Acxiom Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 11, 2020

14617584 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 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.
14/617,584 02/09/2015 William Clay ACXM-01064-US-1 1048
160811 7590 02/11/2020
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP - Acxiom
200 W. Capitol Ave.
Ste. 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201
EXAMINER
WAESCO, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2020 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):
aelliott@wlj.com
jdougherty@wlj.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM CLAY, BRENTLY BARROW,
ERIC JOSHUA STUART, MARTIN RICHARD ROSE,
and TERRY TALLEY
____________

Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–16 and 19–33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to “a system and method by which
specific content is collected, assembled, modified and evaluated through an
interactive game interface” (Spec. ¶ 11).
Claims 1, 21, and 31 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for collecting, assembling, modifying and
evaluating content and data about an organization for performing
marketing scenario simulation, predicting specific, measurable
outcomes that are empirically reproducible, and making, testing,
and optimizing specific business decisions surrounding
capability improvement programs for marketing to consumers at
a remote computing device comprising a processor, comprising
the steps of:
a. sending to a user device a user interface generated
by the processor, wherein the user device comprises a web
browser configured to display the user interface;

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 November 9, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 4,
2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 13, 2018) and
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed June 19, 2018). Appellant
identifies Acxiom Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

3
b. receiving through the user interface a set of user
supplied content (USC) pertaining to the current maturity level
of a plurality of marketing maturity attributes for the
organization;
c. receiving through the user interface a set of user
supplied data (USD) pertaining to a set of key performance
indicators (KPls) for the organization;
d. receiving through the user interface a set of defined
output relating to the business rules and instructions pertaining
to the organization;
e. receiving external evidence related to the
organization;
f. adding the extrinsic evidence to the USC to produce
a set of modified user supplied content (MUSC);
g. correlating the USC, MUSC, and USD with a
dynamic normative database (NDB) by matching a specific
capability attribute from the NDB with a USC score for such
capability attribute, a MUSC score for such capability attribute,
a KPI for such capability attribute, and the USD for such
capability attribute, thereby obtaining specific marketing
performance predictions for the organization, based on the USC,
MUSC, and USD, and used in conjunction with predictive
relationships among variables in the NDB, and generating a
capability attribute traceability matrix comprising the correlated
data;
h. identifying predictive relationships based on
correlations among variables in the NDB to generate a summary
attribute table comprising a weighted attribute value for each
specific capability attribute;
i. receiving at the processor from the user interface a
targeted desired marketing maturity state;
j. utilizing a dynamic marketing maturity model body
of knowledge (BOK) comprising capability definitions,
dimension definitions, attribute definitions, and definitions for
level of maturity, specific KPls, and the definitions for each KPI,
generating a report indicating current marketing maturity for
each set of business challenges, or a subset thereof, and the
desired targeted marketing maturity state based on the capability
attribute traceability matrix and the summary attribute table;
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

4
k. outputting to the user interface a marketing
improvement plan (MIP);
l. after the MIP has been sent to the user interface,
receiving through the user interface a second set of user supplied
data (USD) pertaining to the KPls for the organization;
m. recursively re-correlating USC, MUSC, and USD
with the NOB;
n. identifying additional predictive relationships based
on the correlation performed with the NDB; and
o. outputting to the user interface an updated
marketing improvement plan (MIP).
REJECTION
Claims 1–16 and 19–33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 19–27).
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims,
thus, stand or fall with claim 1. See 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.
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

5
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
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 pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner
determined that claim 1 recites “a combination of abstract ideas, collecting,
storing, analyzing, and transmitting information,” and also describes
“correlating data to produce normalized data, which is used for identifying
predictive relationships among variables, which is considered [a]
[m]athematical [r]elationship,” i.e., an abstract idea (Final Act. 4–6). The
Examiner also determined that claim 1 does not include additional elements
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and
that the remaining claims are patent ineligible for substantially similar
reasons (id. at 6–7).
After Appellant’s Appeal Brief was filed, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019 for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

6
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the
USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that
[are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not
“directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception. Id. at 50. The 2019 Revised
Guidance, by its terms, applies to all applications, and to all patents resulting
from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Id.2,3
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
The first step in the Mayo/Alice framework, as mentioned above, is to
determine whether the claims at issue are “directed to” a patent-ineligible
concept, e.g., an abstract idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. This first step,
as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is a two-prong test;
in Step 2A, Prong One, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas:
(1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human

2 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04(II) and also supersedes all versions of the
USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related
guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP
(published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”). Accordingly,
Appellant’s arguments challenging the sufficiency of the Examiner’s
rejection will not be addressed to the extent those arguments are based on
currently superseded USPTO guidance.
3 The USPTO issued an update on October 17, 2019 (the “October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) clarifying the
2019 Revised Guidance in response to comments solicited from the public.
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

7
activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or
legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. 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., that 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 conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal
Br. 19–24). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’” 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, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a
specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, the Specification (including the claim
language) makes clear that the claims focus on an abstract idea, and not on
any improvement to computer technology and/or functionality.
The Specification is titled “INTERACTIVE MARKETING
SIMULATION SYSTEM AND METHOD” and describes, in the
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

8
Background section, that with the commercialization of the Internet, and
following the rapid proliferation of smart phones, tablets, social media, and
other new channels for marketing to consumers, companies need new and
different tools, methods, and data to make strategic decisions about how to
deploy financial and human resources in a way that achieves optimal
marketing results (Spec. ¶ 2). The Specification explains that “the ability to
market to consumers effectively across devices, channels, platforms and
social media sites requires specific marketing capabilities, including
capabilities for closed-loop evaluation of the outcomes achieved through
investing in the new capabilities” (id. ¶ 7), and further describes that without
the ability to identify the current level of capability maturity for these
capabilities, and to model the effectiveness of making improvements to one
or more capability attributes, “business executives are unable to conceive of,
execute and measure the effectiveness of . . . strategic initiatives . . . as
measured and reported through marketing key performance indicators
(KPls)” (id.). Therefore, according to the Specification, what is needed is a
system for collecting, assembling, modifying, and evaluating content and
data for performing marketing scenario simulation; predicting specific,
measurable outcomes that are empirically reproducible; and making, testing,
and optimizing specific business decisions surrounding capability
improvement programs for marketing to consumers (id. ¶ 8).
The claimed invention is ostensibly intended to address this need by
providing an interactive web-based marketing simulation game that relies on
a proprietary body of knowledge (“BoK”), techniques, and methods that
allow marketers to simulate (and, thereby, predict) the likely outcomes (i.e.,
business performance improvements) resulting from strategic choices made
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

9
by management (id. ¶¶ 11–22, Abstract). Claim 1, thus, recites a method for
collecting, assembling, modifying, and evaluating content and data about an
organization for performing marketing scenario simulation; predicting
specific, measurable outcomes that are empirically reproducible; and
making, testing, and optimizing specific business decisions surrounding
capability improvement programs for marketing to consumers comprising:
(1) sending a web-based graphical user interface to a user device, i.e.,
“sending to a user device a user interface generated by the processor,
wherein the user device comprises a web browser configured to display the
user interface” (step a); (2) receiving, through the user interface, a set of user
supplied content regarding the current maturity level of a plurality of
marketing maturity attributes for the organization, a set of user defined data
relating to a set of key performance indicators for the organization, and a set
of defined output relating to business rules and instructions pertaining to the
organization, i.e.,
receiving through the user interface a set of user supplied
content (USC) pertaining to the current maturity level of a
plurality of marketing maturity attributes for the organization;
receiving through the user interface a set of user supplied
data (USD) pertaining to a set of key performance indicators
(KPls) for the organization; [and]
receiving through the user interface a set of defined output
relating to the business rules and instructions pertaining to the
organization
(steps b, c, and d); (3) receiving external evidence related to the organization
and adding this evidence to the user supplied content to produce a set of
modified user supplied content, i.e., “receiving external evidence related to
the organization”; and “adding the extrinsic evidence to the USC to produce
a set of modified user supplied content (MUSC)” (steps e and f);
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

10
(4) correlating the user supplied content, modified user supplied content, and
user supplied data with a normative database to obtain specific marketing
performance predictions for the organization; generating a capability
attribute traceability matrix comprising the correlated data; and generating a
summary attribute table based on correlations among variables in the
normative database, i.e.,
correlating the USC, MUSC, and USD with a dynamic
normative database (NDB) by matching a specific capability
attribute from the NDB with a USC score for such capability
attribute, a MUSC score for such capability attribute, a KPI for
such capability attribute, and the USD for such capability
attribute, thereby obtaining specific marketing performance
predictions for the organization, based on the USC, MUSC, and
USD, and used in conjunction with predictive relationships
among variables in the NDB, and generating a capability
attribute traceability matrix comprising the correlated data; [and]
identifying predictive relationships based on correlations
among variables in the NDB to generate a summary attribute
table comprising a weighted attribute value for each specific
capability attribute
(steps g and h); (5) receiving a targeted desired marketing maturity state
from the user interface and using a dynamic marketing maturity model body
of knowledge to generate a report indicating (i) current marketing maturity
for each set of business challenges and (ii) the desired targeted marketing
maturity state based on the capability attribute traceability matrix and the
summary attribute table, i.e.,
receiving at the processor from the user interface a
targeted desired marketing maturity state; [and]
utilizing a dynamic marketing maturity model body of
knowledge (BOK) comprising capability definitions, dimension
definitions, attribute definitions, and definitions for level of
maturity, specific KPls, and the definitions for each KPI,
generating a report indicating current marketing maturity for
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

11
each set of business challenges, or a subset thereof, and the
desired targeted marketing maturity state based on the capability
attribute traceability matrix and the summary attribute table
(steps i and j); (6) “outputting to the user interface a marketing improvement
plan (MIP)” (step k); (7) receiving a second set of user supplied data;
recursively re-correlating the user supplied content, modified user supplied
content, and user supplied data with the nominative database; and
identifying additional predictive relationships based on the correlation, i.e.,
after the MIP has been sent to the user interface, receiving
through the user interface a second set of user supplied data
(USD) pertaining to the KPls for the organization;
recursively re-correlating USC, MUSC, and USD with the
NOB; [and]
identifying additional predictive relationships based on the
correlation performed with the NDB
(steps l, m, and n); and (8) “outputting to the user interface an updated
marketing improvement plan (MIP)” (step o)). These limitations, when
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite collecting, via a
graphical user interface, content and data pertaining to an organization,
which collectively represent user-defined marketing scenarios; simulating,
predicting, and measuring improvements that result from execution of the
scenarios; and outputting, to the user interface, a marketing plan designed to
allow the organization to achieve its desired marketing objectives within a
desired period of time. Simply put, these limitations recite a method for
developing a marketing plan, i.e., a fundamental economic practice, which is
a method of organizing human activity and, therefore, an abstract idea. See
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1), we next consider whether the claim recites
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

12
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (Step 2A, Prong 2).
The only additional elements recited in claim 1, beyond the abstract
idea, are “a remote computing device comprising a processor”; “a user
interface generated by the remote processor”; and a “a user device
comprising a web browser configured to display the user interface” —
elements that, as the Examiner observed, are generic computer components
recited as performing generic computer functions (Final Act. 6 (citing
Spec. ¶ 63)). We find no indication in the Specification that the operations
recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or other
inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, invoke any
assertedly inventive programming, or that the claimed invention is
implemented using other than generic computer components to perform
generic computer functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no
doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.”).
We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record, short of attorney
argument, that attributes an improvement in computer-related technology
and/or functionality 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 2019 Revised Guidance.4

4 The 2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e) in
describing the considerations that are indicative that an additional element or
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

13
Ostensibly relying on the Federal Circuit’s decision in Enfish,
Appellant argues that claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, and is patent
eligible because the claimed method improves “a technology or computer
functionality” (Appeal Br. 19–24; see also Reply Br. 1–3). That argument is
not persuasive at least because there is no evidence of record that the
claimed method uses a data structure, like the self-referential table in Enfish,
to improve a computer’s functionality or efficiency, or to otherwise change
the way the computer operates.
Appellant asserts that the claimed invention “allows for scenario
simulation using less powerful computational equipment and a limited
number of computational cycles,” as compared to prior generation planning
scenario simulation methods, and provides a method that can be “operated
within existing technology architecture” and is “capable of operating at high
levels of efficiency, low computational cycles, low requirements for
redundancy, and at a low error rate” (Appeal Br. 20 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 5–9)).
Appellant explains that the correlation or joining of quantitative data to
qualitative data in a normalized database prior to analysis serves to increase
the efficiency of the computing system in that fewer clock cycles are
required to perform the analysis than would be required without this
correlation/integration (id. at 21 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 12, 19)). And Appellant
argues that this feature, which “is directly incorporated” in step (g) of
claim 1, “improves the functioning of [the] computer or technology” (id.; see

combination of elements integrates the judicial exception, e.g., the abstract
idea, into a practical application. 2019 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.
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

14
also Reply Br. 2–3 (arguing that reducing clock cycles for a required
operation is an improvement to computer technology)).
The difficulty with Appellant’s argument is that it, at best, establishes
that the claimed invention provides an improved method for performing
planning scenario simulation, i.e., an improved abstract idea. We fail to see
how, and Appellant does not adequately explain how, the claimed invention
improves “computer functionality” in a manner comparable to the situation
in Enfish.
The claims in Enfish were directed to a “specific improvement to the
way computers operate,” i.e., an improved database configuration that
permitted faster and more efficient searching. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330–33,
1336. The Federal Circuit has, thus, explained that the claims “in Enfish did
more than allow computers to perform familiar tasks with greater speed and
efficiency.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305
(Fed. Cir. 2018).
In contrast to Enfish, Appellant does not describe an advance in
hardware or software that causes the recited computer processor to operate
faster or more efficiently by, for example, expanding or improving the
capabilities of the processor itself.
Appellant argues that by correlating quantitative data to qualitative
data in a normalized database prior to analysis, computer functionality is
improved in that fewer clock cycles are required (Appeal Br. 21). Yet, there
is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements,
on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a
particular task, on the other. Indeed, the Federal Circuit applied this
distinction in Enfish, in rejecting the § 101 challenge, because the claims
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

15
there at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., the self-
referential table, designed to improve the way a computer carries out its
basic functions of storing and retrieving data, and not merely on asserted
advances in the uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. The alleged improvement that Appellant touts,
i.e., requiring fewer clock cycles, does not concern an improvement to
computer capabilities but instead relates to an alleged improvement in
correlating quantitative data to qualitative data, a task for which a computer
is used in its ordinary capacity.
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the
additional elements recited in the claim are no more than generic
components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, they
do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice
Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic computer implementation is
not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical
assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to an
abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 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
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

16
amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception itself.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant argues that even if that the claims are directed to an abstract
idea, the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more
than the abstract idea itself (Appeal Br. 24–27). In this regard, Appellant
first argues that the claims are patent eligible because they “recite limitations
that individually and in combination work to improve the computational
functionality of the system by which the process [of correlating quantitative
data to qualitative data in a normalized database] is carried out” (id. at 25).
That argument is not persuasive for the reasons set forth above.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s further argument that the
claims add specific limitations other than what is well-understood, routine,
and conventional activity in the field (id.). Appellant asserts that claim 1 “is
directed to fifteen distinct steps that describe in detail the processing that is
performed in order to create the necessary software output,” and charges that
the Examiner “ignores the detail to which the limitations are recited and the
amount of limitations in the claims that render the method unconventional”
(id. at 26). Yet, “the relevant inquiry is not whether the claimed invention as
a whole is unconventional or non-routine.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Instead, the question under
step two of the Mayo/Alice framework (i.e., step 2B) is whether the claim
includes additional elements, i.e., elements other than the abstract idea itself,
that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.”
Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). See also
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use
of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements,
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

17
sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
natural law itself” (emphasis added)).
The Examiner determined here, and we agree, that the only claim
elements beyond the abstract idea are the “remote computing device
comprising a processor”; “user interface generated by the remote processor”;
and “user device comprising a web browser configured to display the user
interface,” i.e., generic computer components recited as performing generic
computer functions (Final Act. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ 63)). Appellant cannot
reasonably contend, nor does Appellant, that there is a genuine issue of
material fact regarding whether the operation of these components is well-
understood, routine, or conventional, where, as here, there is nothing in the
Specification to indicate that the operations recited in claim 1 require any
specialized hardware or inventive computer components, or that the claimed
invention is implemented using other than generic computer components to
perform generic computer functions, e.g., receiving, processing, and
transmitting information. Indeed, the Federal Circuit, in accordance with
Alice, has “repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to
eligibility” where claims have been defended as involving an inventive
concept based “merely on the idea of using existing computers or the
Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no alteration of computer
functionality.” Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted); see also BSG
Tech, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“BSG Tech does not argue that other, non-abstract
features of the claimed inventions, alone or in combination, are not well-
understood, routine and conventional database structures and activities.
Appeal 2019-002455
Application 14/617,584

18
Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that the asserted
claims lack an inventive concept.”).
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–16
and 19–33, which fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16, 19–
33
101 Eligibility 1–16, 19–
33

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

AFFIRMED