ALPINE ELECTRONICS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 14, 2021

2021000816 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 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.
15/410,310 01/19/2017 Chiaki Tazono 9333-823 (IWP15140-US) 5895
74989 7590 07/14/2021
BGL/ALPS ALPINE CO., LTD.,
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
WHITAKER, ANDREW B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/14/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte CHIAKI TAZONO
____________

Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Chiaki Tazono (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a
final rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19, the only claims pending in
the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way to acquire and present event
information via the Internet. Specification para. 2.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 13, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
13. An event information presenting method which is
performed by a control unit of an information processing
terminal, the control unit including a processing unit that
operates by executing programs stored in memory, the event
information presenting method comprising:
[1] causing an event information acquiring unit
of the control unit of the information processing
terminal
to analyze text information
which is present over the Internet
and

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed May 20, 2020) and the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed August 24, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed March 5, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Alpine Electronics, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
3

is obtained from a first website via an Internet
interface unit
by performing a search operation on various
websites
and
to acquire event information
from the first website about an event which is held;
[2] causing an event specifying information extracting unit
of the control unit of the information processing
terminal
to extract event specifying information
for specifying an event which is held on the basis
of the event information including an event name,
an event date, and/or an event venue;
[3] causing an additional information acquiring unit
of the control unit of the information processing
terminal
to search for and acquire additional information
corresponding to the specified event
from a specific web site via the Internet interface unit
by designating the event specifying information,
where the specific website is a second website that is
different than the first website
and
the additional information includes an image
corresponding to the specified event;
and
[4] causing a proposal information providing unit
of the control unit of the information processing
terminal
to create proposal information
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
4

including at least some of the event information
and at least some of the additional information
and
to provide the created proposal information to a user
by displaying the created proposal information on
a display unit;
[5] wherein location information
indicating a venue of an event corresponding to the
proposal information provided from the proposal
information providing unit
is transmitted to an onboard device
that performs a navigation operation of guiding
traveling of a vehicle along a travel route
to a destination corresponding to the location
information.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Black US 2009/0157312 A1 June 18, 2009
Ickman US 2012/0136689 A1 May 31, 2012
Devecka US 2012/0290977 A1 Nov. 15, 2012

Claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Devecka, Ickman, and Black.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
5

The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the prior art
describes the claim limitations.
FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Devecka
01.Devecka is directed to mobile device-optimized interactive icon-
based personal profile with an associated search, matching and
communication system for social network communities. Devecka
para. 2.
Ickman
02. Ickman is directed to social networks. Ickman para. 4.
03. Ickman describes creating an event, such as an offline meeting,
or an online activity. A user of the social network posts a set of
event details such as the date, time, location, and a description of
the intent of the event and the activities to be performed there.
The user and his or her contacts who have been invited to the
event (may view the event details of the event, may submit
comments regarding the event. Ickman paras. 22, 23.
Black
04.Black is directed to producing a route in conjunction with social
networking information. Black para. 10.
05.Black describes producing a route based upon social network
information. Information can be shared between users, such as a
user posting a comment on a profile of a friend, where the
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
6

comment becomes part of the profile. Various amounts of social
networking information can be used in route production. An
obtainment component can collect information that concerns a
user. The collected information can transfer to a fabrication
component that produces a route based at least in part upon the
collected social network information of the user. Black paras. 32,
33.
ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Initially, we construe the wherein clause limitation 5 of exemplary
claim 13.
wherein location information
indicating a venue of an event corresponding to the
proposal information provided from the proposal
information providing unit
is transmitted to an onboard device
that performs a navigation operation of guiding
traveling of a vehicle along a travel route
to a destination corresponding to the location
information.
Claim 13, fifth limitation.
This wherein clause includes a fifth step “location information . . . is
transmitted to an onboard device.” The nature of such location information
is further characterized as being indicative of an event venue, but this has no
functional effect on the transmission operation.
The wherein clause goes on to characterize the device as one that
performs some navigation operation. This is not part of a data transmission
operation the wherein clause adds to the claim. Thus, this is aspirational
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
7

rather than functional, describing only what one hopes the device would do
after the steps in the claim are complete. Also, the clause does not narrow or
specify the nature of “navigation operation of guiding traveling of a vehicle
along a travel route.” The word “navigation” is a noun adjective that simply
modifies the word “operation” without specifying the nature of such
modification. Any such operation, however minimal or primitive would be
within its scope, so long as it has some relationship to navigation of guiding
traveling of a vehicle along a travel route. This would include such
operations as receiving the data, analyzing data, or formatting data for
navigation. The phrase is not so specific as to suggest automation of a
vehicle, and encompasses data for human navigation of guiding traveling of
a vehicle along a travel route. The fact that no operation for performing
navigation is recited corroborates this construction.
Thus the wherein clause is construed as transmitting location data to a
device, the remainder being aspirational characterization of how data is
hoped to be interpreted and used after completion of the recited operations.

Claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 13, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
8

STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us?” To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
9

additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 13 recites analyzing, acquiring, extracting, and searching for event
data, creating proposal data, and transmitting data. Although limitation 5
recites that a device performs a navigation operation, this is aspirational
rather than functional and not a recited operational step. Acquiring data is
receiving data. Extracting and searching for data are rudimentary data
analysis. Creating data is generating data. Thus, claim 13 recites analyzing,
receiving, generating and transmitting data. None of the limitations recites
technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite
only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 13 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
10

human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. Like
those concepts, claim 13 recites the concept of organizing event attendance.
Specifically, claim 13 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in
advising one to obtain event information to guide one getting to the event.
The advice to obtain event information to guide one getting to the event
involves searching for and acquiring information corresponding to an
specified event, which is an organizational act, and guiding traveling along a
travel route, which is an act ordinarily performed in the organizing travel to
an event. For example, claim 13 recites “search for and acquire additional
information corresponding to the specified event,” which is an activity that
would take place whenever one is organizing travel to an event. Similarly,
claim 1 recites “guiding traveling . . . along a travel route,” which is also
characteristic of organizing travel to an event.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to organizing
human activity. Final Act. 6–7. The preamble to claim 13 recites that it is
an event information presenting method. The steps in claim 13 results in
organizing event attendance by obtaining event information to guide one

5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
11

getting to the event absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–5 recite generic and
conventional analyzing, receiving, generating and transmitting of event data,
which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The
limitations thus recite advice for obtaining event information to guide one
getting to the event. To advocate obtaining event information to guide one
getting to the event is conceptual advice for results desired and not
technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 2 describes the invention as relating to
acquiring and presenting event information via the Internet. Thus, all this
intrinsic evidence shows that claim 13 recites organizing event attendance.
This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people as a certain method of
organizing human activity because organizing event attendance is a form of
organizing people attending the event. The concept of organizing event
attendance by obtaining event information to guide one getting to the event
is one idea for getting information for so attending. The steps recited in
claim 13 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Digitech Image Techs, LLC v.
Elecs for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014)(organizing
data).
Alternately this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of analyzing, receiving,
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
12

generating and transmitting data mimic human thought processes of
observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and
pencil, where the data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir.
2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Claim 13, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data analysis, reception,
generation, transmission and does not recite an improvement to a particular
computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am.
Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract
because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer
animation”). As such, claim 13 recites analyzing, receiving, generating,
transmitting data, and not a technological implementation or application of
that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 13 recites
organizing event attendance by obtaining event information to guide one
getting to the event, which is managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people, one of certain methods of organizing human
activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 13 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
13

At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “
‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Step 4 recites basic conventional data
operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Wherein clause 5
is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or
displaying the results. Steps 1–3 recite generic computer processing
expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so
present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects
reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how
the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the
processing technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 13 simply recites the concept of
organizing event attendance by obtaining event information to guide one
getting to the event as performed by a generic computer. This is no more
than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
14

Claim 13 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 17+ pages of specification do not bulge
with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
organizing event attendance by obtaining event information to guide one
getting to the event under different scenarios. They do not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim
13 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply organizing event attendance by obtaining event information to guide
one getting to the event using some unspecified, generic computer. Under
our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological

8 The Specification describes a personal computer or the like. Spec. para. 88.
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
15

environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 13 is directed to achieving the result of
organizing event attendance by advising one to obtain event information to
guide one getting to the event, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,
which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that
constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 13 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’ ” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “ ‘to a particular technological environment.’ ”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on ... a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.
This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that
undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional featur[e]” that provides any
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
16

“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for analyzing, receiving, generating and transmitting data amounts
to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. The limitation of an onboard device that performs a navigation
operation of guiding traveling of a vehicle along a travel route to a
destination corresponding to the location information is not a step, but a
recitation of purpose for the data after transmission, viz. an intended use,
which is aspirational rather than functional. All of these computer functions
are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed
only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a
possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and
‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any general purpose
computer without special programming”). None of these activities is used in
some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result.
Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
17

collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 13 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data analysis-reception-
generation-transmission is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 13 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 13 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
18

As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the managing
personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people of
organizing event attendance by advising one to obtain event information to
guide one getting to the event, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 5–9 and Answer 3–5 and
reach similar legal conclusions. As there is no Reply Brief, we particularly
note the following.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
features of independent claims 1 and 13 require components and
actions that may only be implemented by a computer device and
cannot be practically applied by human activity or the human
mind alone. Applicant’s claimed invention is an event
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
19

information presenting device and method that requires a control
unit of an information processing terminal, using a processing
unit executing stored programs, to operate as
Appeal Br. 13. This is a tautological argument: the claim require computer
processing equipment because they recite such equipment. Each step has a
manual paper and pencil analog.
[W]e do not rely on the pen and paper test to reach our holding
of patent eligibility in this case. At the same time, we note that,
in viewing the facts in FairWarning’s favor, the inability for the
human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer
patentability. As we have explained, “the 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.”
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir.
2016)(citations omitted). Simply automating such a process does not confer
eligibility.
At best, the claims describe the automation of the
fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization
through the use of generic-computer functions. Both the
prosecution history and the specification emphasize that the key
distinguishing feature of the claims is the ability to automate
or otherwise make more efficient traditional price-optimization
methods. . . . But relying on a computer to perform routine
tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render
a claim patent eligible.
OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Applicant’s
claimed invention does not merely recite ‘organizing human activities’, does
not recite merely manual activity ‘but for the recitation of generic computer
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
20

components’, and does not recite an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 15. The
analysis determining this is not so is detailed above.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the claims recite the detailed operation of a control unit
configured by a processing unit executing stored programs to
search over the Internet for event information from at least two
websites, combine the information, display the combined
information to a user on a display unit, and provide event location
information to an onboard navigation device to guide a vehicle
to the event location. The claimed invention is concrete, well
defined, and directed to a specific application
Appeal Br. 16. No technological implementation details are recited.
Instead, the alleged detailed operation is a series of conceptual ideas for
analyzing, receiving, generating and transmitting data. “The use of well-
known computer components to collect, analyze, and present data, in this
case to verify financial transactions, does not render these claims any less
abstract.” Bozeman Fin. LLC v. Fed. Rsrv. Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971,
979 (Fed. Cir. 2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1053, 208 L. Ed. 2d 522
(2021). Also,
to determine whether the claims here are non-abstract, the more
relevant inquiry is whether the claims in this patent focus on a
specific means or method that improves the relevant technology
or are instead directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract
idea and merely invoke processes and machinery.
Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Gemalto M2M GmbH, 942 F.3d 1143, 1151 (Fed.
Cir. 2019).
Appellant next argues that the present claims are patent-eligible
because they are similar to the claims of the USPTO’s Examples 37, 41, and
42 in the “Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas,” published
January 7, 2019 (“2019 Eligibility Examples”). Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
21

The difficulty with Appellant’s argument is that exemplary claim 1 of
Example 37 was opined in a non-binding example as being patent-eligible
because it provided a specific improvement over prior art systems by
automatically rearranging icons based on a determined amount of use. See
2019 Eligibility Examples, 2–3. Thus, apart from being non-binding,
exemplary claim 1 of Example 37 addressed technological difficulties
related to organization of program execution icons. See id. at 3. As
discussed above, Appellant has neither identified nor demonstrated that the
present claims provide such a specific improvement over prior art systems.
Exemplary claim 1 of Example 41 was opined as patent-eligible
because it provided a specific improvement over prior art systems by
receiving the plaintext word signal at the first computer terminal,
transforming the plaintext word signal to one or message block word signals
MA, and transmitting the encoded ciphertext word signal CA to the second
computer terminal over a communication channel. See 2019 Eligibility
Examples, 15–16. Thus, exemplary claim 1 of Example 41 addressed
technological difficulties related to cryptographic communications. See id. at
14. As discussed above, Appellant has neither identified nor demonstrated
that the present claims provide such a specific improvement over prior art
systems.
Exemplary claim 1 of Example 42 was opined patent-eligible because
it provided a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing
remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format
regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. See
2019 Eligibility Examples, 18–19. Thus, exemplary claim 1 of Example 42
addressed technological difficulties related to incompatible computer
Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
22

formats, disparate geographic locations, and the untimely sharing of
information. See id. at 17. As discussed above, Appellant has neither
identified nor demonstrated that the present claims provide such a specific
improvement over prior art systems.
Claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Devecka, Ickman, and Black
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the art does not
describe “tak[ing] event information acquired in a search of websites over
the Internet and extracts information specifying the event, including the
event name, date and/or venue.” Appeal Br. 20. The Examiner responds
that
[t]he Examiner has broadly interpreted, as one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the effective filing of the invention would
do, that the ability of Devecka [to] transmit invitations to
matched users, based upon the previously obtained data
regarding the users, calendars, interests etc. as the ability create
a proposal for the event information that was extracted and
acquired.
Ans. 7. At best, the Examiner shows that the art describes data extraction in
a different context, and not in the manner recited. The Examiner makes no
determinations supporting the use of such extraction in the recited context.

Appeal 2021-000816
Application 15/410,310
23

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Devecka, Ickman, and Black is improper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3–11, 13, and 15–19 is affirmed.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–11,
13, 15–19
101 Eligibility 1, 3–11, 13,
15–19

1, 3–11,
13, 15–19
103 Devecka. Ickman,
Black
1, 3–11,
13, 15–19
Overall Outcome 1, 3–11, 13,
15–19

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) (2011).

AFFIRMED