,080,026 B2, iss. July 18, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–14, 21, and 22
Appellant argues claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–14, 21, and 22 as a group
for this ground of rejection. Appeal Br. 6–13. We select independent
claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims of the group stand or fall
with independent claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 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. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
5
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determined that exemplary claim 1 recites steps for “displaying data for
validating materials requirements planning” that includes “determining . . . a
current aggregate demand of the part number is greater than or less than a
previous aggregate demand of the part number . . .” (step (b)(1));
“identifying at least one particular demand for a quantity . . . ,” (step (b)(2));
“generating a visual report . . .” (step (b)(3)); “displaying parameters of the
at least one particular demand on the display screen,” (step (b)(4)) and
“receiving a verification of the displayed parameters” (step (b)(5)). Final
Act. 6. The Examiner found that these steps each recites steps for data
analysis and data reporting related to validating data. Id. And the Examiner
determined that the claims are “directed to validating materials requirement
planning,” which the Examiner determined is similar to concepts held by the
courts to be abstract, such as collecting and analyzing information, and
displaying the results. Id. (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In the Answer, the Examiner additionally found
that “[t]he steps could be implemented using pen and paper,” i.e., a mental
process, which is an abstract idea. Ans. 4. The Examiner further determined
that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Final Act. 6–7.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
6
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. That guidance “extracts and synthesizes
key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the
abstract idea exception includes” the following three groupings:
(1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human
activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or
legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT
MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the
“Revised Guidance”).
Under the Revised Guidance, in determining whether a claim is
patent-eligible, we first look to whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, including one of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas
(“Step 2A, Prong One”). Id. at 54. If so, we next consider whether the
claim includes additional elements, beyond the judicial exception, “that
integrate the [judicial] exception into a practical application,” i.e., 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. (“Step 2A, Prong Two”). Id.
at 54–55.
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application do we then look to
whether the claim “[a]dds a specific limitation or combination of
limitations” that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field” or simply “appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
7
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception” (“Step 2B”). Id. at 56.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Revised Guidance, Step 2A, Prong
One)
Appellant’s Specification is titled “DATA VALIDATION WITHIN
MATERIALS REQUIREMENTS PLANNING,” and states that the
disclosure relates, in particular, “to validating data and providing on-time
updates within a multi-enterprise material[s] requirements planning
environment.” Spec. ¶ 1. The Background of the Invention section
describes that manufacturing enterprises commonly use a Materials
Requirement Planning (MRP) tool for locating and gathering the required
parts and components needed to build a desired end-product. Id. ¶ 2.
Conventional MRP tools include software-based applications that determine
demand for parts based upon input data, such as known demand for end-
products containing the parts and inventory of parts. Id. The MRP tool is
run in a periodic fashion to update a planning and inventory control system
as input changes. Id.
Typically, a validation step is performed to validate the MRP results.
Id. ¶ 4. However, the validation step requires “extensive analysis and
inventory corrections, which may ultimately result in missed planning and
product-to-market opportunities.” Id. “In some known environments, all
analysis, validation, updates, and corrections of the MRP Planning Cycle run
are made by a worldwide team of geographic validation team
representatives, all within a predefined four hour window of opportunity.”
Id. ¶ 5. “[W]hen the analysis, validation, updates, and/or corrections cannot
be performed within this four hour window, there is strong potential for
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
8
cycle delays, planning reruns, increased customer liability, missed
shipments, shortfall of supply to meet demand, etc. Id.
Consistent with this disclosure, claim 1 recites a method of
“displaying data for validating materials requirements planning (MRP)
results for locating and gathering required parts to build a desired end-
product.” The method includes the steps of:
determining . . . for each of a plurality of part numbers
corresponding to parts required to build the desired end-
product, that a current aggregate demand of the part number is
greater than or less than a previous aggregate demand of the
part number by more than a first predetermined tolerance,
wherein the current aggregate demand equals an aggregate
demand value from a current MRP cycle, and the previous
aggregate demand equals an aggregate demand value from a
previous MRP cycle [step (a)]; and
for each of the plurality of part numbers, in response to
the aggregate demand of the part number being determined to
be greater or less than the previous aggregate demand for the
part number by more than the first predetermined tolerance, the
method further comprises:
identifying at least one particular demand for a
quantity of the part number in which a current demand is
greater than or less than a previous demand by more than
a second predetermined tolerance, wherein the current
demand equals a demand value of the at least one
particular demand from the current MRP cycle, and the
previous demand equals a demand value of the at least
one particular demand from the previous MRP cycle
[step (b)(1)];
generating a visual report . . ., the visual report
comprising the at least one particular demand, the current
demand, and the previous demand, by displaying a
historical trend forecast demand and shipment report in
which the current demand for the part number is displayed
. . . adjacent a display of historic demand for the part
number for a plurality of previous MRP cycles
. . . [step (b)(2)];
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
9
displaying parameters of the at least one particular
demand . . ., the displayed parameters comprising a
product structure, which includes an identity of a
subassembly of the desired end-product in which the part
is contained, and a supply quantity of the part, which
includes an amount of inventory of the part which is on
hand [step (b)(3)];
receiving a verification of the displayed parameters,
including receiving at least one updated parameter
[step (b)(4)]; and
determining whether the at least one updated
parameter brings the current aggregate demand of the part
number within tolerance [step (b)(5)].
These limitations, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite steps
for validating materials requirements planning results for locating and
gathering required parts to build a desired end product. The underlying steps
recited in claim 1 are acts that could be performed by a human mentally or
manually, using pen and paper, without the use of a computer or any other
machine. For example, a person could determine that a current aggregate
demand of a part number is greater or less than a previous aggregate demand
by more than a first predetermined tolerance; and identify at least one
particular depend for a quantity of the part number in which a current
demand is greater than or less than a previous demand by more than a
second predetermined tolerance. Using pen and paper, the user could
generate a visual report comprising the at least one particular demand, the
current demand, and the previous demand by displaying a historical trend
forecast demand and shipment report on a first portion of the paper adjacent
a display of historic demand for the part number for a plurality of previous
MRP cycles on a second portion of the paper. The user could also display
parameters of the at least one particular demand. The user then could
receive a verification of the displayed parameters that includes an updated
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
10
parameter and, using pen and paper or performing a mental calculation, the
user could determine whether the updated parameter brings the current
aggregate demand of the part number within tolerance. Simply put, claim 1
recites a concept, including an observation, evaluation, or judgment, that can
be performed in the human mind, which is a mental process and, therefore,
an abstract idea. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. See also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (holding that method steps that can be performed in the human
mind, or by a human using a pen and paper, are unpatentable mental
processes).
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Revised Guidance, Step 2A,
Prong Two)
Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), we next consider whether the claim
recites “additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical
application” (Step 2A, Prong Two). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54.
Beyond the abstract idea, claim 1 recites a “processor of a computing
device,” a “display screen of a graphical user interface (GUI),” “a first
portion of the display screen,” and a “second portion of the display screen.”
But these elements are described in the Specification, at best, at a high level
of generality, i.e., as a generic computer components. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 16
(display), 17 (processor), 19 (computer device).
Appellant does not identify, and we do not find, any indication in the
Specification that the claimed graphical user interface or the claimed
processor of a computing device invokes any assertedly inventive
programming, requires any specialized computer hardware or other
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
11
inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or otherwise
requires more than using a generic graphical user interface operating in its
ordinary capacity (e.g., displaying data) to implement the abstract idea. To
the contrary, the Specification describes at paragraph 18 that “computing
device 14 can comprise any general purpose computing article of
manufacture capable of executing computer program code installed
thereon.” And Appellant does not identify, and we do not find, any portion
of the Specification describing the claimed graphical user interface. See
Appeal Br. 2–3 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 23–27, 36–40, Figs. 3, 4B as support for step
(b)(2) (“generating a visual report on a display screen of a graphical user
interface”)). At best, the Specification suggests at paragraph 40 using a
graphical user interface to display the report, because paragraph 40 provides
that the output may be in a plurality of forms, including a computer display.
But this disclosure, at best, requires the use of a generic GUI in its ordinary
capacity. Accordingly, it does not indicate any improvement in graphical
user technology. “[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of
generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible.” DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appellant contends that “computer aided materials requirements
planning (MRP) is a computer technology” that may include a graphical user
interface. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also argues that a “graphical user
interface could not be provided without using a computer.” Id. But as
pointed out by the Examiner, “the same could be said for virtually any
computer implemented process.” Ans. 4. The Federal Circuit has explained
that the question at step one of the Mayo/Alice framework, is “whether the
focus of the claim[] is on the specific asserted improvement in computer
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
12
capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir.
2015)). Here, Appellant’s claim 1 focuses on an improvement to the
abstract idea itself that uses a computer as a tool, as opposed to an
improvement in computer functionality or other technological improvement.
For example, the Specification describes that “displaying the current
demand for each driver adjacent the historic demand for the same driver
[enables] a user [to] quickly and efficiently identify those drivers that
warrant further examination as to possibly adversely affecting the aggregate
demand of the part number.” Spec. ¶ 26. Thus, it is the organization of the
output data — not any improvement to technology — that enables the user
to identify the relevant information more quickly. Further underscoring our
understanding that the invention focuses on the arrangement of data (rather
than an improvement to computer technology), the Specification describes
that “[t]he [properly arranged] output may be in the form of at least one of: a
computer display, printed copy, and electronically stored copy.” Id. ¶ 40.
The claim language, viewed in light of the Specification, makes clear that
the focus of claim 1 is on an improvement to the abstract idea itself. We
find nothing of record that attributes an improvement in computer
technology or other technical field to the claimed invention, or that
otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
13
into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the Revised
Guidance.3
Appellant argues that claim 1 is patent-eligible because it is similar to
patent-eligible claims 1 and 4 in Example 23 of Appendix 14 to the July
2015 Update. Appeal Br. 7–11. But, we find no parallel between
independent claim 1 and the hypothetical claims deemed patent-eligible in
Example 23. For example, hypothetical claim 1 of Example 23 is directed to
a computer-implemented method for dynamically relocating information on
a graphical user interface (“GUI”) if a window overlap condition exists.
July 2015 Appendix, 9. The July 2015 Appendix explains that hypothetical
claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea (e.g., it “does not recite any
mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing
information”) but instead is “necessarily rooted in computer technology to
overcome a problem [i.e., overlapping windows and obscured text in GUIs]
specifically arising in graphical user interfaces.” Id. In particular,
hypothetical claim 1 recites dynamically relocating textual information
within a window displayed in a graphical user interface based upon a
detected overlap condition. Id. When the windows overlap, textual

3 The Revised Guidance references the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e)–(h) in describing the
considerations that are indicative that an additional element or combination
of elements integrates the judicial exception, e.g., the abstract idea, into a
practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. If the recited
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, as determined
under one or more of these MPEP sections, the claim is not “directed to” the
judicial exception.
4 July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples, issued by the Office on July 30,
2015, available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
101_examples_1to36.pdf (hereinafter “July 2015 Appendix”).
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
14
information is reformatted and relocated to an unobscured portion of the
underlying window, and when the windows no longer overlap, the textual
information is returned to its original format and location. Id.
Hypothetical claim 4 recites a mathematical algorithm, which is an
abstract idea. Id. at 11. However, the July 2015 Appendix explains that the
limitations considered as a combination improve the functioning of the basic
display function of the computer itself by scaling and relocating textual
information in overlapping windows. Id. at 12. Specifically, the
“demonstrate[s] an improvement to the computer’s basic ability to display
information and interact with the user.” Id. Therefore, the July 2015
Appendix determines that hypothetical claim 4 recites patent eligible subject
matter. Id.
Appellant contends that claim 1, like the patent-eligible claims of
Example 23, improves “a computer’s basic ability to display information and
interact with the user.” Appeal Br. 7. Specifically, Appellant contends that
“claim 1 recite[s] arrangements [that] pertain to displaying information in
multiple portions of a display screen, with a specific relationship between
the recited portions of the display screen. Id. at 9. Yet, hypothetical
claims 1 and 4 of Example 23 were not regarded as patent-eligible merely
because the claims each recited a specific relationship between recited
portions of the display screen. Instead, each claim solved a technological
problem related to overlapping windows that resulted in improving the
computer’s ability to display information. No such technological problem is
solved here by generating a visual report that displays certain information
adjacent other information, as recited in claim 1. Instead, this improvement,
at best, relates to using a computer to implement the abstract idea in a
particular technological environment. In this way, Appellant’s claim 1 is
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
15
more analogous to patent-ineligible claim 3 of Example 23 than to patent-
eligible claims 1 and 4.
Hypothetical claim 3 of Example 23 recites resizing textual
information within a window displayed in a graphical user interface that
includes “generating first data for describing the area of a first graphical
element;” “generating second data for describing the area of a second
graphical element containing textual information;” and “calculating . . . a
scaling factor for the textual information which is proportional to the
difference between the first data and second data.” July 2015 Appendix 8–9.
The July 2015 Appendix explains that claim 3 recites a mathematical
algorithm, which is an abstract idea, and the additional limitations include
implementing the mathematical algorithm by a computer in a graphical user
interface. Id. at 10–11. The additional limitations do not render the
hypothetical claim patent eligible, because they amount to performing the
abstract idea by a computer in a particular technological environment. Id. at
11. Like hypothetical claim 3 of Example 23, Appellant’s claim 1 uses a
graphical user interface to generate a visual report, but this additional
limitation amounts to performing the mental process (i.e., an abstract idea)
by a computer in a particular technological environment (i.e., on a display
screen of a GUI).
Appellant argues that the combination of features recited in claim 1
recites “an improvement in computer-related technology that may improve a
cycle time by shortening the validation steps of the MRP results.” Appeal
Br. 9 (citing Spec. ¶ 3). Paragraph 3 of the Specification describes that
“[w]ithin conventional multi-enterprise MRP process . . ., it is advantageous
. . . to enable ever-shortening reduced cycle times within the overall
process,” such as by “shorten[ing] the validation steps of the MRP results.”
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
16
But, we are not persuaded that “shortening the validation steps” is an
improvement in computer-related technology, as opposed to an improvement
to a process for validating materials requirements planning results, i.e., a
mental process. Put more concisely, Appellant identifies an improvement of
the abstract idea itself.
Appellant asserts that claim 1 requires displaying in adjacent portions
of a display screen the demand for a part number in a current MRP cycle,
and the demand for the same part number during previous MRP cycles.
Appeal Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 25–26). Appellant contends that this manner
of displaying data “provides a significant improvement in the area of
validating computer aided materials requirement planning” and improves
“the specific technology of hardware devices[,] including a graphical user
interface.” Id. Appellant concludes that claim 1, thus, “defines
improvements . . . in the area of computer technology (specifically computer
aided MRP) and the interrelationship between computer operations and a
graphical user interface, which is a physical element.” Id. Appellant
similarly asserts that claim 1
clearly recites an improvement to computer functionality for
graphical user interfaces in the field of computer aided
materials requirement planning, as discussed above, including
being able to generate a report pertaining to parts required to
build a real-world desired end-product by displaying specific
types of data in specific locations on a display screen that
enable a user to make a very effective and efficient decision
regarding how to proceed in a manufacturing process. As such,
it is urged that claim 1 clearly does recite an improvement to
computer functionality for providing a display to assist the user
in a manufacturing process[.]
Id. at 11. But, the alleged improvement that Appellant touts does not
concern any improvement to hardware devices themselves, graphical user
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
17
interfaces, or computer technology. Instead, it relates to an alleged
improvement to a process that is itself the abstract idea for which a computer
is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
Appellant suggests that claim 1 is analogous to the claims at issue in
Enfish. See Appeal Br. 11 (directing the Board’s attention to Enfish and
asserting that claim 1 improves computer functionality for graphical user
interfaces). However, we do not find any parallel between Appellant’s
claim 1 and the claims at issue in Enfish. Appellant’s claim 1 does not focus
on a particular data structure analogous to Enfish’s self-referential table.
Nor does claim 1 focus on an improvement in GUI functionality — at least
because claim 1 covers any manner of displaying that achieves the desired
arrangement of data. See Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084,
1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims abstract and do not improve computer
functionality where “they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assists traders in processing information more quickly”),
cert. denied, 2020 WL 411673 (U.S. Jan. 27, 2020).
Appellant argues that claim 1 is analogous to the claims at issue in
DDR Holdings. Appeal Br. 11–13. Specifically, Appellant contends that
it is [claim 1’s] adjacent display of current information and
previous information [that] allows the present invention to
obtain the advantages discussed in paragraph 0026 of the
specification . . . that ‘a user may quickly and efficiently
identify those drivers that warrant further examination as to
possibly adversely affecting the aggregate demand of the part
number.’
Id. at 12. Yet, Appellant’s purported improvement relates to making the
user quicker and more efficient, not the hardware devices itself, the
graphical user interface, or some other computer technology. See Trading
Techs., 921 F.3d at 1093 (holding that the claimed new arrangement of
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
18
information assists traders in processing data more quickly, and does not
improve the functioning of a computer, make the computer more efficient, or
solve any technological problem).
Appellant argues that claim 1, like the claims at issue in DDR
Holdings case, is “‘necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to
overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks.’” Yet, Appellant describes a shortcoming in the known
arrangement of information displayed in a visual report that is solved by an
improved arrangement of information that purportedly makes the user
quicker and more efficient. This problem does not specifically arise in the
realm of computer networks; instead, the problem arises with the
arrangement of data itself, which occurs irrespective of the medium (e.g., a
GUI or printed report) used to display the report. Likewise, the solution (a
new arrangement of information) is not necessarily rooted in computer
technology, at least because it encompasses printed reports. See Spec. ¶ 40
(describing that the output report “may be in the form of . . . a computer
display, printed copy, and electronically stored copy”), Fig. 3. Claim 1
limits use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e.,
a report is displayed on a display screen of a GUI). But this linking of the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appellant asserts that “the DDR Holdings case was directed to
generation of a new display screen in order to create a particular visual effect
and impression for the user.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant contends that in the
claims at issue in DDR Holdings “the intention was to retain website visitors
by retaining the display of the host’s website on the graphical user interface”
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
19
and that the claims “claimed a particular interrelationship between the
operation of a computer and the resulting display to the user.” Id. Appellant
submits Appellant’s claim 1 “also defines such an interrelationship between
computer operation and the specific displays provided on a graphical user
interface.” Id.
Although Appellant ostensibly suggests otherwise, the claims at issue
in DDR Holdings were not held to be patent eligible due to a relationship
between a computer operation and the specific displays provided on a GUI.
In that case, the claims at issue did not use a computer network in its normal,
expected manner by sending a website visitor to a third-party website
connected with a clicked advertisement. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1258–
59. Instead, the claims “specif[ied] how interactions with the Internet are
manipulated” in order to “override[] the routine and conventional sequence
of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” Id. at 1258.
Here, we find no technological improvement in Appellant’s claim 1
comparable to changing the routine, conventional functioning of Internet
hyperlink protocol.
We find nothing of record, short of attorney argument, that attributes
an improvement in technology and/or a technical field to the claimed
invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the
abstract idea into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the
Revised Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. At best, the
additional elements recited in claim 1, considered individually and as an
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
20
ordered combination, do no more than implement the abstract idea using
generic computer components.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether
claim 1 adds any additional element or combination of elements that
provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements
amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry to the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 56.
Citing the Federal Circuit’s holding in BASCOM Global Internet
Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), that
an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic
arrangement of known conventional pieces, Appellant argues that even if
claim 1 recites a generic computer, this “does not lead to a conclusion of
patent ineligibility.” Appeal Br. 9. In BASCOM, the Federal Circuit
determined that the claimed installation of a filtering tool at a specific
location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features
specific to each end user provided an inventive concept in that it gave the
filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits
of a filter on the ISP server. BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. The court, thus,
held that the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework was satisfied because
the claimed invention “represents a ‘software-based invention[ ] that
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
21
improve[s] the performance of the computer system itself.’” Id. at 1351
(stating that like DDR Holdings, where the patent “claimed a technical
solution to a problem unique to the Internet,” the patent in BASCOM claimed
a “technology-based solution . . . to filter content on the Internet that
overcomes existing problems with other Internet filtering systems . . .
making it more dynamic and efficient”) (internal citations omitted).
However, Appellant does not identify, and we do not find, any
analogous “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of generic or
conventional pieces that results in a technology-based solution recited in
claim 1. At most, Appellant points to the arrangement of data on a display
screen as providing “a significant improvement in the area of validating
computer aided materials requirement planning.” Appeal Br. 10. But these
elements are part of the abstract idea itself and, thus, cannot be additional
elements or a combination of elements that is sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. “It has been clear since Alice
that 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) (internal citation omitted).
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 and its dependent claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
Independent Claims 15 and 19, and Dependent Claims 18 and 20–26
Independent claims 15 and 19 recite subject matter similar to that
recited in independent claim 1. Moreover, Appellant advances arguments
for the patent eligibility for claims 15 and 19 that are substantially similar to
the arguments presented for claim 1. We do not find these arguments
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
22
persuasive for similar reasons to those discussed above with respect to
claim 1.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 15 and 19, and their dependent claims under 35
U.S.C. § 101.

Obviousness
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claims 1, 15, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because
the combination of Katz and Lidow does not teach or suggest performing the
steps of “receiving a verification of the displayed parameters, including
receiving at least one updated parameter” (i.e., limitation (b)(4)), and
“determining whether the at least one updated parameter brings the current
aggregate demand of the part number within tolerance” (i.e., limitation
(b)(5)) “in response to the aggregate demand of the part number being
determined [at step (a)] to be greater or less than the previous aggregate
demand for the part number by more than the first predetermined tolerance”
(i.e., limitation (b)), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 15
and 19. Appeal Br. 32–36; Reply Br. 9–13. The Examiner does not address
these claim limitations in the rejection of the independent claims. See Final
Act. 8–14 (rejecting claim 1), 17–22 (rejecting claim 15), 23–27 (rejecting
claim 19).5

5 Subject matter similar to claim 1’s limitation (b)(4) is addressed in a
rejection of canceled claim 4, which previously dependent from claim 1.
See Final Act. 14 (citing Katz ¶ 287). Likewise, subject matter similar to
claim 1’s limitation (b)(5) is addressed in a rejection of canceled 6, which
previously depended from canceled claim 4. See id. at 15 (citing Katz ¶¶ 96,
171, 275). The Examiner’s rejection of canceled claim 17, which previously
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
23
The Examiner finds that Katz’s disclosure at paragraph 287 of sending
an alert when components are added to a bill of materials discloses receiving
an updated parameter. See Ans. 7 (“receiving an updated parameter is a
mere changing of one value to another”); see also id. (“Again, ‘updating of
parameters’ is merely a change in values.”). Yet, limitation (b)(4), as recited
in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 15 and 19, requires more than
receiving an updated value for a parameter. In particular, claim 1 recites that
the step of “receiving a verification . . . including . . . at least one updated
parameter” (limitation (b)(4)) occurs “for each of the plurality of part
numbers, in response to the aggregate demand of the part number being
determined to be greater or less than the previous aggregate demand for the
part number by more than the first predetermined tolerance” (limitation (b)).
Claims 15 and 19 recite similar language.
Here, Katz describes at paragraph 287 an exemplary alert to
procurement organizations “when components that currently do not exist in
the part/supplier database are added to a [bill of materials, or] BOM.” Put
differently, Katz’s alert to procurement organizations (ostensibly
characterized by the Examiner as the claimed “verification”) occurs in
response to a new part being added to a part/supplier database, not in
response to a determination regarding a current aggregate demand for the
part compared with a previous aggregate demand for the part, as required by
claim 1, and similarly required by claims 15 and 19. Indeed, because Katz’s
alert is generated when a part that did not exist in the part/supplier database
before the alert is sent, the current and previous aggregate demand for the

depended from claim 15, also addressed subject matter similar to these
limitations. See id. at 22–23 (citing Katz ¶¶ 96, 171, 275).
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
24
part, which is required for the claimed determination that step (b)(4) is
conditioned upon, does not exist. Additionally, the Examiner acknowledges
that Katz does not teach the claimed determination. See Final Act. 9–10.
Turning to limitation (b)(5), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited
in claims 15 and 19, the Examiner finds that Katz at paragraph 275 teaches a
“demand tolerance,” and at paragraphs 268–296 teaches “determining if
updated parameters are within a demand tolerance.” Ans. 7. As an initial
matter, the Examiner found that sending an alert for a component that does
not exist in a part/supplier database (in response to a component being added
to the BOM) teaches the claimed updated parameter. See id. (citing Katz
¶ 287). Yet, nothing in the paragraph 275 of Katz or the remaining cited
paragraphs describes determining a current aggregate demand of the
component that was newly added, much less determining whether the newly
added component brings the current aggregate demand within tolerance, as
required by independent claim 1, limitation (b)(5), and similarly required by
claims 15 and 19.
For example, paragraph 275 of Katz identifies an exemplary alert that
includes a notification that a component inventory exceeds a threshold level,
such as a high limit or low limit. Katz. ¶ 275. But this threshold level is not
described as a tolerance for an aggregate demand of the part number, as
required by limitation (b)(5). Paragraphs 268–274 and 276–296 of Katz
identify additional exemplary alerts regarding other events that the Examiner
characterizes as other updated parameters. Yet, none of these parameters is
described with respect to a tolerance for an aggregate demand of the part
number.
Finally, step (b)(5), like step (b)(4), occurs in response to a
determination that the current aggregate demand is greater or less than a
Appeal 2018-005384
Application 11/937,055
25
previous aggregate demand for the part number that is more than a first
tolerance. Here, as described above, the Examiner has not adequately shown
that the determination step is disclosed by Katz and/or Lidow, much less
how step (b)(5) would be predicated on this determination.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claims 1, 15, and 19, and dependent claims 3, 5, 7, 8, 12–14,
18, and 20–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 10 does not cure the
deficiency of the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the
same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 10, 12–
15, 18–26
101 Eligibility
1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 10, 12–
15, 18–26

1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 12–15,
18–26
103(a) Katz, Lidow
1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 12–15,
18–26
10 103(a) Katz, Lidow, Singh 10
Overall Outcome 1, 3, 5, 7,
8, 10, 12–
15, 18–26

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

AFFIRMED