Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 6, 2020

2019001545 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 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.
15/694,826 09/03/2017 David R. Pope 8888-60802 4472
81310 7590 07/06/2020
Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple)
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
COUSO, JOSE L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2667
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2020 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAVID R. POPE
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
Technology Center 2600
BEFORE JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–24, 26–31, 33–37, 39, and 40.
Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a) (2018). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Apple Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a detecting keypoints in image frame data.
Claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
21. An image signal processor, comprising:

a keypoint control parameter storage structure configured
to store a plurality of keypoint sensitivity threshold values
corresponding to a first set of respective image frame regions;

a keypoint detection circuit connected to the keypoint
control parameter storage structure and configured to:

receive pixel data for an image frame;

perform a keypoint detection operation on the
received pixel data to detect one or more keypoints in the
image frame; and

selectively output to a system memory a description
of at least one of the one or more keypoints detected in the
first set of respective image frame regions of the image
frame in response to respective magnitude values of the
one or more keypoints exceeding one of the plurality of
keypoint sensitivity threshold values corresponding to the
first set of respective image frame regions.
REJECTION2
Claims 21–24, 26–31, 33–37, 39, and 40 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more. Final Act. 8.

2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejections under obviousness-type double
patenting, 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), anticipation and obviousness. Final Act. 2–4.
Additionally, the Examiner has withdrawn the patent eligibility rejection of
dependent claims 25, 32, and 38. Ans. 13, 14, 15.
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
3
OPINION
1. 35 U.S.C. § 101
a. Legal Principles
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, under Step 2A, we first determine what concept the claim is
“directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before
us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a
third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
4
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If, under Step 2A, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, then,
under Step 2B, “we must examine the elements of the claim to determine
whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the
claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
221 (quotation marks omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must
include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer
implementation[] fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Id.
On January 7, 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised patent subject matter eligibility guidance. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50,
2019 (“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, Step 2A of the
Alice two-step framework is divided in two prongs. For Step 2A, Prong 1,
we look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions falling into
certain groupings of abstract ideas (e.g., mathematical concepts, certain
methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes). For Step 2A, Prong 2, if the claim recites
such a judicial exception, we look to whether the claim recites any additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see
Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–
(h)).
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and does not integrate that
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
5
exception into a practical application, do we then determine, under Step 2B
of the Alice two-step framework, whether the claim adds a specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception.
b. Examiner’s Findings and Conclusions3
In the Final Action, for Step 2A of the Alice two-step framework, the
Examiner concludes that “Claims 21-40 are directed to an abstract idea in
the form of a mathematical procedure for selectively outputting a description
of one or more keypoints.” Final Act. 8. The Examiner finds the key point
detection circuit limitation of claim 21 (and similar limitations of claims 28
and 35) is akin to the mathematical processing features found abstract in
Benson, Digitech, and TLI Comms.4 Final Act. 8. Thus, the Examiner
concludes claim 21 recites an abstract idea. Ans. 8.
In the Answer, for Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Revised Guidelines, the
Examiner finds that claim 21 requires additional elements, but that those

3 We note that the Final Action and Examiner’s Answer were mailed before
the USPTO published the Revised Guidelines and, therefore, does not rely
on the Revised Guidelines. Additionally, Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal and Reply Briefs and the Examiner’s conclusions in the Examiner’s
Answer do not rely on the Revised Guidelines. Our analysis is based on the
Revised Guidelines. Patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is a question of
law that is reviewable de novo. See Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d
1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).

4 Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Digitech Image Techs.,
LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014); TLI
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
6
additional elements are simply elements of a computer. See generally Ans.
12 discussing “particular material implementation.” Relying on Appellant’s
Specification, the Examiner, however, finds that the recited computer
components are generic and simply result in the abstract idea being
implemented on a generic computer. Ans. 12. The Examiner further
concludes that the language of claim 21 “is devoid of any such language
[machine vision algorithms].” Ans. 11. Thus, the Examiner finds that claim
21 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and,
therefore, is directed to an abstract idea. Ans. 11.
For Step 2B of the Alice two-step framework, the Examiner maintains
that the remaining limitations of claim 21 correspond to the additional
elements recited in claims 21–24, 26–31, 33–37, 39, and 40 beyond those
directed to the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea because they recite generic computer elements and functions
that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously
known to the industry. Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that the
claims also recite various computer hardware at a high level of generality
(e.g. an image signal processor, a keypoint control parameter storage
structure, a keypoint detection circuit, a central processing unit, a system
memory, a preprocessing module). Such general computer hardware is well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the art of image analysis. Final
Act. 17; see also Ans. 11 citing Spec. ¶ 28 (generally discloses system-on-a
chip SOC) component 104.)5

Communications LLC v. A.V. Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir.
2016)).
5 Spec. ¶ 27 discloses “system 100 includes image sensor(s) 102, a
system-on-a chip (SOC) component 104, system memory (e.g., dynamic
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
7
Relying on Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner finds that the
additional elements of claim 21, when viewed individually and in an ordered
combination, correspond to “various computer hardware at a high level of
generality” and the Specification is “silent regarding this aspect of the
invention as an improvement in the technological field.” Ans. 13, 14, 15.
The Examiner also finds that the additional elements of claim 21 do not
improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology and thus,
claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final
Act. 18; Ans. 14–15.
Finally, the Examiner finds that even though dependent claims 22–
24, 26, 27, 29–31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, and 40 recite additional limitations,
these additional limitations do not add significantly more than the abstract
idea. Final Act. 9–17; see also Ans. 3–10.

random access memory (DRAM)) 130, persistent storage (e.g., flash
memory) 128 . . . In different embodiments, system 100 may be any of
various types of devices, including, but not limited to, a personal computer
system; a desktop computer; a laptop computer; a notebook, tablet, slate, or
netbook computer; a mainframe computer system; a handheld computer; a
workstation; a network computer; a camera; a set top box; a mobile device,
such as a mobile phone, pager, personal data assistant (PDA), tablet device,
or music player; an I/O device such as a digital camera, a scanner, a video
recorder; a consumer device; a video game console; a handheld video game
device; or in general any type of computing or electronic device that
includes the functionality of a camera or video camera.” (Emphases added.)
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
8
c. Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant contends that “the plain focus of the claims is directed to an
improvement on computer functionality, i.e. improvements in keypoint
detection within an image signal processor, and is clearly patent eligible
under Enfish.”6 Appeal Br. 6–7; Reply Br. 4. Appellant further contends
that claim 21 features of the keypoint control parameter storage structure and
the keypoint detection circuit contribute to the inventive improvements are
not well-understood routine or conventional. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant
further contends that the Examiner has ignored the specific features of the
claimed invention. Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant contends that the cases cited
by the Examiner are not relevant to the improvements featured in the claim
21. Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
Appellant argues that the Answer’s identified abstract idea, “a
mathematical procedure” ignores other specific features of the claims
including the detecting of one or more keypoints in an image frame and the
result of such a detection, description(s) of the one or more keypoints
detected, would in no way be numerical representation(s) converted from
one form into another. Reply Br. 3.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s analysis:
ignores the fact that the detection and subsequent selective
outputting are performed by a keypoint detection circuit of an
image signal processor, and thus the claims are directed to a
specific improvement, implemented in circuitry, to an image
signal processor. Appellant further notes that the claims do[] not
merely claim the novelty of an image signal processor in general,
but specifically the keypoint detection circuit with novel features

6 Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
9
and the keypoint control parameter storage structure as included
in the specific image signal processor of the claims.
Reply Br. 4 (emphases omitted).
Appellant argues that the Appeal Brief was merely identifying an
example application (machine vision) where such improvements could find
use and further identifying in the Specification where such applications are
disclosed. Appellant further notes that such applications need not be
specifically recited in claim language for the claims to be patent eligible.
Reply Br. 4. Appellant additionally argues that the Examiner did not
address Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, that “the plain focus of
the claims is directed to an improvement on computer functionality, i.e.
improvements in keypoint detection within an image signal processor, and is
clearly patent eligible under Enfish v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2016).” Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant additionally relies upon Finjan, Inc. v.
Blue Coat Systems7 and contends that claim 21 is directed to a non-abstract
improvement in computer functionality and also recites specific steps-
receiving pixel data, performing a keypoint detection operation and
selectively outputting a description of one or more keypoints-that
accomplish the non-abstract improvement. Reply Br. 5. Appellant further
contends that the claimed “selectively output to a system memory a
description of at least one of the one or more keypoints detected in the first
set of respective image frame regions of the image” would in no way be
numerical representations converted from one form to another. Appeal Br.
8; Reply Br. 3.

7 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018))
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
10
With respect to the dependent claims, Appellant relies upon
Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 822 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and contends that
the claimed features are not well-understood, routine or conventional and
furthermore contribute specific hardware improvements to an image signal
processor that are not well-understood, routine or conventional. Appeal Br.
10–18.

d. Discussion
Appellant argues claims 21–24, 26, 35–37, and 39 as a group. Reply
Br. 2. We select claim 21 to represent the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant sets forth separate headings and argument for
dependent claims 27 and 40; claims 28–31, 33; and claim 34, and Appellant
repeats the language of the claim and presents the same arguments as set
forth with respect to independent claim 21. With respect to dependent claim
34, we find the claim limitations to be similar to those addressed by the
Examiner with respect to dependent claims 27 and 40 concerning the pre-
processing module.8 We note that the Specification discloses “[i]n one
embodiment, keypoint detection circuit 430 may be hardware-based and
may be configured to output a number of keypoints per region of an input

8 In evaluating dependent claims 27, 34, and 40, the Examiner should
consider whether the claimed “module” is a functional claim limitation
requiring interpretation under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Cf. Spec. Para. 19.

Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
11
image (e.g., by outputting a number of keypoints in respective areas of a grid
corresponding to regions of an image). Spec. ¶ 63.9
With regards to Appellant’s reliance upon the Finjan case, in Finjan,
the claims were directed to identifying and protecting a computer against
malware, which the court found to constitute sufficient non-abstract
improvement in computer functionality to render the claims patent eligible.
Finjan, 879 F.3d at 1304–05. Appellant’s claim 21 does not describe
improvements in computer functionality similar to Finjan, or technological
improvements similar to McRO. Rather, Appellant’s Specification and claim
21 describes receiving, processing, and selectively output to a system
memory a description of [at least] one of the one or more keypoints detected
in the first set of respective image frame regions of the image frame in
response to respective magnitude values of the one [or more] keypoints
exceeding one . . . threshold.”
i. Step 2A, Prong 1
For Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Revised Guidance, we find that the emphasized
portions of claim 21, reproduced above, recite elements that fall within the
abstract idea grouping of mathematical concepts. The Revised Guidance
requires us to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception (e.g., an
abstract idea). According to the Revised Guidance, to determine whether a
claim recites an abstract idea, we must identify limitations that fall within

9 We note that Appellant generally argues the keypoint detection circuit, but
the Specification merely identifies a block diagram and the Specification
includes no underlying algorithm or circuitry corresponding to the broad
claimed functionality. If the claimed invention would be directed to a
hardware implementation, the Examiner should consider whether the
Specification supports Appellant’s contention and whether there is
enablement and written description support for the claim limitation.
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
12
one or more of the designated subject matter groupings of abstract ideas.
According to the October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update produced
by the USPTO, “a claim recites a judicial exception when the judicial
exception is ‘set forth’ or ‘described’ in the claim.” See October 2019
Patent Eligibility Guidance Update Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance,
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df (“October Update”). The Revised Guidance lists “mathematical
concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations” as one such grouping. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We
find that the elements of claim 21 describe this judicial exception.
With respect to independent claim 21, we agree with the Examiner
that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 21 is recites an
abstract idea in the form of a mathematical procedure for selectively
outputting a description of one or more keypoints.10 Final Act. 8. For
example, the Specification discloses:
machine vision stage 318 and/or keypoint detection circuit 430
may include one or more spatial filter modules, sometimes
referred to as “box filters”, configured to compute an
approximation of Gaussian derivatives of Hessian matrix values

10 It is well settled that, during patent examination, claims must be
given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the
specification. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005)
(en banc). The broadest reasonable interpretation standard requires the
words of the claims to be given their “broadest reasonable meaning . . . in
their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in
the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way of definitions or
otherwise that may be afforded by the written description contained in the
applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997).
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
13
(in the interest of efficiency) for the respective pixels in an active
region of an image. . . . Keypoint detection circuit 430 may then
determine whether the responses are local maxima and whether
a respective local maximum is above a controllable keypoint
sensitivity threshold.
Spec. ¶ 62. We find this to broadly recite mathematical concepts.
We further agree with the Examiner that the key point detection
circuit limitation of claim 21 (and similar limitations of Claims 28 and 35) is
akin to the mathematical processing features found abstract in Benson,
Digitech, and TLI Comms, because the image analysis is claimed at a high
level and not reciting the underlying calculations and comparisons. Final
Act. 8.
In the Answer, for Step 2A, Prong 1 of the Revised Guidelines, the
Examiner finds that certain limitations of claim 21 recites concepts that fall
within the “mathematical concepts” category. Thus, we agree with the
Examiner independent claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
With respect to Appellant’s argument that the selectively outputting a
description is not a number, we find that the Specification does not
specifically identify what the “description” is, and, under the broadest
reasonable interpretation, we find that the description may be a numeric
value. Appeal Br. 6, 8. With respect to Appellant’s arguments regarding
Enfish and the improvements in keypoint detection within an image signal
processor, Appellant contends that determination of the “plain focus” of the
claim in question, where the “plain focus” of the claim is an “improvement
to computer functionality itself,” the claim is not directed to an abstract idea
under step one of the Alice analysis. Appeal Br. 6–7. We disagree with
Appellant’s argument and find that the plain focus of the claim is not
improving the functioning of the computer, but reducing the amount of
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
14
image data analyzed. See Spec. ¶¶ 23, 25, 48, 78. As a result, we find
Appellant’s argument does not show error in the Examiner’s analysis that
independent claim 21 recites elements that fall within the abstract idea
grouping of mathematical concepts.

ii. Step 2A, Prong 2
For Step 2A, Prong 2, of the Revised Guidance, we find that claim 21,
as a whole, does not integrate the recited mental process into a practical
application of the abstract idea. The Revised Guidance states that “[a] claim
that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply,
rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
The Revised Guidance further states that integration should be evaluated by
“[i]dentifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim
beyond the judicial exception(s)” and, based on certain considerations,
“evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.”
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. The Revised Guidance identifies considerations such
as whether additional elements yield an improvement to a particular
technology or a computer itself, correspond to the implementation of the
judicial exception with a particular machine, and/or apply the judicial
exception in some way beyond simply linking the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Here, as discussed above, claim 21 incorporates additional device
elements. However, we find that these additional device elements do not
integrate the mathematical concepts of claim 21 into a practical application.
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
15
For instance, we do not find that these additional device elements yield an
improvement in the functioning of a computer itself or to the particular
technology of target contextual advertising, neither do we find that these
additional device elements are any particular machine that is necessary to
implement the judicial exception or transform something to a different state.
Additionally, we do not find that these additional device elements apply the
abstract idea in a meaningful way to any particular technological
environment.
Also, in the Answer, for Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Revised Guidelines,
the Examiner maintains that claim 21 requires additional elements (image
signal processor, keypoint control parameter storage structure, keypoint
detection circuit, system memory), but that those additional elements are
simply elements of a computer. See generally Ans. 12 discussing “particular
material implementation.” See also Spec. ¶¶ 28–32; 27 (“system 100 may
be any of various types of devices . . . in general any type of computing or
electronic device that includes the functionality of a camera or video
camera.”)
Relying on Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner, however, finds
that the recited computer components are generic and simply result in the
abstract idea being implemented on a generic computer. Ans. 12. The
Examiner further maintains that the language of claim 21 “is devoid of any
such language [machine vision algorithms].” Ans. 11.
Thus, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of claim 21. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[A]ppellant’s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”); see also In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998)
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
16
(“[The] proffered facts . . . are not commensurate with the claim scope and
are therefore unpersuasive.”).
Thus, the Examiner maintains that claim 21 does not integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, is directed to an
abstract idea. Ans. 11. Because we find that the claimed invention is not
directed to a practical application of the recited abstract idea, we agree with
the Examiner that the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea.

iii. Step 2B
We agree with the Examiner’s finding for Step 2B of the Alice two-
step framework that these additional device elements, as claimed,
correspond at most to a generic computing structure. See Final Act. 8; see
also Ans. 4. Thus, we find that claim 21, as a whole, does not integrate the
recited mathematical concepts into a practical application of the abstract
idea. Additionally, we find Appellant’s argument that claim 21 “is directed
to hardware circuitry for identifying and reporting points of interest,
keypoints, of an image within an image signal processor to improve
efficiency in computationally intensive machine vision applications, for
example” unpersuasive. Appeal Br. 6.
For Step 2B, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim
21 recites significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Step 2B of the
Alice two-step framework requires us to determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at
221. As discussed in the previous section, we agree with the Examiner’s
findings that the additional device elements, when considered individually
and in an ordered combination, correspond to nothing more than a generic
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
17
computing structure used to implement the mental process. In other words,
these components, as claimed, are well-understood, routine, and
conventional and “behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary
use.” See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). As discussed in the previous section, Appellant’s Specification
describes the computing environment in which the invention is performed.
Spec. 27–32. However, Appellant’s Specification gives no indication that
such a computing environment is anything other than a well-understood,
routine, and conventional computing environment. Thus, implementing the
abstract idea with these generic computer components “fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Claim 21 does not provide
significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For Step 2B of the Alice two-step framework, the Examiner maintains
that the remaining limitations of claim 21 correspond to the additional
elements recited in claims 21–24, 26–31, 33–37, 39, and 40 beyond those
directed to the abstract idea do not amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea because they recite generic computer elements and functions
that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously
known to the industry. Final Act. 8. The Examiner further finds that the
claims also recite various computer hardware at a high level of generality
(e.g. an image signal processor, a keypoint control parameter storage
structure, a keypoint detection circuit, a central processing unit, a system
memory, a preprocessing module). Such general computer hardware is well-
understood, routine, and conventional in the art of image analysis. Final
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
18
Act. 17; see also Ans. 11 citing ¶ 28 (generally discloses system-on-a chip
(SOC) component 104.)11
Relying on Appellant’s Specification, the Examiner finds that the
additional elements of claim 21, when viewed individually and in an ordered
combination, correspond to “various computer hardware at a high level of
generality” and the Specification is “silent regarding this aspect of the
invention as an improvement in the technological field.” Ans. 13, 14, 15.
The Examiner also maintains that the additional elements of claim 21 do not
improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology and thus, the
claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Final
Act. 18; Ans. 14–15. Therefore, based on our analysis under the Revised
Guidance, we agree with the Examiner that claim 21 is directed to an
abstract idea.
With respect to dependent claims 27, 40, and 34, and we select
dependent claim 27 as the representative claim and address Appellant’s
argument thereto. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We note that the
Specification discloses:

11 Spec. ¶ 27 discloses “system 100 includes image sensor(s) 102, a
system-on-a chip (SOC) component 104, system memory (e.g., dynamic
random access memory (DRAM)) 130, persistent storage (e.g., flash
memory) 128 . . . In different embodiments, system 100 may be any of
various types of devices, including, but not limited to, a personal computer
system; a desktop computer; a laptop computer; a notebook, tablet, slate, or
netbook computer; a mainframe computer system; a handheld computer; a
workstation; a network computer; a camera; a set top box; a mobile device,
such as a mobile phone, pager, personal data assistant (PDA), tablet device,
or music player; an I/O device such as a digital camera, a scanner, a video
recorder; a consumer device; a video game console; a handheld video game
device; or in general any type of computing or electronic device that
includes the functionality of a camera or video camera.” (Emphases added).
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
19
In one embodiment, pre-processing module 420 may include
lookup table 540, which may be configured to perform functions
of global tone mapping and/or gamma correction on luminance
image data, such as Y data 535. In various embodiments, lookup
table 540 may be implemented in hardware, firmware, or
software, and/or elements of lookup table 540 may be stored in
system memory 130.
Spec. ¶ 71 (emphases added).

Appellant argues that the claimed combination of features including a
pre-processing module are not well-understood routine or conventional, but
Appellant does not provide any citation to the Specification to support the
attorney arguments. Attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe,
736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693,
2009 WL 2477843, at *3–4 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available
at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/fd0
9004693.pdf; see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Contrary to Appellant’s argument, we find the use of a well-known
lookup table for data conversion to be well-understood routine or
conventional and a short cut to repeated mathematical calculations.
2. Conclusion
Therefore, because claim 21 is directed to the abstract idea of
mathematical concepts and does not provide significantly more than the
abstract idea itself, we agree with the Examiner that claim 21 is ineligible for
patenting and affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 21–24, 26–31, 33–
37, 39, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2019-001545
Application 15/694,826
20
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21–24,
26–31,
33–37,
39, 40
101 Eligibility 21–24,
26–31,
33–37,
39, 40

FINALITY AND 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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED