Art Porth et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 10, 2019

15373170 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 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.
15/373,170 12/08/2016 Art Porth 1652-004 8493
88360 7590 10/10/2019
Richards Patent Law P.C.
20 N Clark Street
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
FU, HAO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2019 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):
docketing@richardspatentlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
robin@richardspatentlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ART PORTH, DAVID McMACKIN, and
MICHAEL McMACKIN
____________

Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,1701
Technology Center 3600
_______________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and HUNG H.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant(s)” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. The real party in interest is Formula Technologies, Inc. App.
Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed
December 11, 2017; Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed April 9, 2018;
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed February 9, 2018; Final Office Action
(“Final Act.”) mailed September 11, 2017; and original Specification
(“Spec.”) filed December 8, 2016.
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is directed to “systems and methods of
collecting, analyzing, and displaying financial and other forms of business
data,” and more specifically, “a real time global business data reporting
system which is capable of accounting for all revenue generated to
international companies and analyzing this data to, in turn, generate business
intelligence and display advice to end users.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to
Appellant, “the system compris[es] a centralized server that receives
transaction data from one or more business locations and external data
sources (e.g., stock market data, etc.) wherein, in response to the receipt of
the multiple sources of data, the centralized server generates and provides to
end users through a graphical user interface at least one user option for
viewing real-time, aggregated, modified data regarding the financial
transactions across multiple currencies.” Abstract.
Claims 1 and 19 are independent. Independent claim 1, reproduced
below, is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A system that provides real-time financial valuation
information for entities that process financial transactions
across multiple currencies, the system comprising:
a central processing device that receives transaction data
from one or more business location processing devices, the
transaction data including quantitative measurements of the
financial value of transactions processed by each business
location processing device, including at least the value received
and any tax liabilities associated with the value received;
the central processing device further receiving
transaction value modifying data from one or more external
data processing devices, the transaction value modifying data
including at least one of currency exchange rate data and
regional tax liability data;
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

3
wherein, in response to the receipt of the transaction data
and the transaction value modifying data, the central processing
device generates modified transaction data comprising the
transaction data modified by the transaction value modifying
data, the modified transaction data accessible through a
graphical user interface provided through an end user
processing device, the graphical user interface providing at least
one user option for viewing real-time, aggregated, modified
transaction data derived from transaction data comprising two
or more currencies,
the transaction value modifying data includes one or
more currency value modifiers derived from geopolitical events
from stock market data, or from aggregated, anonymized
operational data from a plurality of businesses.

App. Br. 18–19 (Claims App.).

EXAMINER’S REJECTION
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible subject matter. Final Act.
10–14.

ANALYSIS
In support of the § 101 rejection of claims 1–20, the Examiner
determines Appellants’ claims are directed to “a real time global business
data reporting system which is capable of accounting for all revenue
generated to international companies and analyzing this data to, in turn,
generate business intelligence and display advice to end users,” which is
nothing more than “collecting, analyzing, and displaying financial and other
forms of business data.” Final Act. 11; Ans. 3–4. According to the
Examiner, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying financial and other forms
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

4
of business data” is “a fundamental economic practice [i.e., the claimed
concept is basically the accounting practice routinely performed by
multinational corporations]” or “an idea of itself [i.e., mental processes]”
because “[t]he process of receiving transaction data, receiving transaction
value modifying data, and generating modified transaction data can be
performed by human with a pen and paper.” Final Act. 12–13 (citing
Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and
July 2015 Update on Subject Matter Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45,429 (July
30, 2015) (“the 2015 Update”)).
The Examiner then determines the additional claim elements (i.e.,
central processing device and end user processing device), when analyzed
individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 13–14 (citing 2014 Interim Guidance
on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618 (December 16,
2014)).
Legal Framework
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, we apply
the Supreme Court’s two-step framework articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). First, we determine whether the claims are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas. Id. at 216. If so, we then proceed to the second step to
consider the elements of the claims “individually and ‘as an ordered
combination’” to determine whether there are additional elements that
“‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. at
217. In other words, the second step is to “search for an ‘inventive
concept’—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

5
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 218 (alteration in original).
The Federal Circuit has described the Alice step-one inquiry as
looking at the “focus” of the claims, their “character as a whole,” and the
Alice step-two inquiry as looking more precisely at what the claim elements
add—whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of the
ineligible matter to which the claim is directed. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents
Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In an effort to achieve clarity and consistency in how the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office (the “Office”) applies the Supreme Court’s two-step
framework, the Office recently published revised guidance interpreting
governing case law and establishing a prosecution framework for all patent-
eligibility analysis under Alice and § 101 effective as of January 7, 2019.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50–
57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Revised Guidance”).
2019 Revised Guidance
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look under Alice step 1 or
“Step 2A” to whether the claim recites:
(1) Prong One: any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., [a] mathematical concepts,
[b] certain methods of organizing human activity such as a
fundamental economic practice or managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people)
and [c] mental processes; and

(2) Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

6
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–
(h)).3
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51–52, 55, Revised Step 2A,
Prong One (Abstract Idea) and Prong Two (Integration into A Practical
Application). Only if a claim: (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does
not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then evaluate
whether the claim provides an “inventive concept” under Alice step 2 or
“Step 2B.” See 2019 Revised Guidance at 56; Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18.
For example, we look to whether the claim:
1) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

2) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
In the briefing, Appellant and the Examiner refer to prior USPTO
guidance regarding § 101, including, for example: (1) 2014 Interim
Guidance on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, 79 Fed. Reg. 74,618
(December 16, 2014) and (2) July 2015 Update on Subject Matter
Eligibility, 80 Fed. Reg. 45,429 (July 30, 2015) (“the 2015 Update”). Final
Act. 8–15; Ans. 5–10. However, the 2014 Interim Guidance, the 2015
Update and other prior guidance, including: (1) May 2016 Subject Matter
Eligibility Update, 81 Fed. Reg. 27,381 (May 6, 2016); and (2)
Memorandum on Subject Matter Eligibility Decisions dated Nov. 2, 2016

3 All references to the MPEP are to the Ninth Edition, Revision 08.2017
(rev. Jan. 2018).
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

7
have been superseded by the 2019 Revised Guidance. See 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. As such, our analysis will not address the
sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection against the cited prior guidance.
Rather, our analysis will comport with the 2019 Revised Guidance as
discussed below.
Alice/Mayo—Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Step 2A–Prongs 1 and 2 identified in the Revised Guidance
Step 2A—Prong 1
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s determination that claims
1–20 recite “a fundamental economic practice” or “mental processes.” Final
Act. 11; Ans. 3–4. Instead, Appellant argues these claims recite:
real-time global business data reporting systems and methods
which are capable of [i] accounting for all revenue generated by
international companies and [ii] analyzing this data to in turn
generate business intelligence and [iii] display advice to end
users . . . a computerized network system which features a
centralized server or servers that collect data from a company’s
business locations (both physical and online) located around the
world. The collected data is collated and synthesized with other
sources of data useful to a company (e.g., real-time weather data,
exchange rates, financial news, geopolitical news, societal
events, epidemiological data, etc.) and then analyzed by a series
of proprietary algorithms.

App. Br. 7–8 (emphasis added). Appellant further argues the “claims are
distinguishable from those in Electric Power Group and analogous to those
in Enfish, having claims directed to software.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Enfish,
822 F.3d 1327) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

8
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note4 the
inquiry under Alice step 1 is not whether the claim is directed to (1)
hardware, such as “a computerized network system which features a
centralized server or servers [] located around the world” as characterized by
Appellant, or (2) software as disclosed in Enfish and, as such, is patent-
eligible under § 101. Neither the presence of hardware or software is
dispositive. As such, the inclusion of generic hardware or software does not
make the claim patent-eligible under § 101.
Instead, the inquiry under Alice step 1 is whether the claim is directed
to an abstract idea. The Patent Office has synthesized, for purposes of
clarity, predictability, and consistency, the “abstract idea” exception to
include three groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., [1] mathematical concepts, [2]
certain methods of organizing human activity (such as a fundamental
economic practice or managing personal behavior or relationships or
interactions between people), and [3] mental processes) as currently
identified in our Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Here, Appellant’s claim 1 recites a “system that provides real-time
financial valuation information for entities that process financial transactions
across multiple currencies” equipped with “a central processing device”
including the following limitations:
(1) “receiv[ing] transaction data . . . including quantitative
measurements of the financial value of transactions processed by
each business location processing device, including at least the

4 We also note Appellant argues independent claims 1 and 19 together,
further providing specific arguments for claim 1. See App. Br. 6–8; Reply
Br. 2–6. Therefore, we select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim for the group and address Appellants’ arguments thereto. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

9
value received and any tax liabilities associated with the value
received;”

(2) “receiving transaction value modifying data from one or more
external data processing devices, the transaction value modifying
data including at least one of currency exchange rate data and
regional tax liability data;” [and]

(3) “generat[ing] modified transaction data comprising the
transaction data modified by the transaction value modifying
data [one or more currency value modifiers derived from
geopolitical events from stock market data, or from aggregated,
anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses], the
modified transaction data accessible through a graphical user
interface provided through an end user processing device, the
graphical user interface providing at least one user option for
viewing real-time, aggregated, modified transaction data derived
from transaction data comprising two or more currencies.”

App. Br. 18–19 (Claims App.).
These limitations of Appellant’s claim 1, under their broadest
reasonable interpretation, recite nothing more than “collecting, analyzing,
and displaying financial and other forms of business data,” i.e., analyzing all
revenue data generated to international companies to generate business
intelligence, which is a known business activity and a fundamental economic
practice in our system of commerce. See Spec. ¶¶ 2–3. Such activities are
squarely within the realm of abstract ideas, like (1) the risk hedging in Bilski
v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); (2) the intermediated settlement in Alice,
573 U.S. at 220; (3) verifying credit card transactions in CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1370; (4) guaranteeing transactions in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc.,
765 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2014); (5) distributing products over the
Internet in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

10
(6) determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization in
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
and (7) pricing a product for sale in OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “Collecting, analyzing, and displaying
financial and other forms of business data” is also a building block of a
market economy and, like risk hedging and intermediated settlement, is an
“abstract idea” beyond the scope of § 101. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 220.
Alternatively, “collecting, analyzing, and displaying financial and
other forms of business data” is nothing more than “mental processes” that
could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and
paper—a subject matter that falls within the three groupings of abstract ideas
identified by the Revised Guidance. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372–73 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[A] method that
can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is
not patent-eligible under § 101.”); see also In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967,
979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[M]ental processes—or processes of human
thinking—standing alone are not patentable even if they have practical
application.”); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972) (“Phenomena
of nature, . . . mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not
patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.”
(Emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes remain unpatentable
even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what once could
have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That
purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a
computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v.
Benson.”).
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

11
As further recognized by the Examiner, “collecting, analyzing, and
displaying financial and other forms of business data” is also analogous to
the claims identified by the Federal Circuit as directed to an abstract idea in
Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Final Act. 13.
We, therefore, conclude limitations (1)–(3) in Appellant’s claim 1
recite “collecting, analyzing, and displaying financial and other forms of
business data,” which is “a fundamental economic practice” and/or “mental
processes” as identified in the Revised Guidance, and therefore, an abstract
idea. See 2019 Revised Guidance (Revised Step 2A, Prong One), 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52, 54.
Step 2A—Prong 2 (Integration into Practical Application)
Under Revised Step 2A, Prong Two of the Revised Guidance, we must
determine if the claims (i.e., additional limitations beyond the judicial
exception) integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
However, we discern no additional element (or combination of elements)
recited in Appellants’ claims 1–20 that integrates the judicial exception into
a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55
(“Prong Two”). For example, Appellants’ additional elements (i.e., central
processing device and end user processing device) recited in claims 1–20 do
not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are
not applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer), (3)
do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and
(4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use
of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

12
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Nevertheless, Appellant argues, like the Enfish claims, (1) the
“present claims are not claims in which general-purpose computer
components are added after the fact to a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation, but are directed to a specific implementation of a
solution to a problem in the software arts, and, like Enfish, the claims are
thus not directed to an abstract idea” and (2) “similar to similar to the
analysis in Enfish, the present claims ‘function differently than conventional
[] structures’ and are ‘directed to an improvement of an existing
technology.’” Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, the “claimed systems
address the problem in current business management technologies and
companies fully embracing a worldwide, single market view of the lack of
revenue generation and management systems featuring real time data
reporting and multinational/international support.” Id.
We do not agree. There is no support from Appellant’s Specification
for any feature that would improve any “existing technology” as Appellant
argues. Reply Br. 5. Using generic computer devices (i.e., “central
processing device” or “end user processing device”) as a tool, as shown in
Appellant’s Figure 1, to perform an abstract idea are insufficient to show
“integration into a practical application.” See MPEP § 2106.05(f). Instead,
these generic computer devices are simply the “automation of the
fundamental economic concept,” OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362–63.
“[M]erely requiring generic computer implementation,” “do[] not move into
[§] 101 eligibility territory.” buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1354.
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

13
For business-centric inventions such as Appellant’s invention
involving “collecting, analyzing, and displaying financial and other forms of
business data,” the “integration into a practical application” prong requires
consideration of whether the claims purport to provide “a technical solution
to a technical problem” as required by the Federal Circuit’s precedential
decisions in (1) DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and (2) Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc.,
841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a).
For example, the Federal Circuit found DDR’s claims are patent-
eligible under § 101 because DDR’s claims: (1) do not merely recite “the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world”
previously disclosed in Bilski and Alice; but instead (2) provide a technical
solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet, i.e., a “solution . . .
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR, 773 F.3d at
1257. Likewise, the Federal Circuit also found Amdocs’ claims patent-
eligible under § 101 because like DDR, Amdocs’ claims “entail[] an
unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed
fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously
required massive databases)” and “improve the performance of the system
itself.” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300, 1302.
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments (see Reply Br. 5), “collecting,
analyzing, and displaying financial and other forms of business data” does
not provide any “technical solution to a technical problem” as contemplated
by the Federal Circuit in DDR and Amdocs. See MPEP § 2106.05(a). For
example, Appellant’s claimed “collecting, analyzing, and displaying
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

14
financial and other forms of business data” does not provide a technical
solution to a technical problem unique to the Internet, i.e., a “solution . . .
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” DDR, 773 F.3d at
1257. Nor does Appellant’s invention entail, like Amdocs, any
“unconventional technological solution (enhancing data in a distributed
fashion) to a technological problem (massive record flows which previously
required massive databases)” and “improve the performance of the system
itself.” Amdocs, 841 F.3d at 1300, 1302. The focus of Appellant’s
invention is not to improve the performance of computers or any underlying
technology; instead, the focus is to use generic computers as a tool to gather
and analyze business data to generate business intelligence (see Spec. ¶ 2;
Abstract). Likewise, the solution proposed by Appellant is not to improve
any existing technology, but simply to improve the accounting of all revenue
generated within international companies.
A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. See Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “No
matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the
advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged
innovation in the non-abstract application realm.” See SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded that Appellant’s “additional
elements” recited in claims 1–20 integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application.
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

15
Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Revised Guidance
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, only if a claim: (1) recites a
judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to 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.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. However, we find no
element or combination of elements recited in Appellant’s claims 1–20 that
contain any “inventive concept” or add anything “significantly more” to
transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573
U.S. 208 at 221.
Appellant does not identify any “specific limitation [of claim 1]
beyond the judicial exception that is not ‘well-understood, routine,
conventional’ in the field” as per MPEP § 2106.05(d). Instead, Appellant
argues “[t]he combination of the central processing device . . . one or more
external data processing device . . . an end user processing device” is
significantly more than an abstract idea. App. Br. 10. Appellant also
argues, like the claims in BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), “the claims of the present
application include a specific series of steps that modify the conventional
valuation of financial transactions to account for current events and other
valuations across multiple currencies in real-time” including:
• “one or more currency value modifiers derived from geopolitical
events from stock market data,
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

16

• one or more currency value modifiers derived from aggregated,
anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses, or

• at least one assessment of the current gross worth of the monetary
assets of a company, the current net worth of the monetary assets
of a company, the fees owed related to the monetary assets of a
company, the taxes owed related to the monetary assets of a
company, or the refunds owed related to the monetary assets of
a company.”

Reply Br. 12–13. According to Appellant, “[t]he combination of elements
imposes meaningful limits in that the mathematical operations (i.e., the
modification of transaction data) are applied to improve an existing
technology (transaction valuation services) by improving the entire
ecosystern of revenue generation and management systems to provide
unique incentives, efficiencies, and flexibility in terms of increasing
accuracy of data across global markets, applying modifications relevant to
specific current events, and options for viewing data in real-time,
aggregated, and modified based on transaction data comprising two or more
currencies.” Reply Br. 13.
However, Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive. Modification of
financial data and transactions to account for current events and other
valuations across multiple currencies does not constitute an “inventive
concept.” Likewise, utilizing generic computer devices do not alone
transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As
our reviewing court has observed, “after Alice, there can remain no doubt:
recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.” DDR, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573
U.S. at 222).
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

17
Appellant’s reliance on BASCOM is also misplaced. For example,
BASCOM (U.S. Patent No. 5,987,606 (“BASCOM ’606 patent”)) describes a
particular arrangement of filtering software at a specific location, remote
from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end
user. The filtering software enables individually customizable filtering at
the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical ability of the ISP
server to identify individual accounts and associate a request for Internet
content with a specific individual account. BASCOM ’606 patent, 4:35–38.
The Federal Circuit recognized that BASCOM’S installation of an
Internet content filter at a particular network location is “a technical
improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content” because such an
arrangement advantageously allows the Internet content filter to have “both
the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the
ISP server” and “give[s] users the ability to customize filtering for their
individual network accounts.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350, 1352.
According to the Federal Circuit, BASCOM’s claims “do not preempt the use
of the abstract idea of filtering content on the Internet or on generic
computer components performing conventional activities.” Id. at 1352.
Instead, BASCOM’S claims “carve out a specific location for the filtering
system (a remote ISP server) and require the filtering system to give users
the ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts.” Id.
As such, “an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and
non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.” Id. at 1350.
In contrast to BASCOM, Appellant’s claims and Specification are
directed to “systems and methods of collecting, analyzing, and displaying
financial and other forms of business data,” and more specifically, “a real
Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

18
time global business data reporting system which is capable of accounting
for all revenue generated to international companies and analyzing this data
to, in turn, generate business intelligence and display advice to end users.”
Spec. ¶ 2; Abstract. There is no evidence in the record to support the
contention that Appellant’s claimed system is provided with any non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
components similar to BASCOM. Likewise, there is no element or
combination of elements recited in Appellant’s claims 1–20 that contain any
“inventive concept” or add anything “significantly more” to transform the
abstract concept into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573 U.S. 208 at
221.
Because Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 19 are directed to a
patent-ineligible abstract concept and do not recite an “inventive concept” or
provide a solution to a technical problem under the second step of the Alice
analysis, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent claims 1
and 19, and their dependent claims 2–18 and 20 not separately argued. See
App. Br. 6.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellant has not demonstrated
the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2018-004924
Application 15/373,170

19
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.§ Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 non-statutory 1–20
Overall Outcome 1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED