ADP, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 16, 2020

2020002633 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 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.
14/613,510 02/04/2015 Keith Wilson Fulton ES2014040.2 2524
126105 7590 07/16/2020
Duke W. Yee
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 190809
Dallas, TX 75219
EXAMINER
MISIASZEK, AMBER ALTSCHUL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3626
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/16/2020 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KEITH WILSON FULTON
____________________

Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2018). Appellant identifies
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
“visualizing and managing skills for employees of an organization.” Spec.
¶ 2. Throughout the Specification, Appellant describes this as managing a
task. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 6 (“a method is present for managing a task”), 8 (“a
computer program product for managing a task”), 70 (describing a word
cloud generator as enabling an operator to manage a task). In a disclosed
and claimed embodiment, characteristics of persons in an organization may
be displayed as a word cloud. Spec. ¶ 37. Visual cues (e.g., font size, or
color of the words) may be used to indicate a relative weight of a particular
characteristic within the word cloud. Spec. ¶¶ 48, 115. According to the
Specification, an operator of the claimed system, may initiate a function to
be performed on a set of characteristic word clouds for different individuals
to generate a skill gap. Spec. ¶ 146. The results of the function (e.g.,
comparison, aggregation, or difference) may be used to generate a job
description. Spec. ¶ 146.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method for managing a task, the method comprising:
displaying, by a computer system, a first word cloud in a
graphical user interface on a display system in the computer
system, wherein the first word cloud is a graphical display of first
words representing first characteristics of people;
displaying, by a computer system, a second word cloud in
the graphical user interface, wherein the second word cloud is a
graphical display of second words representing second
characteristics of people;
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

3
performing, by the computer system, a group of functions
on the word clouds based on user input to the graphical user
interface to determine a relative difference between first
weighting values for the first words and second weighting values
for the second words;
displaying, by the computer system, a resulting word
cloud in the graphical user interface, wherein the resulting word
cloud is displayed with resulting characteristics that results from
the relative difference between the first weighting values and the
second weighting values, wherein the resulting characteristics in
the resulting word cloud indicate a skill gap between the first
characteristics and second characteristics;
generating, by the computer system, a job description
based on the resulting characteristics, wherein the job description
includes the resulting characteristics indicated by the skill gap on
displayed in the resulting word cloud;
displaying, by the computer system, the job description in
the graphical user interface; and
performing, by the computer system, a human resources
task based on the job description and the resulting word cloud.

The Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4–7.

ANALYSIS2
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that the pending claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Appeal Br. 9–12; Reply

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
August 20, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed February 18, 2020
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed December 20, 2019 (“Ans.”);
and the Final Office Action, mailed March 20, 2019 (“Final Act.”), from
which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

4
Br. 2–3. In particular, Appellant argues the Examiner overgeneralizes the
claims as merely being directed to “managing a task.” Appeal Br. 10; contra
Spec. ¶ 6 (“a method is present for managing a task”). Instead, Appellant
asserts the claims are directed to “a specific implementation of a solution to
a problem in the software arts.” Appeal Br. 9, 11–12. Specifically,
Appellant argues the claims provide an improved user interface for
electronic devices. Appeal Br. 11–12 (citing Core Wireless Licensing
S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office has published revised guidance
for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, specifically
with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Office
Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter)
then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed to one of the judicially
recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this inquiry, we must “look
at the ‘focus of the claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the
claim’s ‘character as a whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.”
Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257–58 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Per the Office Guidance, this first inquiry has two prongs of
analysis: (i) does the claim recite a judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea),
and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. Under the Office Guidance, if the
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

5
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, see infra, the
claim passes muster under § 101. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
If the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., recites a judicial
exception and does not integrate the exception into a practical application),
the next step is to determine whether any element, or combination of
elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217; Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, we conclude Appellant’s claims recite an abstract idea because
they recite mental processes. If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind. See
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith 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.”); see also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (holding that the incidental use of a “computer” or “computer readable
medium” does not make a claim otherwise directed to a process that “can be
performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” patent
eligible); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
71 (2012) (explaining mental processes are not patentable); Office
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–53 nn.14–15.
More specifically, Appellant’s claims are directed to performing an
evaluation indicative of a skill gap between different sets of characteristics
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

6
to generate a job description based on the characteristics evaluation.3 This is
consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed embodiment. See
Spec. ¶¶ 2 (describing the embodiments as relating to “a graphical user
interface used in visualizing and managing skills for employees of an
organization”), 6 (describing an embodiment as “managing a task” wherein a
computer system performs a group of functions on words for characteristics
of people), 37 (describing an embodiment as “managing a database of
characteristics” for people in an organization), 75 (describing the task being
managed as “identifying a skill gap in a position or between people 106 in
organization 108” and using the characteristics, represented as word clouds,
“to form other tasks such as generating a job description”). Performing an
evaluation indicative of a skill gap between different sets of characteristics
to generate a job description based on the characteristics evaluation is an
evaluation that can be performed by a human, mentally or with pen and
paper.
Consistent with our Office Guidance and case law, we conclude that
performing an evaluation indicative of a skill gap between different sets of

3 Although we describe the abstract idea slightly differently than the
Examiner, the Examiner’s characterization of the claims (determining the
claims are directed to “managing a task” (see Final Act. 4)) is not erroneous.
“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of
abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The level of abstraction an examiner uses to describe an abstract idea
need not “impact the patentability analysis.” Apple, 842 F.3d at 1241. That
is true here. Regardless of the level of generality used to describe the
abstract idea recited, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Cf.
Accenture Glob. Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Although not as broad as the district court’s
abstract idea of organizing data, it is nonetheless an abstract concept.”).
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

7
characteristics to generate a job description based on the characteristics
evaluation is a mental process and, thus, an abstract idea. See Office
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “analyzing
information by steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical
algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes within the
abstract-idea category”); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding the
claimed method of processing information from various sources (i.e., hard
copy documents) was directed to the abstract idea of “1) collecting data, 2)
recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that
recognized data in a memory”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding the concept of
the pending claims “related to the collection, display, and manipulation of
data” to be abstract); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d
1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding “[a] process that start[s] with data,
add[s] an algorithm, and end[s] with a new form of data [is] directed to an
abstract idea.” (citing Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc.,
758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014))); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys.,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding claims directed
to “collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a
user when misuse is detected” to be mental processes within the abstract-
idea category).
Claim 1 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite the concept of performing an evaluation indicative of a
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

8
skill gap between different sets of characteristics to generate a job
description based on the characteristics evaluation, emphasized in italics:
1. A method for managing a task, the method comprising:
displaying, by a computer system, a first word cloud in a
graphical user interface on a display system in the computer
system, wherein the first word cloud is a graphical display of first
words representing first characteristics of people;
displaying, by a computer system, a second word cloud in
the graphical user interface, wherein the second word cloud is a
graphical display of second words representing second
characteristics of people;
performing, by the computer system, a group of functions
on the word clouds based on user input to the graphical user
interface to determine a relative difference between first
weighting values for the first words and second weighting values
for the second words;
displaying, by the computer system, a resulting word
cloud in the graphical user interface, wherein the resulting word
cloud is displayed with resulting characteristics that results from
the relative difference between the first weighting values and the
second weighting values, wherein the resulting characteristics in
the resulting word cloud indicate a skill gap between the first
characteristics and second characteristics;
generating, by the computer system, a job description
based on the resulting characteristics, wherein the job
description includes the resulting characteristics indicated by
the skill gap on displayed in the resulting word cloud;
displaying, by the computer system, the job description in
the graphical user interface; and
performing, by the computer system, a human resources
task based on the job description and the resulting word cloud.
More particularly, the concept of performing an evaluation indicative
of a skill gap between different sets of characteristics to generate a job
description based on the characteristics evaluation comprises: (i) evaluating
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

9
a difference between different sets of characteristics, the difference
indicative of a skill gap between the sets of characteristics (i.e., the claimed
steps of performing a function on the sets of word clouds to determine a
relative difference between the values of the different sets of word clouds,
and displaying the resulting difference that indicates a skill gap between the
first and second word clouds); and (ii) generating a job description (i.e.,
forming a judgment or rendering an opinion) from the resulting identified
skill gap (i.e., the claimed step of generating a job description based on the
resulting characteristics).
Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify
whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see also Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Here, we find the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. More particularly, the claims do not
recite: (i) an improvement to the functionality of a computer or other
technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)); (ii) a “particular
machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
(iii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

10
(see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other meaningful limitation
(see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Rather, the additional limitations merely recite displaying the data sets
on which the evaluation is to be performed and displaying and applying the
results of the evaluation. Such pre- and post-solution activities are
insufficient to confer patent eligibility. See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that
“selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and
display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (recognizing “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”); Capital One, 850 F.3d at 1340 (determining that the pending
claims were directed to “collecting, displaying, and manipulating data,” and,
accordingly, patent-ineligible).
The claims do not recite an improvement to the functionality of a
computer or other technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
As the court in Enfish explained, “the first step in the Alice inquiry . . . asks
whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in
computer capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an
‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish,
LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also
Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 956 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (explaining that the claims did not focus on the technical
implementation of details of the zooming functionality, but merely recited
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

11
the results of the zoom and, therefore, did not provide any technological
advancement). As discussed above, the focus of the pending claims is on
performing an evaluation indicative of a skill gap between different sets of
characteristics to generate a job description based on the characteristics
evaluation and the recited computing elements are invoked merely as a tool.
See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36. Further, we note that using a computer to
perform tasks more quickly or efficiently does not confer patent eligibility
on an otherwise ineligible abstract idea. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v.
Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
(“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.”); see also Ans. 6–7.
In addition, Appellant’s reliance on Core Wireless (see Appeal
Br. 11–12; Reply Br. 3) is unavailing. In Core Wireless, the court concluded
the claims were not directed to an abstract idea, but rather were “directed to
an improved user interface for computing devices.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d
at 1362. More particularly, the court noted it was clear that the “claims are
directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly
those with small screens.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363 (emphasis
added). Here, the claims do not provide a solution to a technical limitation
of a graphical user interface, but merely use the graphical user interface to
display the sets of characteristics (i.e., word clouds) to be evaluated and the
results of such evaluation. The display of the word clouds or results of the
evaluation is not an improvement to the graphical user interface, but rather
to the end user (i.e., to the operator). See Spec. ¶¶ 70–71 (describing the
claimed embodiments allow an operator to manage a task, such as
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

12
generating a job description), 132 (“an operator may more efficiently
perform tasks in an organization”); see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (distinguishing between an
alleged improvement to the way a computer operates versus an improvement
to assist the end user); Ans. 5.
Additionally, we determine that the computer system, as recited and
applied in the claims, is not a particular machine sufficient to confer patent
eligibility to the judicial exception. At the outset, we note that whether a
judicial exception is performed by a particular machine may be a clue of
patent eligibility, but it is not a stand-alone test. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
593, 604 (2010); see also MPEP § 2106.05(b). Here, Appellant’s recited
computer system merely applies the judicial exception as does not qualify as
a particular machine. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
716–17 (Fed. Cir. 2014); see also Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc.,
793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (explaining that in order for a machine
to add significantly more, it must “play a significant part in permitting the
claimed method to be performed, rather than function solely as an obvious
mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly”); MPEP
§ 2106.05(b).
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea or
combination of abstract ideas, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice
to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as an
ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to “significantly more” than
the abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

13
79). As stated in the Office Guidance, many of the considerations to
determine whether the claims amount to “significantly more” under step two
of the Alice framework are already considered as part of determining
whether the judicial exception has been integrated into a practical
application. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Thus, at this point of our
analysis, we determine if the claims add a specific limitation, or combination
of limitations, that is not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in
the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
at a high level of generality. Office Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, Appellant’s claims do not recite specific limitations (alone or
when considered as an ordered combination) that are not well-understood,
routine, and conventional. Instead, the computer components (e.g., a
computer system, graphical user interface, and display system) and functions
(displaying information, receiving input from a user, and processing data)
are recited and described at a high level of generality. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 41,
45–46, 58, 149–158. As the Examiner finds (see Final Act. 7; Ans. 4–7), the
recited components and functions are well-understood, routine, and
conventional. Consistent with the Berkheimer Memorandum,4 we agree

4 On April 19, 2018, the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination
Policy issued a memorandum entitled: Changes in Examination Procedure
Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility
Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) (i.e., “the Berkheimer Memorandum”)
(discussing the Berkheimer decision) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF). Support
for a finding that an element was well-understood, routine, or conventional
may be shown by citation to one or more court decisions noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the element(s). See Berkheimer
Memorandum 3–4.
Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

14
with the Examiner’s findings that the claims merely recite generic computer
components (e.g., a computing device comprising a processor and memory)
performing generic computing functions that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional (e.g., receiving data, processing data, and presenting the
results of the data processing). See Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan
Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer
components, such as an “interface,” “network,” and “database,” fail to
satisfy the inventive concept requirement); Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (“Nearly
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.”); Customedia Techs.,
LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he
invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly
asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of what is well-
understood, routine, and conventional.’” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).
For the reasons discussed supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2020-002633
Application 14/613,510

15
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED