ADP, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 12, 2021

2021000901 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 12, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
16/459,149 07/01/2019 Agatha Kurjanowicz ES2015002-2-CNT 1830
126105 7590 07/12/2021
Duke W. Yee
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/12/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AGATHA KURJANOWICZ
and DOMINIC GADOURY
__________________

Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, 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 1–25, which are all of the pending claims.
See Appeal Br. 4. 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 Automatic Data Processing, Inc. as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to analyzing skills of persons to identify skills that
are needed to perform operations of an organization and that meet a certain
standard of performance. See Spec. ¶¶ 2, 39–46, 60–70, 85, 113–123, 177.
The skills include sales, technology, business, and leadership. Id. ¶ 135.
Claims 1, 14, 19, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method, comprising:
identifying using a cluster identifier of a skill
analyzer of a computer system:
a first cluster of skills;
a second cluster of skills; and
a standard;
identifying using the cluster identifier of the skill
analyzer of the computer system a third cluster of skills from a
graph of people, wherein people of the graph of people
comprise an organization, and the graph of people comprises
information about skills of the people;
comparing using a comparator of an analysis
generator of the skill analyzer of the computer system the third
cluster of skills to the standard to form a comparison, wherein
the third cluster of skills is the first cluster of skills, the graph of
people is a first graph, the standard is the second cluster of
skills, and comparing the third cluster of skills to the standard
comprises identifying a difference based on the first cluster of
skills being different than the second cluster of skills; and
enabling using a skill identifier of the skill
analyzer of the computer system performance of an operation
for the organization based on the comparison.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1–25 are rejected as directed to a judicial exception to
35 U.S.C. § 101 without significantly more.

Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

3
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1–25
Appellant largely argues the claims as a group. Appeal Br. 12–22.
We select claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
The Examiner determines that the steps of identifying, identifying,
comparing, and enabling in claim 1 recite certain methods of organizing
human activity associated with managing personal behavior, relationships,
or interactions between people and mental processes related to performing
observations or evaluations in the mind. Final Act. 5–6. The Examiner
reasons that these steps identify and compare skills for the performance of
organizational skill management operations of hiring, benefits, payroll, team
formation, administration, performance review, research, analysis, product
development, marketing, and other operations. Ans. 3–4.
The Examiner determines that the additional elements of a computer
system and skill analyzer do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application because they are generic computing components that amount to
no more than instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and
merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment. Final Act. 7; Ans. 5–8. The Examiner determines that these
components are described as generic elements that may be implemented in
software, hardware, firmware, or a combination. Final Act. 6. Also, the
Examiner determines that these generic components are not significantly
more than the abstract idea or a technological advance used to overcome a
problem arising in computer networks but instead focus on managing skills
in an organization, and the ordered combination adds nothing not already
present when considering the elements individually. Final Act. 8; Ans. 8–9.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

4
Principles of Law
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.2 Id. at 52–55.

2 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

5
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Revised Guidance Step 1
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a statutory category of invention,
namely, a process. See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity by managing personal behavior, relationships,
and interactions between people for business relations that include marketing
and sales activities by steps that comprise mental processes. Final Act. 5–6;
Ans. 3–4; see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The method analyzes the skills of people in organizations to identify
skills needed to perform organization operations such as sales, marketing,
hiring, business planning, product development and analysis, payroll, team
formation, hiring, benefits, and other business operations. Spec. ¶¶ 2–14,
39–46, 60–70, 85, 113–123, 177. Organizations can include companies,
corporations, cities, social groups, teams, government entities, charities,
partnerships, educational groups, and other entities. Id. ¶ 44. Skills include
sales, technology, business, and leadership. Id. ¶ 135.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

6
Such personnel management, resource planning, and forecasting is
similar to other concepts held to recite an abstract idea when implemented in
a generic computer environment that merely collects, analyzes, and displays
business and non-business information relevant to an end user. See In re
Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 998 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In Downing, the resource
planning method was used to forecast operations and develop strategic plans.
Id. at 990. Here, claim 1 manages people in an organization to identify and
organize their skills that are needed to perform operations that are forecast
for the organization. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–14, 39–46, 60–70, 85, 113–123, 177.
Organizing relationships of people in an organization based on their
identified, assessed skills to perform organization operations is an abstract
idea as identified above. See In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2009) (organizing business and legal relationships in the structuring of a
sales force or marketing company simply manipulates public or private legal
obligations or relationships and business risks as abstractions); see also In re
Morinville, 767 F. App’x 964, 969 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (claims to reorganizing
an organization to conform with function and managing access to business
processes based on the organizational structure is a conventional business
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and an abstract idea
when implemented on generic computers that are used “merely as a tool”).
Here, the Specification indicates that identifying skills of people in an
organization needed for successful performance of business operations is a
known business practice for organizing human activity. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–10.
The cluster identifier 200 identifies clusters (i.e., groups) of skills of people
in an organization graph based on their relationships that impart skills to the
group. Id. ¶¶ 66–75, Figs. 2–4.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

7
The analysis generator and comparator identify groups of skills for a
group of people in first and second clusters and identify differences in skills
between a first and second cluster. Spec. ¶¶ 85, 114–116. A standard may
be a standard of a standards committee, a specification, a group of rules, a
requirements document, a desired set of skills, a cluster of skills, or other
suitable parameters to compare to cluster skills. Id. ¶ 55. This generic
description confirms that claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above.
See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds
the information-based category of abstract ideas.”); Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing certain data in a collected data
set, and storing recognized data are well-known activities and “humans have
always performed these functions”); see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[P]arsing and comparing of claims 1–3
and 9 are similar to the collecting and recognizing of Content Extraction . . .
and the classifying in an organized manner of [In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016)].”).
Here, a cluster identifier identifies clusters of skills and a comparator
compares a cluster to a standard to identify a difference between clusters.
As claimed, the steps replicate mental processes analysists would perform to
identify skills in an organization. See Spec. ¶¶ 7, 10; Accenture Global
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1344–45 (Fed.
Cir. 2013) (generating organization tasks based on rules is an abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

8
It is well-settled that “filtering content is an abstract idea because it is
a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar
to concepts previously found to be abstract.” BASCOM Global Internet
Svcs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Comparing “a third cluster of skills” to a “standard” can be performed as a
mental process. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtaining information about Internet credit
card transactions, making a map of the credit card numbers, and using the
map to determine if a transaction is valid can be performed entirely in the
human mind including logical reasoning steps by writing a list of credit card
transactions from a particular IP address and observing transactions to see if
they use different credit cards and user names at the same IP address).
Claims in Downing, Ferguson, Electric Power, Content Extraction,
Berkheimer, and BASCOM recited computer-implemented methods and
systems. Yet, they recited abstract ideas of organizing human activity and
mental processes as discussed above. Without more, a generic computer
implementation without any technical details does not preclude a claim from
reciting an abstract idea as Appellant contends. See Appeal Br. 13–14;
Reply Br. 2–3. “That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even
when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme
Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409
U.S. 63 (1972)). That a computer and its components exist in the physical
realm does not end the § 101 inquiry; otherwise, patent eligibility would
depend on the draftsman’s art. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224; see Ans. 4–5.
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

9
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not
improve computers or other technology or implement the abstract idea with
a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Nor does claim 1 include
elements that transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or
thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a
particular technological environment. Id. at 55; Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 6–8.
Appellant argues that the additional elements provide technological
elements that are meaningful limitations that achieve a practical application.
Appeal Br. 15. In particular, Appellant argues that skill analyzer 116 and its
cluster identifier, skill identifier, and comparator represent a technological
environment that imposes a meaningful limit on the claim and a practical
application. Id. at 15–19 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 47, 48, 67–72, 114–116, 103–106).
The Specification describes these components generically to perform
generic functions. The “skill analyzer 116 may be implemented in software,
hardware, firmware or a combination thereof.” Spec. ¶ 47. If implemented
in software, the skill analyzer may be implemented in program code that is
configured to run on hardware such as a processor unit. Id. “When
firmware is used, the operations performed by skill analyzer 116 may be
implemented in program code and data and stored in persistent memory to
run on a processor unit.” Id. “When hardware is employed, the hardware
may include circuits that operate to perform the operations in skill analyzer
116.” Id. Generic circuits are described. Id. ¶ 48; see Ans. 6.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

10
The generic configurations described for the skill analyzer confirm
that the skill analyzer does not represent a technological innovation or an
improvement to computers, hardware, or software needed for integration.
Similarly, cluster identifier 200 uses clustering parameters 306 as
options to identify cluster 128 from graph 130 where cluster 128 includes a
group of skills for a group of people. Spec. ¶¶ 67, 68. “Cluster identifier
200 identifies group of skills 302 based on the skills in the group of skills
308 that group of people 304 has. Cluster identifier 200 identifies group of
skills 302 from information 138 in graph 130 about skills 126 for group of
people 304.” Id. ¶ 70. Cluster identifier 200 identifies group of people 316
with a relationship to at least one person in group of people 304. Id. ¶ 71.
Parameters may be selected from efficiency, performance, progress, quality,
or other suitable things that can be measured. Id. ¶ 79. Measurements are
used for plans, processes, products, or other suitable organization items. Id.
This description of the cluster identifier confirms it does not represent
a technical innovation or improvement to computers, hardware, or software
needed to integrate the abstract idea.
The claimed “comparator” of analysis generator 202 “identifies group
of skills 808 for group of people 806 for first cluster 800” and “may identify
group of skills 808 for group of people 806 from at least one of information
104, graph 130, or some other suitable source.” Id. ¶ 114. Comparator 500
identifies differences in skills 812 between first cluster 800 and second
cluster 802. Id. ¶ 116. Comparator 500 also identifies difference in values
510 between values 410 for cluster 128 and values 506 for standard 142. Id.
A difference in skills 812 may indicate a particular skill is missing from
group of skills 808. Id. ¶ 117.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

11
This description confirms the generic nature of the comparator and the
absence of a technical innovation or improvement to computers, hardware,
or software by this element needed to integrate the abstract idea.
The skill identifier is described in equally generic terms as applying a
group of rules in policy 148 to evidence 146. Id. ¶ 104. Skill identifier 206
may determine whether people are authors of evidence 146 by matching
identification information for authorship of evidence 146 with identification
information for people 110 to implement a rule in policy 148. Id. ¶ 105. In
another rule in policy 148, skill identifier 206 verifies that evidence 146
shows a level of skill exceeding a minimum threshold for skills 126 shown
in evidence 146. Id. ¶ 106.
This description confirms the generic nature of the skill identifier and
its functions without any technical innovation or improvements to
computers, hardware, or software needed to integrate the abstract idea.
Even if the Specification described improvements to computers or
technology, these features are not recited in claim 1. See Ericsson Inc. v.
TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed
to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when
identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect,
Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 769–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Even if ChargePoint’s
specification had provided, for example, a technical explanation of how to
enable communication over a network for device interaction . . . , the claim
language here would not require those details. Instead, the broad claim
language would cover any mechanism for implementing network
communication.”).
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

12
Here, the Specification confirms that the additional elements of a
computer system, cluster identifier of a skill analyzer, comparator of an
analysis generator, and skill identifier are generic computer components that
perform generic functions recited in claim 1. The elements do not improve
computers or other technology. Rather, they are used as tools to implement
the abstract idea identified under Prong One.
Accenture analyzed a similar claim to a system for generating tasks
with an event processor triggered by events associated with a change of
information to send an event trigger to a task engine that identified rules in a
task library database associated with the event to apply the information to
the identified rules to determine tasks to be completed and populate a task
assistant with the determined tasks to be completed for transmission to a
client component. Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1338–39. The claim transmitted a
determined task to a task assistant to display the task for a user to perform
and generated a record of the completed task. Id. at 1339. The court found
the claim limitations to be a database of tasks and a set of rules to apply to a
task on a given event as implemented on generalized software components
arranged to implement an abstract concept of generating tasks based on rules
to be completed on occurrence of an event on a computer. Id. at 1344–45.
Although the specification contained software implementation guidelines
(that are lacking here), “the complexity of the implementing software or the
level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting only an
abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.” Accenture, 728
F.3d at 1345. The same logic applies to claim 1 here where the additional
limitations recite generic components that perform generic data processing
functions to apply rules, compare data, and perform organization operations.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

13
Essentially, these additional elements automate processes that analysts
and others perform in an organization to identify operations to perform in an
organization and people and their skills needed to complete the project. See
Spec. ¶¶ 2 (“[T]he present disclosure relates to a method and apparatus for
more efficiently analyzing information about skills for people in a computer
system.”), 7 (for a marketing project an analysis identifies other marketing
projects for similar products and the people who were involved to identify
the skills of those people), 10 (analysts send out surveys to ask people in the
organization about information needed but surveys are often lengthy, time-
consuming, and expensive); 12 (“The computer system analyzes the cluster
of the skills to form an analysis, enabling performing an operation for the
organization based on the analysis of the cluster of the skills identified.”).
“[T]he need to perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical
problem.” Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2019); see OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (“But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more
quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266,
1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he computer simply performs more efficiently
what could otherwise be accomplished manually.”); see also Alice, 573 U.S.
at 225 (the claims do no more than instruct the practitioner to implement the
abstract idea on a generic computer by performing electronic recordkeeping
by using a computer to obtain data, adjust account balances, and issue
automated instructions to create and maintain “shadow” accounts); Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (generic
information acquisition and organization steps did not convert abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

14
Here, claim 1 similarly automates a fundamental business practice that
organizes human activities (skills), relationships, and interactions of people
as electronic recordkeeping of skills of people in an organization. It obtains
skills data from clusters, adjusts balances or accounts of skills, and issues
automated instructions to perform an organization operation. No technical
details are claimed or even described to achieve this result and integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55; BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1286 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“We have consistently held, however, that claims are not saved
from abstraction merely because they recite components more specific than
a generic computer.”; citing precedent holding claims to be directed to an
abstract idea despite reciting telephone units, servers, and a scanner); In re
Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[C]laim 221 . . . is, at
bottom, directed to the collection, organization, grouping, and storage of
data using techniques such as conducting a survey or crowdsourcing. As the
Board correctly concluded, this claim is directed to a method of organizing
human activity––a hallmark of claims directed to abstract ideas.”).
Here, claim 1 automates processes that analysts perform using surveys
and known information gathering techniques to identify skills of people to
perform organization operations. The generic additional elements can be
implemented in hardware, software, or a combination as tools to perform the
abstract idea without improving computers, networks, or other technology.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1356 (“[T]he essentially result-focused, functional
character of claim language has been a frequent feature of claims held
ineligible under § 101, especially in the area of using generic computer and
network technology to carry out economic transactions.”); Spec. ¶¶ 47, 162.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

15
“[T]he claims here do not ‘ha[ve] the specificity required to transform
a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving
it.’” Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328 (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) (“Merely claiming ‘those functions in
general terms, without limiting them to technical means for performing the
functions that are arguably an advance,’ does not make a claim eligible at
step one.”) (citation omitted); Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network
Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The only improvements
identified in the specification are generic speed and efficiency improvements
inherent in applying the use of a computer to any task. . . . This is not an
improvement in the functioning of the computer itself.”); Elec. Power, 830
F.3d at 1355 (“Inquiry therefore must turn to any requirements for how the
desired result is achieved.”).
Generic speed and efficiency improvements resulting from a generic
computer implementation do not improve computer functions. Customedia,
951 F.3d at 1365; Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955
F.3d 971, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (using well-known computer components to
collect, analyze, and present data does not render claims any less abstract);
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (automation of manual processes using generic computers is not a
patentable improvement to computer technology); see Spec. ¶¶ 2–15 (the
present disclosure analyzes skills for an organization to identify clusters of
skills and relationships between people as analysts did in the past).
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

16
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that
are known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers
whether a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” activity).
Individually, the computer system, skill analyzer, cluster identifier,
comparator, and skill identifier each represent a generic component that
performs well-understood, routine, and conventional acts to implement the
abstract idea without adding an inventive concept. The generic description
of these element indicates they are well-known enough that further details
are not required to understand their structure or functions, and they do not
improve computers or other technology. See Spec. ¶¶ 46–49, 60–67, 114–
123 (the skill analyzer, which comprises the cluster identifier, skill identifier,
and analysis generator/comparator, can be hardware, software, and/or
firmware comprising known generic components). Without these generic
elements nothing remains in the claims but the abstract idea. See Bancorp,
687 F.3d at 1280. “[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, 899 F.3d
at 1290; Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1326 (reciting standard, functional computer
components does not specify how they control access to a platform).
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

17
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the
limitations are considered individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); See Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (using known, conventional computer, network,
and display technology to gather, send, and present desired information was
not inventive); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874
F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (the conventional ordering of steps of
processing data, routing it, controlling it, and monitoring its reception with
conventional technology to achieve a desired result by complying with
network communication protocols in response to user signals without
specifying protocol rules or parameters of user signals was not inventive);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1329
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (sending and receiving information to execute a database
search and receiving a request for information and delivering records are
routine computer functions and well-understood, conventional activities).
Nor has Appellant shown that the elements perform functions that are
innovative or unconventional. Even if steps are groundbreaking, innovative,
or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers
or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter
how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance
lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged
innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature
is ineligible for patenting.”).
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

18
Appellant argues that the claims are necessarily rooted in computer
technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer technology of insufficient information about the skills of people in
organizations in computer-implemented models. Appeal Br. 19–20 (citing
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
DDR Holdings illustrates why claim 1 here is not patent eligible.
DDR claimed a new web server configuration. If a website visitor clicked
on an advertisement for a merchant’s product on a host’s website, the visitor
was directed to a hybrid web page that combined the look and feel elements
of the host website with product information of the merchant’s website on a
third party outsource provider’s server. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257–58.
Here, claim 1 simply recites a conventional sequence of steps to
collect and analyze data and use the results of the collection and analysis to
perform an operation of the organization without claiming any technological
advance to computers, networks, or technology. See Bozeman, 955 F.3d at
980 (an ordered sequence of receiving and storing information, analyzing the
information, and sending a notification upon completion of the analysis only
recited a logical sequence of steps rather than an inventive concept); Versata
Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (steps
of arranging, storing, retrieving, sorting, eliminating, and determining were
conventional, routine, and well-known basic functions of a computer).
The Specification indicates that conventional surveys may not provide
desired information (Spec. ¶ 38) but analysis of clusters of skills provides a
technical solution that is “at least one of more quickly, less costly, or more
accurate in obtaining a desired result of operation 114 as compared to using
current techniques” (id. ¶ 57).
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

19
However, generic speed and efficiency improvements from a generic
computer implementation are not inventive. See Customedia, 951 F.3d at
1365; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d
1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Nor, in addressing the second step of Alice,
does claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the
abstract idea on a computer provide a sufficient inventive concept.”).
Claims 21–25 recite a generic display system and graphical user
interface that perform generic functions of “visualization of information”
and receive user input. Appeal Br. 29–31. Displaying results of abstract
processes is extra-solution activity rather than an inventive concept. Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“And we have recognized that merely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is
abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”).
As our reviewing court held in a similar situation:
The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a
way that helps them process information more quickly . . . not
on improving computers or technology. The claims require
displaying P&L values along an axis, displaying an indicator
representing market information at a location on the axis, and
moving the indicator to a second location. The “tool for
presentation” here . . . is simply a generic computer. . . . While
the fact that an invention is run on a generic computer does not,
by itself, “doom the claims,” . . . the claims here fail because
arranging information along an axis does not improve the
functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently,
or solve any technological problem. Like Electric Power, the
purported advance “is a process of gathering and analyzing
information of a specified content, then displaying the results,
and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for
performing those functions.”
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

20
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (citations omitted); see Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“[M]erely
selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the
information-based category of abstract ideas.”).
In Core Wireless, an application summary window was accessible
from a menu. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2018); see Appeal Br. 20–21. It listed a limited set of data that
was selectable to launch an application to enable data to be seen in the
application. A summary window was displayed while the applications were
unlaunched. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362–63. It improved efficiency of
electronic devices by presenting a list of functions and commonly accessed
stored data that can be accessed directly from a main menu on a small screen
without scrolling and switching views to find the data and functionality.
Here, claims 21–25 display data to help users visualize information
and interact with a skill analyzer. Spec. ¶¶ 50, 128–134; see Intellectual
Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1370 (an interactive interface was a generic computer
element that described a generic web server with attendant software tasked
with providing web pages to and communicating with users’ computers but
did not provide an inventive concept); Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1347
(“The asserted improvement here is the presentation of information in
conjunction with other information. Such an information-based
improvement is not an improvement ‘rooted in computer technology.’”).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–25, which fall
therewith.
Appeal 2021-000901
Application 16/459,149

21
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–25 101 Eligibility 1–25
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