Acxiom Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2020

14338172 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
14/338,172 07/22/2014 William Clay ACXM-01024-US-3 7710
160811 7590 04/27/2020
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP - Acxiom
200 W. Capitol Ave.
Ste. 2300
Little Rock, AR 72201
EXAMINER
YESILDAG, MEHMET
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2020 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, KRISTEN MOUGEOT,
BRENTLY BARROW, BRIDGET FARRIS,
STEVE MANATT, and JIM ROCK
__________________

Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 8–15, 20–23, and 25–28. Appeal Br. 4,
14. Claims 2–7, 16–19, 24, 29, and 30 are cancelled. Appeal Br. 29, 33, 35,
36 (Claims App.). Claims 31 and 32 are withdrawn. Amendment, filed Feb.
21, 2019, at 15; Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Acxiom LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 15, and 23 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method for analyzing the
marketing capability of a plurality of organizations,
comprising the steps of:
a. sending from a capability maturity model (CMM)
processor to a client computing device associated with
of the plurality of organizations a next binary question
from an ordered set of binary questions associated
with a marketing capability attribute, wherein the
ordered set of binary questions is stored in a body of
knowledge (BOK) in communication with the CMM
processor, wherein the BOK comprises a plurality of
attributes each associated with one of a plurality of
dimensions and each dimension is associated with one
of a plurality of capabilities, and wherein each
question of the ordered set of binary questions
possesses inter-coder reliability;
b. receiving at the CMM processor an answer to the next
binary question, wherein the answer to the next binary
question is “yes” or “no”;
c. repeating steps (a) and (b) until the answer to the next
binary question received at the CMM processor is
“no”;
d. determining at the CMM processor a current attribute
level for the marketing capability attribute, wherein
the current attribute level corresponds to a last “yes”
answer;
e. writing from the CMM processor the current attribute
level into a normalized database in communication
with the CMM processor;
f. receiving at the CMM processor a target attribute
level for the marketing capability attribute associated
with a timeframe;
g. calculating at the CMM processor a gap for the
marketing capability attribute by subtracting the
current attribute level from the target attribute level;
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

3
h. writing from the CMM processor the target attribute
level and the gap for the marketing capability attribute
into the normalized database;
i. repeating steps (a) through (h) for each marketing
capability attribute associated with a marketing
dimension;
j. calculating at the CMM processor a dimension
marketing maturity quotient (MMQ) for each of the
plurality of dimensions, comprising the steps of:
i. summing each of the current attribute levels for
the marketing capability attributes associated
with each of the plurality of dimensions to
create a current attribute level sum;
ii. dividing the current attribute level sum by a
maximum value for the current attribute levels
for the marketing capability attributes
associated with each of the plurality of
dimensions to produce an aggregate dimension
value;
iii. normalizing the aggregate dimension value;
k. repeating steps (i) and (j) for each marketing
dimension associated with a marketing capability;
l. repeating step (k) for each of the plurality of
organizations, wherein the normative database
subsequently comprises a searchable set of current
attribute levels for each of the plurality of
organizations; and
m. constructing at the CMM processor a marketing
maturity heat map display comprising a plurality of
capability display areas and a plurality of dimension
display areas, wherein a first color is applied to the
capability display areas and dimension display areas
to indicate that the gap is of larger size and a second
color is applied to the capability display areas and
dimension display areas to indicate that the gap is of
smaller size, and transmitting the marketing maturity
heat map display to the client device.

Appeal Br. 27–29 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

4
REJECTION2
Claims 1, 8–15, 20–23, and 25–28 are rejected as directed to a judicial
exception under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the claims as a group. See Appeal Br. 15–26. We
select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Examiner’s Findings and Determination
The Examiner determines that steps a.–m. of claim 1 recite (i) mental
processes (previously an idea of itself) that can be performed in the human
mind and with pen and paper where necessary and also (ii) certain methods
of organizing human activities related to commercial and legal interactions
such as advertising, marketing, and sales activities or behaviors and business
relations, fundamental economic principles of mitigating risk by analyzing
the capacity/maturity of the marketing capability of organizations, and
managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people
by conducting a questionnaire. Final Act. 3–5; Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner determines that the claims at most provide a business
improvement that uses mere data manipulation to determine the marketing
capability of organizations versus a technological improvement, and thus do
not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Ans. 4. In addition,
the Examiner determines that additional hardware and software elements
such as a computer, processor, and display are invoked as tools to perform
the abstract idea in a particular technological environment. Id. at 4–5.

2 A rejection of claims 12, 13, 15, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
being indefinite was withdrawn. See Ans. 3 (citing Adv. Action, mailed
Mar. 11, 2019).
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

5
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to marketing, and no
actual marketing is involved in the assessment of the marketing capability of
organizations. Appeal Br. 16. Appellant argues that the claims use unique
data structures (a body of knowledge and a normative database) to facilitate
a new automatic assessment that is superior to previous methods performed
by hand. Id. Appellant argues that the claims are directed to a technological
solution to a problem inherently rooted in technology used to implement the
solution rather than the simple automation of a task such as marketing that
was performed previously by hand. Id.
Appellant argues that the claims implement a practical application of
the specific technical details of communicating, processing, and calculating
specific types of data to create a specific graphical display at a client device.
Id. at 18. Appellant further argues that claim 1 recites a CMM processor in
communication with the client computing device, a BOK in communication
with the CMM processor, and a normative database in communication with
the CMM processor. Id. Appellant argues that the claimed CMM processor
performs numerous operations such as sending binary questions, processing
answers, determining a next question based on a response, computing
attribute levels and gaps, computing a MMQ for the organization, modifying
the normative database, and creating a particular graphical display to display
the results of these processing steps. Id. Appellant also argues that the BOK
has a core set of business challenges and attributes, associated questions, and
industry, channel, and geography knowledge data organized to perform the
claimed calculations. Id. Appellant argues that the normative database
dynamically tracks peer group averages with each iteration. Id. at 18–19.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

6
Applicable Legal Principles
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. This provision contains an implicit exception: “Laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the elements of each claim, individually and
“as an ordered combination,” to determine if additional elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application” by providing an
“inventive concept” to ensure that the patent amounts to significantly more
than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine whether a
claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

7
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or (4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception. Id. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a “computer-implemented method, which is within a
statutory category of 35 U.S.C. § 101, namely, a process.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. The
Revised Guidance enumerates the abstract idea as (1) mathematical concepts
involving calculations, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity that
include marketing and advertising activities, and (3) mental processes that
include concepts performed in the human mind including evaluation,
judgment, and opinion. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see Ans. 3–4.
The claimed method allows a marketing organization to measure its
marketing capabilities. Spec. ¶¶ 3, 8, 9. “A ‘capability’ is defined as the
ability to perform a strategic action by the marketing organization.” Id. ¶ 28
(emphasis added). The method measures core capabilities of a marketing
organization to perform “strategic marketing actions” for global, multi-
channel, database marketing, and advertising so organizations can improve
their marketing capabilities and their marketing performance to consumers.
Id. ¶¶ 29, 33, 35, Fig. 2B. This method identifies gaps in an organization’s
marketing capabilities and displays the gaps. Id. ¶¶ 36, 49–51, Figs. 6, 7.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

8
The steps recited in claim 1 are part of a self-assessment process that
measures an organization’s marketing capability (i.e., its ability to engage in
marketing activities) so that the organization can organize and improve its
marketing capabilities and activities to achieve its stated business objectives.
Id. ¶¶ 28–38. This self-assessment process helps a marketing organization
organize its strategic marketing and advertising activities to improve its
marketing effectiveness and its capability to perform marketing activities to
consumers. Id. An assessment identifies gaps in an organization’s ability to
perform marketing activities and improves data it uses in marketing. See id.
Steps a. and b. recite “sending from a capability maturity model
(CMM) processor to a client computing device associated with [one] of the
plurality of organizations a next binary question from an ordered set of
binary questions associated with a marketing capability attribute” and
“receiving at the CMM processor an answer to the next binary question.”
The Specification describes this process as using binary (yes or no)
questions to assess the organization’s current level of maturity on each
attribute according to a six level model. Spec. ¶¶ 36–38. The levels are 0
(not performed), 1 (performed), 2 (managed), 3 (standard), 4 (quantifiable),
and 5 (optimized). They indicate a stage of maturity of the organization. Id.
¶ 37. Assessment interview questions progress from one level to the next
until a “No” answer is provided. Id. The question with the highest “Yes”
answer is recorded as the current score and level for each attribute. Id.
Steps c. and d. of claim 1 recite this progressive question and scoring
procedure of repeating the binary question process of steps a. and b. until a
“no” answer is received and then determining the current attribute level for
the marketing capability attribute based on the last “yes” answer.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

9
Step e. records the current attribute level into a normalized database.
These steps involve mental processes of evaluation, judgment, and
opinion by organization executives and others who assess an organization’s
capability to perform each marketing capability attribute. Spec. ¶ 8. The
assessment may be a client-assisted assessment, or it may be performed by
account teams and professional consultants on behalf of a client. Id.
The next steps determine a gap for each marketing capability attribute
by “receiving at the CMM processor a target attribute for the marketing
capability attribute” at step f., “calculating at the CMM processor a gap for
the marketing capability attribute by subtracting the current attribute level
from the target attribute level” at step g., “writing . . . the target attribute
level and the gap for the marketing capability into the normalized database”
at step h, and “repeating steps (a) through (h) for each marketing capability
attribute associated with a marketing dimension” at step i.
These steps can identify shortcomings or “gaps” in an organization’s
marketing capability maturity. “A ‘gap’ is defined as the mathematical
difference between the current state and target state capability maturity
scores.” Spec. ¶ 36 (emphasis added). The “target state” is determined from
discussions with organization leaders to determine the capability maturity
that is required for the organization to achieve its stated business objectives.
Id. The steps score the assessment by subtracting a current level score from
a target level score to determine a gap value for that attribute. Id. ¶¶ 41, 43.
Steps j.–l. recite calculations of a MMQ by summing current attribute
levels, dividing the sum by a maximum value for the value, normalizing the
aggregate dimension value, and repeating calculations for each marketing
dimension. These steps involve mathematical concepts and calculations.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

10
The calculated MMQ facilitates an understanding of an organization’s
marketing capabilities, dimensions, and attributes. Spec. ¶ 48. MMQs are
benchmarks that are normalized to compare to other organizations as shown
in Appellant’s Figures 5 and 6, which are reproduced below. Id. ¶¶ 48–50.

Figure 5 is a marketing maturity meter comparing a company’s MMQ
(21) to average MMQ (51), and leader MMQ (85) for an attribute. Id. ¶ 49.

Figure 6 lists organization XYZ’s scores. For analyzing data, XYZ
scored 42 compared to an average of 44 and a leader’s score of 75. Id. ¶ 50.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

11
The Specification describes the process by which CMM processor 10
calculates capability and dimension scores as “rolling up” the values from
the attributes to the associated dimensions and then from dimensions to the
associated capability to calculate an overall single score. Spec. ¶ 47. These
steps involve mathematical calculations recited at a high level of generality.
As an example, if six attributes associated with a dimension receive
the scores of 4, 4, 2, 2, 1, and 1, the current dimension score would be 2.3,
which is calculated as the sum of the scores (14) divided by the total number
of scores (6). Id. These six scores for this dimension can be normalized to
an MMQ of 47, which is calculated by summing the scores and dividing the
total (14) by the total possible score of 30 (i.e., 5 for each attribute) to yield a
normalized score that is within a range of 0–100. Id. ¶ 48. This scoring also
can be performed as a mental process or by a person using pen and paper.
Finally, step m. recites “constructing at the CMM processor a
marketing maturity heat map display comprising a plurality of capability
display areas and a plurality of dimension display areas” that use different
colors to depict gaps of larger and smaller sizes.
The “heat map” provides a visual report of marketing capability gaps.
It provides a high-level perspective of a company’s gaps and indicates where
change is needed most urgently to meet a company’s stated business targets.
Spec. ¶¶ 43–45. Gaps are calculated by subtracting the current level scores
from the target level scores. Id. Different colors may be used to indicate the
magnitude of the gaps. The color red may be used to indicate where a large
gap exists. Orange and yellow may be used to indicate lesser gaps. Green
may be used to represent areas where an organization currently performs at
or near its target level. Id. ¶ 43.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

12
Appellant is correct that claim 1 assesses the marketing capability of
an organization. Appeal Br. 16. However, the Examiner is correct that this
method assesses an organization’s capability to conduct marketing activities.
Ans. 3–4. To do so, the claimed method organizes information pertaining to
marketing activities and the capabilities of the organization to implement a
marketing strategy and improve its organizational effectiveness to engage in
global marketing activities and actions. See Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9, 28–38.
Five of the marketing capabilities measured include “Understanding
the Consumer,” “Managing Information,” “Analyzing data,” “Implementing
Decisions,” and “Managing the Consumer Experience.” Id. ¶ 29. These five
capabilities represent core abilities used by a marketing organization to
perform strategic marketing actions for its global, multi-channel, database
marketing and advertising. Id. The comprehensive knowledge architecture
for the BOK 12 of the marketing maturity model organizes marketing and
advertising activities by industry such as retail, financial, and telecom. Id.
¶ 28. It organizes marketing activities by marketing channel such as direct
mail, email, and television. Id. It also organizes marketing activities by
geographic regions. Id. Thus, it organizes data and activities relating to
advertising and marketing actions, which recites an abstract idea.
The “attributes” measured through binary assessment questions are
“an observable characteristic that can be measured for a particular marketing
dimension.” Id. A “dimension” is “a distinctive feature of a capability.” Id.
Because a marketing “capability” is the “ability to perform a strategic action
by the marketing organization” (id.), the marketing attributes measure an
organization’s ability to perform underlying marketing activities. Thus, the
assessment organizes data relating to these marketing activities.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

13
The claimed method of analyzing marketing capabilities of a plurality
of organizations through progressive assessment interview questions where
the answer to the first question governs the progression to the next question
and one level is completed before advancing to the next level (id. ¶ 37) thus
organizes information relating to capabilities of an organization to perform
various marketing activities, which is an abstract idea when recited at such a
high level of generality. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The “BOK” “contains the strategic capabilities for an organization,
with each capability being associated with multiple dimensions, and each
dimension in turn being associated with multiple attributes.” Spec. ¶ 28.
The center of BOK 12 contains core set 22 of each capability, dimension,
and attribute definition and question that makes up the business function of
database marketing and advertising organized into a specific framework to
enable objective assessment of capabilities. Id.
The “normalized database” holds assessment response data of each
organization and key information about the assessor to derive individual
comparisons, industry benchmarks, and marketing trends. Id. ¶ 33.
We are not persuaded that the BOK and normative database recite two
unique data structures that facilitate a new automated method of assessment
that is superior to previous methods performed by hand, or that they provide
a technological solution to a problem inherently rooted in technology rather
than simply automate a task previously performed by hand. Appeal Br. 16.
Claim 1 presents binary questions from an ordered set stored in the
BOK until a question is answered as “no,” scores the attribute based on the
last “yes” answer, and records that attribute level in the normalized database.
Direct, one-on-one interviews with key people can be used. See Spec. ¶ 40.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

14
Similar claims to guiding users who are inputting data into a database
by presenting “summary comparison information” based on historical usage
information did not recite a method that was necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer databases. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d
1281, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It amounts to having users consider previous
item descriptions before they describe items to achieve more consistent item
descriptions. Whether labeled as a fundamental, long-prevalent practice or a
well-established method of organizing activity, this qualifies as an abstract
idea.”). The court held that “claims are not saved from abstraction merely
because they recite components more specific than a generic computer.” Id.
Here, the Specification describes software incorporating a specific set
of algorithms (Spec. ¶ 8), but claim 1 recites only abstract ideas.
Appellant’s Figure 2B, reproduced below, illustrates a claimed BOK.

Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

15
Figure 2B above illustrates a CMM BOK 12 with five strategic
capabilities, 20 dimensions, and 81 attributes. Spec. ¶ 29. The invention
may incorporate any number of capabilities, dimensions, and attributes for
measuring and improving the marketing capability of an organization. Id.
Even if this framework provides an objective, fact-based assessment
for increased reliability and uniformity in assessing marketing capabilities
across different capabilities (id. ¶ 8), it does not purport to improve database
functionality. It simply stores variable amounts of data in a database.
In BSG, the patentee asserted that the claims provided non-abstract
improvements in database functionality by improving the quality of data
added to the database and the organization of information in the database
due to guiding users to select classifications and values based on summary
comparison usage historical information. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1287–88. The
court was not persuaded by these arguments because the benefits flowed
from performing the abstract idea on a well-known database structure rather
than from improvements in database functionality. Id. at 1288.
Here too, any improvement results from implementing abstract ideas
on generic data structures that store binary questions in a BOK without any
innovation to basic database structures or functions being recited in claim 1.
This situation is analogous to a method that used a database to collect
information from a patient and select a therapeutic treatment regime(s) using
a set of expert rules. SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555
F. App’x 950, 954–55 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The method recited an abstract idea
because it replicated mental processes that doctors can and do perform in
their heads using existing computers long in use. Id. at 955.

Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

16
Here, as claimed, the method largely automates methods performed
by hand. See Appeal Br. 16. The Specification describes the history of
capability maturity models being developed to measure optimization of
processes through the study of data gathered from organizations engaging in
those processes. Spec. ¶ 4. These CMM assessments have been used to
evaluate the capability of software contractors for the U.S. Department of
Defense and also are applied in other fields such as information technology,
human resources, and management processes. Id. Their use in marketing
analysis has been limited due to lack of uniformity and objectivity. Id. ¶ 7.
The claimed method recites a BOK that structures a uniform series of
ordered questions across attributes, dimensions, and capabilities. The BOK
functions as a generic structure that organizes data. See BSG, 899 F.3d at
1288 (information is stored and organized much like a conventional database
capable of indexing data as classifications, parameters, and values)
As the Federal Circuit held in Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec, “with
the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the
claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human,
mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec
Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). There, the claims received e-
mail messages on a computer network and used a rule engine to apply rules
from a database of business rules to determine a set of actions to apply to the
e-mail message. Id. at 1316–17. Here, the claimed method presents binary
questions in an ordered format and records answers to score attributes.
For the foregoing reasons, we determine that claim 1 recites the
abstract idea of mathematical calculations, certain methods of organizing
human activity, and mental processes identified above.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

17
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Revised Step 2A, Prong Two). Appellant argues that the
claims include “specific technical details concerning the implementation of
the invention which limit it to the practical application of communicating,
processing, and calculating specific types of data to create a specific
graphical display at a client device.” Appeal Br. 18. Appellant argues that a
CMM processor in communication with a client computing device, a BOK
in communication with the CMM processor, and a normative database in
communication with the CMM processor provide such implementation
details in claim 1. Id.
Appellant argues that the BOK contains a core set including business
challenges, business attributes, and associated questions and also comprises
industry knowledge, channel knowledge, and geography knowledge that are
organized to perform the claimed computations. Id. Appellant argues that
the normative database tracks peer group averages and leader data of plural
organizations and is dynamic because it adds data for new organizations for
each iteration. Id. at 18–19. Appellant further argues that the BOK and
normative database are recited as unconventional data structures analogous
to the database held to be patent-eligible in Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d
3127 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Id. at 20–21.
We are not persuaded that the claimed CMM processor, BOK, and
normative database are recited at a level of particularity or improvement to
integrate the abstract idea recited in claim 1 into a practical application. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

18
The CMM processor communicates with a client computing device
and BOK. The CMM processor obtains questions from the BOK and sends
the questions to the client computer and then receives an answer to a binary
question from the client computer until a “no” answer is received from the
client computing device. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). Then, the CMM
processor writes the current attribute level (level of the last “yes” answer)
into a normalized database that communicates with the CMM processor. Id.
at 27–28. The CMM processor calculates a gap for a marketing capability
attribute and writes that gap into the normalized database. Id. at 28. The
CMM processor also calculates a dimension MMQ by summing, dividing,
and normalizing current attribute levels for each marketing dimension and
each of the plurality of organizations in the normative database. Id. at 28–
29. These steps recite generic computer functions of a processor.
The Specification describes the CMM processor 10 as follows. It may
be implemented in hardware as a computing device that is programmed by
means of instructions to perform the various functionality described herein.
Spec. ¶ 56. It may be implemented as a standard computer server, a group
of servers, part of a rack server system “as are well known in the art.” Id. It
may be implemented in a personal computer such as a desktop computer or a
laptop computer. Id. It may include a microprocessor(s), operating in serial
or parallel processing modes, a memory, an input/output device such as a
display and keyboard, and a storage device such as a solid-state drive or a
magnetic hard drive that are interconnected by a bus and mounted on a
common PC board or separate PC boards. Id. ¶ 57. The microprocessor(s)
executes instructions read into memory from a storage device implemented
in hardware, firmware, software, or any combination. Id.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

19
Thus, the CMM processor is claimed and described as a generic
computer component that performs generic functions of communicating with
a client computer, performing operations and calculations, communicating
with a BOK, and communicating with a normative database. It obtains data
from the BOK and writes data into the normative database. It is not claimed
or described as an improvement to computers or another technical field. It is
not a particular machine or manufacture integral to claim 1 given its generic
description and functionality. It does not transform an article to a different
state or thing or otherwise apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The fact that the CMM processor is used and claimed to perform steps
of the recited abstract idea does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application or otherwise make the abstract idea patent-eligible, at least not
on that basis. “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); see id. at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or reformulating
an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); see RecogniCorp,
LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one
abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does
not render the claim non-abstract.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract
idea is still an abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793
F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved an abstract idea, but
not a computer’s performance, were held unpatentable).
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

20
Mere recitation of concrete, tangible components such as a processor
is not sufficient to make abstract ideas performed on or with that processor
patent-eligible. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. . . . [I]if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a
mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract ‘on . . . a computer,’ . . . that
addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”) (citation omitted).
Here, the focus of claim 1 is not on a technical advance in processors.
Rather, it focuses on performance of an abstract idea for which a processor
is invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
So too, the BOK and normative database are recited as generic data
structures that perform generic functions of storing data. The BOK stores
the data as an ordered set of questions related to an organization’s marketing
capability according to dimensions, capabilities, and attributes. Spec. ¶ 28.
Industry, channel, and geography knowledge argued by Appellant (Appeal
Br. 18) are not recited in claim 1. The normative database is claimed as a
structure that stores data. It contains assessment scores (current and target)
for organizations and organizational information. Id. ¶ 35.
“Information as such is an intangible” and collecting, analyzing, and
displaying that information, without more, is an abstract idea. See Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353–54 and citing similar decisions
holding that displaying different types or sets of information from various
sources on a generic display is abstract absent a specific improvement to the
way computers or other technologies operate).

Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

21
As the Supreme Court held in Alice, “[n]early every computer will
include a ‘communications controller’ and a ‘data storage unit’ capable of
performing the basic calculation, storage, and transmission functions
required by the method claims.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. It also has been
held that generic computer components such as an “interface,” “network,”
and “database” fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Serv. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–
25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims reciting an “interface,” “network,”
and a “database” are nevertheless directed to an abstract idea); see also
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that a “database” and “a communication
medium” “are all generic computer elements”); BuySAFE v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.Cir.2014) ( “That a computer receives and sends
the information over a network —with no further specification—is not even
arguably inventive.”).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the decision in
Enfish supports a contrary conclusion. See Appeal Br. 20. In Enfish, the
court held that a claim to a data storage and retrieval system for a computer
memory was not directed to an abstract idea because the referential database
involved more than storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical
table. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336–37. The claims were directed to a self-
referential table that functioned differently than a conventional database
structure. Id. at 1337. The claimed self-referential table was a technological
improvement that provided increased flexibility, faster search times, and
smaller memory requirements. Id. Thus, the claims reciting that referential
database were not directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

22
Here, Appellant has not identified a similar improvement in database
structure or function, and we find no such improvement in claim 1. If there
is a technological improvement to the MMC processor, BOK, and normative
database, it is not recited in claim 1. Using these components to perform the
steps of the abstract idea recited in claim 1 is not enough as discussed above.
Appellant also argues that the MMC processor, BOK, and normative
database recite technical details that limit claim 1 to a practical application.
Appeal Br. 18–21. As discussed above, using generic components as tools
to perform generic data functions of the abstract ideas is not sufficient to
integrate those ideas. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (“We have
repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not
even arguably inventive are ‘insufficient to pass the test of an inventive
concept in the application’ of an abstract idea.”) (citations omitted).
Constructing at the CMM processor a marketing maturity heat map
display also fails to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application.
Merely displaying the results of such abstract ideas does not integrate
them into a practical application as illustrated in Electric Power Group. In
addition to receiving and analyzing data using mathematical calculations,
claim 12 in Electric Power Group also displayed the results of that analysis
“in visuals, tables, charts, or combinations thereof, the data comprising at
least one of monitoring data, tracking data, historical data, prediction data,
and summary data.” Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1352. It also displayed
“concurrent visualization of measurements from the data streams and the
dynamic stability metrics.” Id. The court held that displaying information
that results from collection and organizing is “abstract as an ancillary part of
such collection and analysis.” Id. at 1354.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

23
In Core Wireless, the claims recited an improved interface for a
mobile device that displayed a summary of applications in unlaunched states
so that users could quickly navigate to desired applications from the start up
menu to find data of interest unlike known devices that required a user to
switch views many times and drill through many layers to find the right data
or functionality. Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The interface displayed “a limited
list of common functions and commonly accessed stored data” that were
accessible directly from the main menu “rather than using conventional user
interface methods to display a generic index on a computer.” Id. at 1363.
Here, claim 1 recites a marketing maturity heat map display with a
plurality of capability display areas and dimension display areas with first
and second colors applied to those areas to indicate gaps of different size. In
other words, the heat map display functions generically; it displays data.
We find more persuasive and applicable the decision in Trading
Technologies International v. IBG. There, the court held:
The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of
the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any
technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new
arrangement of generic information that assists traders in
processing information more quickly. . . . We conclude that the
claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and
offers to assist a trader to make an order.

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
The BOK and normative database are generic data structures. See
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (although data structures add particularity, they involve the
abstract idea of organizing, displaying, and manipulating data).
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

24
McRO illustrates how a display can integrate an abstract idea into a
practical application. The claims recited a specific process of automated lip-
synchronization of 3-D characters resulting from a specific order of rules as
sub-sequences of phonemes, timing, and the weight of visual expression at a
particular timing set by a morph weight set. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The
improvement produced accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial
expressions in animated characters. Id. at 1313; see also SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The claims in McRO
were directed to the creation of something physical—namely, the display of
‘lip synchronization and facial expressions’ of animated characters on
screens for viewing by human eyes. . . . The claimed improvement was to
how the physical display operated (to produce better quality images) . . . .”).
Here, claim 1 recites no comparable physical improvement. Instead,
it simply generates an image that depicts gaps that are calculated according
to the mental processes and mathematical calculations of the abstract idea
recited in claim 1. There is no indication in the claim or Specification that
this image represents an advance in computers or display technology or even
capability maturity assessments. Nor is there any indication that the method
uses anything other than a generic display to display this information. See
Spec. ¶ 57 (CMM processor 10 may include an input/output device such as a
display and a keyboard.).
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, we determine that claim 1
does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into
a practical application.

Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

25
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites elements, individually, or as
an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217–18. The second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim
limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56 (explaining that the second step of the Alice analysis considers
whether a claim adds a specific limitation beyond a judicial exception that is
not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, the limitations of claim 1 recite an abstract idea on a
generic processor and data structures that are described in the Specification
in a way that indicates they are well-understood, routine, and conventional
as discussed above. See also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; MPEP
§ 2106.05(d); Ans. 5–6 (limiting abstract ideas to a particular technological
environment with conventional computer, computing device, processor,
memory, display, and database does not provide significantly more).
Storing binary questions on a BOK structure and storing results of
assessments in a normative database, without any inventive structure or
functionality, does not recite an inventive concept. In SAP America, the
claims recited “a financial data database” and “a client database” (SAP Am.,
898 F.3d at 1165 (claim 22), id. n.2 (claims 1 and 11), id. at 1169 n.3 (claim
32)) and “a first data structure for storing a first return object having a first
time field and a first value field” and “a second data structure for storing a
second return object having a second time field and a second value field”
(id. at 1169 n.3 (claim 32)). The court found an inventive concept lacking.
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

26
Some of the claims require various databases and processors,
which are in the physical realm of things. But it is clear, from
the claims themselves and the specification, that these
limitations require no improved computer resources InvestPic
claims to have invented, just already available computers, with
their already available basic functions, to use as tools in
executing the claimed process.

Id. at 1169–70. Based on these findings, the Court determined that:
[T]his court has ruled many times that “such invocations of
computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive
are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the
application of an abstract idea,” Electric Power, 830 F.3d at
1355 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing cases). . . .
Under those decisions, an invocation of such computers and
networks is not enough to establish the required “inventive
concept” in application.

Id. at 1170; see BSG, 899 F.3d at 1287–88 (holding that the claims do not
recite a non-abstract improvement in database functionality or the quality
and organization of information and any benefits flow from performing an
abstract idea in conjunction with a well-known database structure).
Here, nothing in claim 1 or the Specification indicates that the BOK
stores or organizes binary questions in an inventive manner that is efficient
for their application. The same holds true for the normative database.
Nor is there anything unconventional about the “ordered combination”
of the elements of claim 1 that is not merely the sum of the parts. See In re
TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding that the claims interpreted in light of
the specification required off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and
display technology used to gather, send, and present desired information and
“displaying concurrent visualization” required readily-available displays).
Appeal 2019-005891
Application 14/338,172

27
Accordingly, we determine that the claims do not recite any elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the abstract ideas into patent eligible subject matter.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 8–15, 20–
23, 25–28
101 Eligibility 1, 8–15, 20–
23, 25–28

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