Richard J. Lukes et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 3, 202011937055 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 3, 2020) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation