Amar Muharemovic et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 26, 2019

14565804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 26, 2019)

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.
14/565,804 12/10/2014 Amar Muharemovic PT1254US00 9133
132326 7590 08/26/2019
Thompson Hine LLP
10050 Innovation Drive
Suite 400
Dayton, OH 45342-4934
EXAMINER
WALSH, EMMETT K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3628
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2019 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):
ipdocket@thompsonhine.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

1

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte AMAR MUHAREMOVIC, ILARIA PASQUINI,
IRINA ALLES, JEREMY COLIN, and
ROMUALD SABATIER
____________________

Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Amadeus S.A.S. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to the Specification, “[c]omputer technology is used in the
travel industry to manage and support travel reservations, as well as the
associated data.” Spec. ¶ 2. “In the airline industry, for example, a booking
agent . . . must mentally remember all the available discounts and determine
whether the data elements in [a passenger’s] booking file satisfy the . . .
conditions associated with each potential discount” to price an itinerary.
Id. ¶ 4.
Appellants’ invention relates to “interacting with and managing a
database that stores discounts.” Id. ¶ 1. Notably, a central server (1)
reviews each retrieved discount rule from a discount rule table and (2)
determines whether a booking file’s data elements satisfy the conditions of
each discount rule. Id. ¶ 22. If the central server determines the data
elements satisfy a discount rule’s conditions, a reference identifier for a
discount associated with the discount rule is stored in the data elements. Id.
A pricing engine prices the fare in accordance with the stored discount. Id.
¶ 23. In one example, the pricing engine presumes the stored discount is
valid by way of a “(null)” value. Id. ¶ 41.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below:
1. A system for pricing a fare, the system comprising:
a discount rule database including a discount rule;
a central server coupled in communication with the
discount rule database, the central server including at least one
first processor and a first memory including a first set of
instructions that, when executed by the at least one first
processor, cause the central server to:
receive a request to price the fare,
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

3

retrieve the discount rule from the discount rule
database,
determine whether the discount rule is applicable to
price the fare based on a plurality of data elements
included in the request, and
in response to the determination indicating that the
discount rule is applicable to price the fare, update the
plurality of data elements to include a reference to the
discount rule; and
a pricing engine coupled in communication with the
central server, the pricing engine including at least one second
processor and a second memory including a second set of
instructions that, when executed by the at least one second
processor, cause the pricing engine to:
receive the plurality of data elements communicated
from the central server,
retrieve at least one criterion including a
notification element from a pseudo-database table based
on the reference, the pseudo-database table coupled in
communication with the pricing engine,
presume that the reference is valid based on the
notification element included in the at least one criterion,
and
determine a price of the fare based upon a fare
discount that is associated with the reference.

REJECTION
Claims 1–21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed
to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4–11.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

4

Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appellants argue the § 101 rejection of all claims as a group. Appeal
Br. 9–16; Reply Br. 1–7. Appellants assert the claims are not directed to an
abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 1–6. Specifically, Appellants
argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claimed
subject matter recites a particular technique to addresses a problem
encountered in the travel industry. See Appeal Br. 9–10, 12. Appellants
further argue the Examiner fails to (1) account for specific requirements of
the claims; (2) provide accompanying explanation as to how Versata
Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir.
2015) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) are relevant to the claims; (3) provide a proper application of the
framework under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208
(2014); (4) provide any analysis of the dependent claims; and (5) consider
the teachings of BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that show the claims as an ordered
combination satisfy the “significantly more test.” See Appeal Br. 9–16.
The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. In addition,
the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently 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) (“Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

5

If a claim falls within one of the statutory categories of patent
eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter),
we determine 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 our inquiry, we “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 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). The Guidance directs us to address this inquiry using the
following 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. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1 Analysis
Here, we conclude Appellants’ claims recite an abstract idea. More
specifically, Appellants’ claims are generally directed to pricing a fare based
on a presumed valid reference to a database-retrieved discount rule. This is
consistent with how Appellants describe the claimed invention. See Spec.
¶¶ 6 (“The pricing engine . . . to . . . determine a price of the fare based upon
a fare discount that is associated with the reference to the discount rule.”), 41
(“The central server . . . stores a discount code . . . which is presumed valid
by the pricing engine by way of the ‘(null)’ value in the discount criteria
field.”).
Claim 1 is reproduced below, with the claim limitations that recite
elements of the abstract idea of pricing a fare based on a presumed valid
reference to a database-retrieved discount rule emphasized in italics:
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

6

1. A system for pricing a fare, the system comprising:
a discount rule database including a discount rule;
a central server coupled in communication with the
discount rule database, the central server including at least one
first processor and a first memory including a first set of
instructions that, when executed by the at least one first
processor, cause the central server to:
receive a request to price the fare,
retrieve the discount rule from the discount rule
database,
determine whether the discount rule is applicable to
price the fare based on a plurality of data elements
included in the request, and
in response to the determination indicating that the
discount rule is applicable to price the fare, update the
plurality of data elements to include a reference to the
discount rule; and
a pricing engine coupled in communication with the
central server, the pricing engine including at least one second
processor and a second memory including a second set of
instructions that, when executed by the at least one second
processor, cause the pricing engine to:
receive the plurality of data elements communicated
from the central server,
retrieve at least one criterion including a
notification element from a pseudo-database table based
on the reference, the pseudo-database table coupled in
communication with the pricing engine,
presume that the reference is valid based on the
notification element included in the at least one criterion,
and
determine a price of the fare based upon a fare
discount that is associated with the reference.

More particularly, pricing a fare based on a presumed valid reference
to a database-retrieved discount rule comprises (i) determining whether a
database-retrieved discount rule is applicable to price a fare based on data
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

7

elements included in a request (i.e., the claimed determining step); (ii)
updating the request’s data elements to include a reference to the retrieved
discount rule (i.e., the claimed updating step); (iii) retrieve a notification
element from a pseudo-database table based on the reference and presume
the reference is valid based on the notification element (i.e., the claimed
presuming step); and (iv) determine a price of the fare based upon a fare
discount associated with the reference (i.e., the claimed pricing step).
Pricing a fare based on a presumed valid reference to a database-
retrieved discount rule is a commercial interaction (a marketing or sales
activity) and, therefore, an abstract idea because it falls within the certain
method of organizing human activity category in our Guidance. See 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52; see also OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359,
1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding a claim reciting selecting a price at which
to sell a product as describing the automation of the fundamental economic
concept of offer-based price optimization); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed
Bath & Beyond Inc., 123 F.Supp.3d 557, 561 (D.Del. 2015), aff’d, 643 F.
App’x. 1014 (Mem) (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding a claim reciting determining a
price for a remote order as describing “fundamental economic [or]
conventional business practice[ ]” and therefore an abstract idea (quoting
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir.
2014))); Priceplay.com, Inc. v. AOL Advert., Inc., 83 F. Supp. 3d 577
(D.Del. 2015), aff’d, 627 F. App’x 925 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding a claim
reciting calculating a price of a product as describing “the abstract idea of ‘a
sales transaction,’ which is a fundamental economic concept.”); Federal
Home Loan Mortg. Corp v. Graff/Ross Holdings LLP, 893 F.Supp.2d 28,
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

8

36–37 (D.D.C. 2012), aff’d, 604 F. App’x. 930 (Mem) (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(holding that claims directed to computing a price for an electronic sale of a
component of a fixed-income asset were directed to an abstract idea). In
addition, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (see App. Br. 11–12; Reply Br.
5), claim 1 is also similar to the claims in Versata. In Versata, the court
evaluated claims directed to determining a price “using organizational and
product group hierarchies,” and determined they were directed to an abstract
idea. Versata, 793 F.3d at 1333. Here, similar to the claims in Versata,
claim 1’s data elements in a request to price a fare are categorized as having
an applicable discount or not.
Moreover, the claimed determining, updating, presuming, and pricing
functions in claim 1 constitute mental processes because, but for the generic
computing elements, the steps could be performed mentally. Our Guidance
identifies mental processes as another category of abstract ideas. See 84
Fed. Reg. at 52. 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 id.; see also 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.”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d
at 1353–54 (explaining that “analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds” is a mental process within the abstract idea category
and concluding claims directed to “collecting information, analyzing it, and
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

9

displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” were abstract);
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding claims that focused on collecting, displaying
and manipulating data were directed to an abstract idea).
Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2 Analysis
“Prong Two represents a change from prior guidance.” 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54. Notably, “[t]his prong adds a more detailed eligibility analysis to step
one of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2A) than was required under prior
guidance.” Id. According to this prong, because the claim recites a judicial
exception, we next determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the
judicial exception into a practical application. Id. To determine whether the
claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception 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 practical
application. 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).
We place emphasis on “as a whole” because contrary to Appellants’
contentions (see App. Br. 14–15), the Examiner considered the additional
elements in claim 1 beyond the judicial exception in applying the first step
of the Alice framework, and thus considered the claims “as a whole” (see
Final Act. 8). Here, we find the recited (1) system; (2) discount rule
database; (3) central server coupled in communication with the discount rule
database, the central server including at least one first processor and a first
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

10

memory including a first set of instructions; (4) pricing engine coupled in
communication with the central server, the pricing engine including at least
one second processor and a second memory including a second set of
instructions; and (5) coupled in communication with the pricing engine are
the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but these additional
elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when
reading claim 1 “as a whole.” Similarly, the additional limitations recited in
the dependent claims fail to 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 (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iv) any other
meaningful limitation (see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See also 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55; accord Final Act. 8 (finding additional elements of claim 1 do not
improve another technological field or the functioning of a computer);
Ans. 7–8 (citing Final Act. 10). Appellants generally assert the Examiner
failed to analyze the dependent claims, App. Br. 13, but do not persuasively
demonstrate error in the Examiner’s determination that the dependent claims
are drawn to the same abstract idea and fail to add elements that integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application.
Appellants argue claim 1 addresses “a problem that the travel industry
faces in validating discounts that are included in pricing queries submitted to
online travel reservation systems” by providing “a particular technique of
validating discounts submitted to online travel reservation systems—not
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

11

pricing fares based on such discounts.” App. Br. 9. According to
Appellants, “the pre-Internet world did not have any analogs for online
travel reservation systems that support travel reservations for multiple travel
providers.” Id. at 12. To the extent Appellants argue that claim 1 is eligible
because it is necessarily rooted in computer technology to overcome a
problem as in DDR Holdings, we disagree.
In DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit determined “the claimed
solution amount[ed] to an inventive concept for resolving [a] particular
Internet-centric problem,” i.e., a challenge unique to the Internet. DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–59; see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (noting that “[i]n DDR
Holdings, we held that claims ‘directed to systems and methods of
generating a composite web page that combines certain visual elements of a
‘host’ website with content of a third-party merchant’ contained the requisite
inventive concept”). The Federal Circuit explained that the patent-eligible
claims specified “how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield
a desired result . . . that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of
events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” DDR Holdings,
773 F.3d at 1258. The court reasoned that those claims recited a
technological solution “necessarily rooted in computer technology” that
addressed a “problem specifically arising in the realm of computer
networks.” Id. at 1257.
Here, unlike the claims at issue in DDR Holdings, Appellants’
claimed invention merely prices a fare applying a discount based on an
indication that the discount should be presumed valid, which does not
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

12

improve or change how a technology functions but, as discussed above,
simply changes the business process for determining whether to apply the
discount. In other words, claim 1 alters the determination—i.e., mental
process—of whether to apply the discount. Although this may improve the
sales activity of pricing or selling a fare, claim 1 does not specify how the
Internet or other technology is changed or improved to yield a desired result
that overrides a routine and conventional sequence of events in the sense
contemplated by DDR Holdings. See id. at 1258.
Appellants argue “the claimed invention enables travel reservation
systems to consider discounts directly administered by the particular travel
providers that risk lost sales revenue without overly burdening pricing
engines,” which provides “an improvement to computer functionality itself.”
App. Br. 11 (quoting Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). To the extent Appellants contend claim 1 is eligible
because the claimed invention improves the computer or its components’
functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those devices
functions in the sense contemplated by the Federal Circuit in Enfish, we
disagree.
It is unclear how the claimed process of storing an indication that
provider-administered discounts can be presumed valid, thus relieving the
pricing engine of the burden of validating some discounts, is analogous to
the claims in Enfish. As the Enfish court emphasized, the claims were not
directed to any form of storing tabular data, but were instead directed to a
self-referential table for a computer database. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337.
Notably, the court explained that the claimed self-referential table was a
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

13

specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory. Id. at 1339.
On the other hand, the relevant portions of claim 1 merely recite that a
pricing engine presumes a discount code is valid based on determining
criteria, retrieved from a “pseudo-database table” and associated with the
discount code, includes a notification element. As discussed above, claim
1’s alleged improvement is to a business process, not a computer or other
technology. Moreover, the aspects Appellants argue relate to the claimed
mental processes (i.e., the abstract idea itself), not an additional element that
may integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Here, the alleged
improvement looks up information in a pseudo-database table to determine
whether the particular discount code needs to be validated, which is a mental
process. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that a recited step that utilized a map of
credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction
could be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical reasoning to
identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that numerous
transactions using different credit cards all originated from the same IP
address). Additionally, Appellants’ argument that claim 1 improves
technology because it is directed to relieving the pricing engine of the need
to validate provider-administered discounts, App. Br. 10–11, is unpersuasive
because, as recited in claim 1, the pricing engine still must “retrieve at least
one criterion including a notification element from a pseudo-database table
based on the reference” in order to “presume that the reference is valid.”
Thus, even if processing a reference for provider-administered discounts is
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

14

different, as compared to the validation processing of industry-administered
discounts, claim 1 still requires processing to determine the discount is
presumed valid.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the claims do not integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application.
Guidance Step 2B
Because we determine the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we
analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine whether 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 Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 72–73, 77–79 (2012)). As stated in the 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. 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. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
As with the integration into a practical application analysis discussed
above, an inventive concept “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of
nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.” Genetic Techs. Ltd.
v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also 84 Fed.
Reg. at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (explaining that, after determining a claim
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

15

is directed to a judicial exception, “we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the
claims before us?’” (emphasis added, brackets in original)
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78)). Instead, an “inventive concept” is
furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the
claim in addition to the judicial exception and sufficient to ensure the claim
as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception
itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 218–19 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73); see BSG
Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(explaining that the Supreme Court in Alice “only assessed whether the
claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to
which it was directed were well-understood, routine and conventional,”
(emphasis added)).
Appellants argue “the particular arrangement of features and elements
recited by the rejected claims are drawn to technical improvements over the
prior art.” App. Br. 16 (citing BASCOM); see also Reply Br. 6–7.
According to Appellants, the Specification describes managing discounts
using two distinct data structures—(1) a central server that validates
provider administered discounts using a discount rule database and (2) a
pricing engine that validates industry administered discounts using a pseudo-
database table. App. Br. 16 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 39–41).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. In BASCOM, the court
held “[t]he inventive concept described and claimed in the ’606 patent is the
installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users,
with customizable filtering features specific to each end user.” BASCOM,
827 F.3d at 1350. In determining this feature to be an inventive concept, the
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

16

court explained that the remote location of a filtering tool having
customizable user-specific filtering features provides the filtering tool both
the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the
ISP server. Id. The court observed “BASCOM explains that the inventive
concept rests on taking advantage of the ability of at least some ISPs to
identify individual accounts that communicate with the ISP server, and to
associate a request for Internet content with a specific individual account.”
Id. (citing the ’606 patent at 4:35–38; 5:60–62). The court determined the
claims are “a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering
[Internet] content.” Id.
Here, even accepting Appellants’ argument that claim 1 recites using
two different data structures (i.e., a discount rule database at a central server
and a pseudo-database table at a pricing engine) to manage discounts,
Appellants’ claimed invention merely shifts the burden of determining
whether a discount is valid from the pricing engine to the central server.
Accord App. Br. 11 (asserting Appellants’ claimed invention considers
discounts administered by travel providers without overly burdening pricing
engines). But Appellants have not persuasively argued on the record that
shifting the burden from one element to another using generic computer
components is an improvement to a technology similar to the improved
filtering arrangement recited in BASCOM. See BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350.
Thus, unlike the arrangement of elements in BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1349–
50, we are not persuaded Appellants’ claimed invention recites a non-
conventional and non-routine arrangement of known elements. Appellants’
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

17

claims do not improve an existing technological process, but rather use
existing technology to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, Appellants’ claims recite specific limitations (or a combination
of limitations) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. The
additional elements of claim 1—(1) system; (2) discount rule database; (3)
central server coupled in communication with the discount rule database,
the central server including at least one first processor and a first memory
including a first set of instructions; (4) pricing engine coupled in
communication with the central server, the pricing engine including at least
one second processor and a second memory including a second set of
instructions; and (5) coupled in communication with the pricing engine—are
generic computer components recited at a high level of generality or basic
computer functions, none of which recite limitations beyond what was well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See Berkheimer Memo2
§ III.A.1; Spec. ¶¶ 24–32, 62–66; Figs. 1–2; see also Mortgage 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.

2 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.)” at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF (explaining that a specification that describes additional
elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the
particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional).
Appeal 2018-006356
Application 14/565,804

18

at 225 (indicating a computer that obtains data and issues automated
instructions is a generic computer performing well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities).
Finally, contrary to Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 13), we find the
Examiner’s failure to recite an analysis of each dependent claim limitation
and address its patent-eligibility separately is not fatal to the rejection. See
Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n,
776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims are
directed to the same abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted
patents [is] unnecessary.”). Aside from asserting that dependent claims 2–
10 and 12–20 were not addressed individually by the Examiner, Appellants
offer no separate arguments for the patent-eligibility of these dependent
claims. App. Br. 13.
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner
error, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–21.
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