Blair, Edward Tilden. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 25, 2020

13189131 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 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.
13/189,131 07/22/2011 Edward Tilden Blair 94926-006000US-858468 9604
110577 7590 03/25/2020
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP
SAS Institute Inc.
Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
EXAMINER
COTHRAN, BERNARD E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2128
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/25/2020 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):
KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EDWARD TILDEN BLAIR, MICHAEL J. LEONARD, DAVID
BRUCE ELSHEIMER, JERZY MICHAL BRZEZICKI,
KANNUKUZHIYIL KURIEN, MICHAEL RYAN CHIPLEY,
DINESH P. APTE, and MING-CHUN CHANG
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant,1 Edward Tilden Blair et al.,
appeals from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 21–24, 27, 29, 30,
32–35, 38, 40, 41, 43–46, 49, 51, 52, and 54, which are all claims pending in
the application. Appellant has canceled claims 1–20, 25, 26, 28, 31, 36, 37,
39, 42, 47, 48, 50, and 53. Appeal Br. 3. 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). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAS
Institute Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to computer-implemented systems and
methods for large scale automatic forecast combinations. See Spec. (Title).
Appellant’s disclosed embodiments and claimed invention “relate[]
generally to computer-implemented forecasting and more particularly to
using multiple forecasts to generate a combined forecast.” Spec. 1, ll. 2–3.
Claim 32, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
Exemplary Claim
32. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, on a computing device, an identification of a
forecast variable and characteristics of the forecast variable,
wherein the forecast variable is used to generate a combined
forecast;
receiving historic data related to the forecast variable;
receiving a set of predictive models used to generate
forecasts associated with the forecast variable;
applying one or more forecast quality tests to the set of
predictive models to filter the set of predictive models to a
reduced set of predictive models, wherein the forecast quality
tests analyze the set of predictive models using types of models
in the set of predictive models and the characteristics of the
forecast variable;
identifying a first predictive model and a second
predictive model of the reduced set of predictive models,

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Nov. 1, 2017); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 10, 2018); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 15, 2018); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed June 1, 2017); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
July 22, 2011).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

3
wherein the first predictive model and the second predictive
model are operable to provide forecasts with regard to the
forecast variable and based on the historic data, wherein the
first predictive model and the second predictive model have
associated metadata,
wherein identifying includes using a forecast model
selection graph having a combination node that represents a
combination of forecasts generated using the first predictive
model and second predictive model, a selection node that
represents a plurality of forecasts available for selection, and
multiple forecast nodes, each of the forecast nodes representing
a predictive model, and
wherein identifying the first predictive model and the
second predictive model includes determining that a first one of
the forecast nodes is associated with the first predictive model
and the second one of the forecast nodes is associated with the
second predictive model;
generating a first forecast using the historic data and the
first predictive model;
generating a second forecast using the historic data and
the second predictive model;
determining a first optimized weight to apply to the first
forecast by referencing the metadata associated with the first
predictive model, wherein the metadata associated with the first
predictive model identifies a model characteristic of the first
predictive model, and wherein determining the first optimized
weight to apply to the first forecast includes performing
automated analysis of the characteristics of the forecast variable
and the model characteristic of the first predictive model to
determine an optimum weight for the first forecast;
determining a second optimized weight to apply to the
second forecast by referencing the metadata associated with the
second predictive model, wherein the metadata associated with
the second predictive model identifies a model characteristic of
the second predictive model, and wherein determining the
second optimized weight to apply to the second forecast
includes performing automated analysis of the characteristics of
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

4
the forecast variable and the model characteristic of the second
predictive model to determine an optimum weight for the
second forecast;
obtaining a first optimized forecast by applying the
optimized first weight to the first forecast;
obtaining a second optimized forecast by applying the
optimized second weight to the second forecast; and
generating an optimized combined forecast by combining
the first optimized forecast and the second optimized forecast.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 21–24, 27, 29, 30, 32–35, 38, 40, 41, 43–46, 49, 51, 52, and 54
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 abstract idea) without significantly more. Final Act. 9.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 7–19) and our discretion
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal of patent-ineligible
subject matter rejection of claims 21–24, 27, 29, 30, 32–35, 38, 40, 41, 43–
46, 49, 51, 52, and 54 on the basis of representative claim 32.3

3 “Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In addition, when Appellant does not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

5
ISSUE
Under the USPTO’s Revised Guidance, informed by our governing
case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, is claim 32 patent-ineligible under
§ 101?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. 35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it is a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.4
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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In accordance with that framework, 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

4 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four
statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the USPTO’s patent-
eligibility analysis under § 101. MPEP § 2106.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

6
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” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853)));
and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v.
Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory
does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical
formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view
respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is
now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

7
formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and
mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under
this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what
the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one
inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (citation omitted) (“[W]e tread carefully in
construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “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 (citation 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. (alterations in original) (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.
B. USPTO Revised Guidance
The PTO published revised guidance in the Federal Register
concerning the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (January 7, 2019) (hereinafter
“Revised Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-
07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

8
Under the Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings
of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes);5 and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).6
See Revised Guidance 52–53.
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:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional”
in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine,
conventional activities previously known to the industry,
specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.7
See Revised Guidance 56.
Step 2A(i) — Abstract Idea
Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and
synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain

5 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”).
6 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”).
7 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

9
that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject
matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity —
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts;
legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Revised Guidance 52 (footnotes omitted).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-
eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis,
except in situations identified in the Revised Guidance.8
However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea
enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim
requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception
in Step 2A(ii).

8 In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation
that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in
the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Revised
Guidance, Section III.C.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

10
Step 2A(ii) — Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A(i), we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
The seven identified “practical application” sections of the MPEP,9
cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of
a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical
Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An
Exception
(6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological
Environment
See Revised Guidance 55.

9 See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer
to revision [R-08.2017]. Sections 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) are indicative
of integration into a practical application, while §§ 2106.05(f), (g), and (h)
relate to limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

11
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited
above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-
eligibility inquiry ends. See Revised Guidance 54. If not, then analysis
proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
Under our reviewing courts’ precedent, it is possible that a claim that
does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is
nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional
elements that render the claim patent eligible even though one or more claim
elements may recite a judicial exception.10 The Federal Circuit has held
claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B)
because the additional elements recited in the claims provided “significantly
more” than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional
elements were unconventional in combination).11 Therefore, if a claim has
been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step
2A, we must also evaluate the additional elements individually and in
combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more
than the exception itself).12

10 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187.
11 See, e.g., Amdocs, Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300,
1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
12 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

12
Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an
additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present”; or (2) “simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance,
Section III.B.13
In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in
writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the
specification or to a statement made by an applicant during

(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he question of whether a claim element or
combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a
skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
13 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner’s finding that
an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood,
routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four
specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer
Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning evaluation
of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d),
as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (USPTO
Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018, “Changes in
Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (hereinafter
“Berkheimer Memo”).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

13
prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . .
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions
discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s). . . .
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official
notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the additional element(s). . . .
See Berkheimer Memo 3–4.
If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the
element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the
exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility
analysis.
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination
of elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the
claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for lack of
subject matter eligibility.
ANALYSIS
Step 1 — Statutory Category
Claim 32, as a computer-implemented method (process) claim, recites
one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Therefore, the issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

14
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined that the claims “are directed to an abstract
idea of organizing information through mathematical correlations to
generate a first and second forecast. The claim(s) does/do not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are
recited at a high level of generality, provide conventional computer
functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.”
Final Act. 9–10.
We conclude claim 32 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either
natural phenomena or laws of nature. We evaluate, de novo, whether
claim 32 recites an abstract idea based upon the Revised Guidance.
First, we look to the Specification to provide context as to what the
claimed invention is directed to. In this case, the Specification discloses that
the invention “relates generally to computer-implemented forecasting and
more particularly to using multiple forecasts to generate a combined
forecast.” Spec. 1, ll. 1–2.
Appellant’s Abstract further describes the invention:
Systems and methods are provided for evaluating a
physical process with respect to one or more attributes of the
physical process by combining forecasts for the one or more
physical process attributes, where data for evaluating the
physical process is generated over time. A forecast model
selection graph is accessed, the forecast model selection graph
comprising a hierarchy of nodes arranged in parent-child
relationships. A plurality of model forecast nodes are resolved,
where resolving a model forecast node includes generating a
node forecast for the one or more physical process attributes. A
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

15
combination node is processed, where a combination node
transforms a plurality of node forecasts at child nodes of the
combination node into a combined forecast. A selection node is
processed, where a selection node chooses a node forecast from
among child nodes of the selection node based on a selection
criteria.
Spec. 32 (Abstract).
With respect to this phase of the analysis, Appellant urges reversal of
the Examiner’s rejection based upon the holdings in McRO and Enfish. See
Appeal Br. 11–12, 13–15.
McRO
In the Appeal Brief, Appellant argues the claims are similar to those
held patent-eligible in McRO. Appeal Br. 11 (“As in McRO, the claims here
are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims are directed to an
improvement in computer-related technology.”) (Citing McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellant
further argues:
Here, the claims are directed to computer automation of
the generation of optimized combined forecasts using specific
and unconventional rules that are enumerated in the claims. For
example, the claims require that quality tests are applied to
predictive models for filtering to a reduced set of predictive
models, that two specific predictive models are identified using
a forecast model selection graph with nodes representing
selection, combination, and forecasting, that optimized weights
are determined using metadata and characteristics associated
with the predictive models, and that the optimized weights are
used in obtaining optimized forecasts that are then combined to
generate an optimized forecast. These rules allow efficient
selection, filtering, and weighting to enable automatic
generation of a combined forecast in an unconventional
manner. Previously, forecasting corresponded to generating
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

16
individual forecasts, which could be generated by a computer or
a human expert, and techniques for automated optimizing and
preselection of forecasts for automated generation of optimized
combined forecasts were not well-known.
At its most advanced, conventional forecasting
techniques may employ human experts to generate optimized
forecasts. Optimization by a human expert may make use of
subjective judgmental decisions based on the expert's analysis.
This is similar to the facts in McRO, where the court indicated
that human animators would make subjective determinations
about how to animate a face, but the claims instead relied on
specific and limited rules. McRO 837 F.3d at 1314. The claimed
techniques here do not simply automate what was done
conventionally or simply allow for known processes to be
performed faster; like in McRO, the claimed automated
forecasting techniques cannot and do not rely on subjective
judgments, but instead achieve unique results through the
unconventional application of specific rules that are included in
the claims.
Appeal Br. 12. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments.
We disagree because, in McRO, the claims were not held to be
abstract because they recited a “specific . . . improvement in computer
animation” using “unconventional rules that relate[d] sub-sequences of
phonemes, timings, and morph weight sets.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1302–03, 1307–08, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir.
2016). In McRO, “the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the
computer,” improved an existing technological process. Id. at 1314.
Appellant does not, however, persuasively identify how the claims
improve an existing technological process by use of the unconventional
application of specific rules that are included in the claim. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 223 (explaining that “the claims in Diehr were patent eligible
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

17
because they improved an existing technological process”). Rather,
claim 32 concerns a “computer-implemented method” that uses multiple
forecasts to generate a combined forecast. Appeal Br. 20 (Claims App.). In
addition, Appellant does not direct us to any evidence that the claimed
historic data gathering, application of forecast quality tests, predictive
modeling using weighted forecasts, and generating steps correspond to
unconventional rules.
Enfish14
Appellant argues:
Here, the claims are also not directed to tasks for which a
computer is used in its ordinary capacity, but instead focus on
an improvement to computer functionality and operation, by
employing a specific data structure, used in the claims to
generate an optimized combined forecast and that may be
updated with the optimized combined forecast. This data
structure is described in claims 21, 32, and 43 as a forecast
model selection graph. Further detail with respect to this aspect
is provided below with explicit reference to claim 54.
Appeal Br. 13.
With respect to independent system claim 54, Appellant argues:
[S]imilar to Enfish, the focus of claim 54 is on the
databases and how they are used to improve the efficiency of a
computer process (namely, of forecasting using an optimized
combined forecast). The databases are used and updated to
make this computer process happen and to make the computer
more efficiently achieve an improved optimized forecast, or in
other words to advance computer technology (i.e., computer
forecasting technology). In addition, claim 54 is directed to
techniques for using these databases and instructions to more

14 Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

18
accurately analyze different types of data and achieve a more
efficient forecast based on that data. Therefore, similar to
Enfish, the claims improve computer functionality.
Going a step further, the claimed forecasting in this
application, which includes a complex process of making
predictions or other statements of the future ( e.g. events whose
actual outcomes have not yet been observed) based on past and
present data and analysis of trends or models, even goes one or
more steps beyond the database in Enfish because the claimed
subject matter in this application includes complex analysis of
data to produce a more efficient outcome and not just a
technique of organizing data.
Appeal Br. 14.
We disagree with Appellant’s contentions. We disagree because, in
Enfish, our reviewing court held claims directed to a self-referential logical
model for a computer database patent-eligible under step one of Alice.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330. The disclosed technique enabled faster searching
and more effective storage of data than previous methods. Id. at 1333. The
court found the claims directed to “a specific improvement to the way
computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table” (id. at 1336), and
explained that the claims are “not simply directed to any form of storing
tabular data, but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table
for a computer database” that functions differently than conventional
databases. Id. at 1337.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the claims on
appeal, which merely recite receiving and processing historic data and
metadata (independent claims 21, 32, 43), and independent claim 54 which
recites a storage medium for storing data structures that contain data related
to predictive models and metadata, are sufficiently analogous to those in
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

19
Enfish, in which the Federal Circuit held the claims to be an improvement in
the operation of the computer.
In TABLE 1 below, we identify in italics the specific claim
limitations in claim 32 that we conclude recite an abstract idea. We
additionally identify in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations
that are generic computer components and techniques, and underline
limitations representing extra or post-solution activity:
TABLE 1
Independent Claim 32 Revised Guidance
A computer-implemented
method, comprising:
A process (method) is a statutory subject
matter class. See 35 U.S.C. § 101.
[L1a] . . . on a computing
device,

[L1b] [receiving] . . . an
identification of a forecast
variable and characteristics
of the forecast variable,
wherein the forecast
variable is used to generate
a combined forecast;
As claimed and described in the
Specification, a computing device is a
generic computer component. See, e.g.,
Spec. 22, ll. 1–3 (“A processing system
3354 labeled CPU (central processing unit)
(e.g., one or more computer processors),
may perform calculations and logic
operations required to execute a
program.”).
Receiving information, i.e., data gathering,
is insignificant extra-solution activity.
Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see also MPEP
§ 2106.05(g).
[L2] receiving historic data
related to the forecast
variable;
Receiving information, i.e., data
gathering, is insignificant extra-solution
activity. Revised Guidance 55, n.31; see
also MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

20
Independent Claim 32 Revised Guidance
[L3] receiving a set of
predictive models used to
generate forecasts
associated with the forecast
variable;
We conclude “receiving a set of predictive
models used to generate forecasts”
represents generic use of conventional
computer components and techniques. See
Appeal Br. 4; Spec. 3, ll. 9–11 (“The data
structures may include a predictive
models data structure, the predictive
models data structure containing
predictive data model records for
specifying predictive data models . . .”);
Spec. 6, ll. 8–12 (“To generate the
combined forecast 206, the combined
forecast engine 202 may identify a
number of individual predictive models.
Those individual predictive models may
be provided historic data 208 as input, and
those individual predictive models
provide individual forecasts based on the
provided historic data 208”). Thus,
“receiving a set of predictive models”
involves reading data records from a data
structure.
[L4] applying one or more
forecast quality tests to the
set of predictive models to
filter the set of predictive
models to a reduced set of
predictive models,
wherein the forecast quality
tests analyze the set of
predictive models using
types of models in the set
of predictive models and
the characteristics of the
forecast variable;
“[A]pplying one or more . . . tests,”
specifically for the purpose of filtering
and analyzing predictive models, is an
abstract idea, i.e., an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion which
could be performed as a mental process.
See Revised Guidance 52.
[L5] identifying a first
predictive model and a
“[I]dentifying . . . model[s]” is an abstract
idea, i.e., an observation, evaluation,
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

21
Independent Claim 32 Revised Guidance
second predictive model of
the reduced set of
predictive models,
wherein the first predictive
model and the second
predictive model are
operable to provide
forecasts with regard to the
forecast variable and based
on the historic data,
wherein the first predictive
model and the second
predictive model have
associated metadata,
judgment, opinion which could be
performed as a mental process. See
Revised Guidance 52.
wherein identifying
includes
[L6a] using a forecast
model selection graph
having a combination node
that represents a
combination of forecasts
generated using the first
predictive model and
second predictive model,

[L6b] a selection node that
represents a plurality of
forecasts available for
selection, and multiple
forecast nodes, each of the

We conclude “using a forecast model
selection graph” is an abstract idea, i.e.,
an observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52.
See Spec. 7, ll. 3–6 (“At [step] 310, the
combined forecast engine accesses a
forecast model selection graph. A forecast
model selection graph incorporates both
model selection and model combination
into a decision based framework that,
when applied to a time series,
automatically selects a forecast from an
evaluation of independent, individual
forecasts generated.”).
Representing a plurality of forecasts with
“a selection node” is an abstract idea, i.e.,
an observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52;
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

22
Independent Claim 32 Revised Guidance
forecast nodes representing
a predictive model, and
Spec. 10, ll. 15–17 (“The forecast model
selection graph also includes selection
nodes 406. A selection node may include
a selection criteria for choosing a node
forecast from among child nodes (e.g.,
model forecast nodes 404) of the selection
node 406.”). Thus, the selection node, by
choosing a node forecast using selection
criteria, makes a judgement and
evaluation.
wherein identifying the first
predictive model and the
second predictive model
includes
[L7] determining that a
first one of the forecast
nodes is associated with the
first predictive model and
the second one of the
forecast nodes is associated
with the second predictive
model;

“[D]etermining” is an abstract idea, i.e.,
an observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52.
[L8] generating a first
forecast using the historic
data and the first predictive
model;
“[G]enerating a first forecast using the
historic data” is an abstract idea, i.e., an
observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52.
[L9] generating a second
forecast using the historic
data and the second
predictive model;
“[G]enerating a second forecast using the
historic data” is an abstract idea, i.e., an
observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52.
[L10a] determining a first
optimized weight to apply
to the first forecast by
referencing the metadata
“[D]etermining a first optimized weight”
is an abstract idea, i.e., an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion which
could be performed as a mental process.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

23
Independent Claim 32 Revised Guidance
associated with the first
predictive model, wherein
the metadata associated
with the first predictive
model identifies a model
characteristic of the first
predictive model, and
wherein determining the
first optimized weight to
apply to the first forecast
includes
[L10b] performing
automated analysis of the
characteristics of the
forecast variable and the
model characteristic of the
first predictive model to
determine an optimum
weight for the first forecast;
See Revised Guidance 52.

“[P]erforming . . . analysis . . . to
determine an optimum weight for the first
forecast” is an abstract idea, i.e., an
observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52.
[L11a] determining a
second optimized weight to
apply to the second forecast
by referencing the metadata
associated with the second
predictive model, wherein
the metadata associated
with the second predictive
model identifies a model
characteristic of the second
predictive model, and
wherein
[L11b] determining the
second optimized weight to
apply to the second forecast
includes performing
automated analysis of the
“[D]etermining a second optimized
weight” and “performing . . . analysis . . .
to determine an optimum weight” are
abstract ideas, i.e., an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion which
could be performed as a mental process.
See Revised Guidance 52.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

24
Independent Claim 32 Revised Guidance
characteristics of the
forecast variable and the
model characteristic of the
second predictive model to
determine an optimum
weight for the second
forecast;
[L12] obtaining a first
optimized forecast by
applying the optimized first
weight to the first forecast;
“[A]pplying the optimized first weight to
the first forecast” to obtain an optimized
forecast is an abstract idea, i.e., an
observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion which could be performed as a
mental process. See Revised Guidance 52.
[L13] obtaining a second
optimized forecast by
applying the optimized
second weight to the second
forecast; and
“[A]pplying” a weight to a forecast to
obtain a second optimized forecast is an
abstract idea, i.e., an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion which
could be performed as a mental process.
See Revised Guidance 52.
[L14] generating an
optimized combined
forecast by combining the
first optimized forecast and
the second optimized
forecast.
“[G]enerating an optimized combined
forecast by combining [two forecasts]” is
an abstract idea, i.e., an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion which
could be performed as a mental process.
See Revised Guidance 52.
Alternatively, the “generating . . . by
combining” step can be construed as an
abstract mathematical calculation in
which two results are combined. Revised
Guidance 52 and n.12 citing SAP
America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that
claims to a “series of mathematical
calculations based on selected
information” are directed to abstract
ideas).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

25
Spec. 22–23 (Claims App.).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,15 we conclude
limitations L1 through L14 recite steps that would ordinarily occur when
using multiple forecasts to generate a combined forecast. See Final Act. 10.
For example, weighting first and second forecasts and combining them in a
weighted fashion are operations that generally occur when determining a
more accurate forecast from multiple forecasts, whether initiated person-to-
person, on paper, or using a computer.
We determine that claim 32, overall, recites a mental process that may
also be performed by pen and paper. This type of activity, i.e., using
multiple forecasts to generate a combined forecast, as recited in limitations
L1 through L14, for example, and aside from any computer-related aspects,
includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of
computers and the Internet, and could be carried out by a human with pen
and paper. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable,

15 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words 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 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

26
even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the
Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).16
Thus, under Step 2A(i), we agree with the Examiner that claim 32’s
computer-implemented method recites an abstract idea. We conclude
claim 32, under our Revised Guidance, recites a judicial exception of using
multiple forecasts to generate a combined forecast, i.e., a mental process,
and thus is an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, as we conclude
above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in which we
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.

16 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does
not, “impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241. Further, “[t]he Board’s
slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability
analysis.” Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract ideas does not
render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math)
to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-abstract.”); see
also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

27
As to the specific limitations, we find limitations L1b (“receiving . . .
an identification of a forecast variable and characteristics of the forecast
variable”); and L2 (“receiving historic data related to the forecast variable”)
recite insignificant data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Data gathering,
as performed by the steps or function in Appellant’s claims, is a classic
example of insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545
F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. 593 (2010).
On this record, we are of the view that Appellant’s claims do not
operate the recited generic computer components in an unconventional
manner to achieve an improvement in computer functionality. See, e.g.,
limitations [L1a] (“on a computing device”) and [L3] (“receiving a set of
predictive models used to generate forecasts associated with the forecast
variable”) in TABLE 1; and see MPEP § 2106.05(a).
We find each of limitations L4 through L14 recite abstract ideas as
identified in Step 2A(i), and L1b and L2 recite extra-solution activity, supra,
and none of the limitations integrate the judicial exception of using multiple
forecasts to generate a combined forecast into a practical application as
determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited above. The claim
as a whole merely uses instructions to implement the abstract idea on a
computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the
abstract idea.
Under analogous circumstances, the Federal Circuit has held that
“[t]his is a quintessential ‘do it on a computer’ patent: it acknowledges that
[such] data . . . was previously collected, analyzed, manipulated, and
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

28
displayed manually, and it simply proposes doing so with a computer. We
have held such claims are directed to abstract ideas.” Univ. of Fla. Research
Found., Inc. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 916 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see
also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“Though lengthy and numerous, the claims do not go beyond
requiring the collection, analysis, and display of available information in a
particular field, stating those functions in general terms, without limiting
them to technical means for performing the functions that are arguably an
advance over conventional computer and network technology.”).
Therefore, the claim as a whole merely uses instructions to implement
the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively, merely uses a computer as a
tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, on this record, Appellant has not
shown an improvement or practical application under the guidance of MPEP
section 2106.05(a) (“Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to
Any Other Technology or Technical Field”) or section 2106.05(e)(“Other
Meaningful Limitations”). Nor does Appellant advance any arguments in
the Brief(s) that are directed to the Bilski machine-or-transformation test,
which would only be applicable to the method (process) claims on appeal.
See MPEP §§ 2106.05(b) (Particular Machine) and 2106.05(c) (Particular
Transformation).
Therefore, we conclude the abstract idea is not integrated into a
practical application, and thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, and not integrated
into a practical application, as we conclude above, we proceed to the
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

29
“inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we must “look with more specificity
at what the claim elements add, in order to determine ‘whether they identify
an “inventive concept” in the application of the ineligible subject matter’ to
which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC,
838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
we must “determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply
describe [the] abstract method” and thus transform the abstract idea into
patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014). We look to see whether there are any “additional
features” in the claims that constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby
rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed to an
abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Those “additional features” must be
more than “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 566
U.S. at 79.
Limitations referenced in Alice that are not enough to qualify as
“significantly more” when recited in a claim with an abstract idea include, as
non-limiting or non-exclusive examples: adding the words “apply it” (or an
equivalent) with an abstract idea17; mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer18; or requiring no more than a generic computer

17 Alice, 573 U.S. at 221–23.
18 Alice, 573 U.S. at 222–23, e.g., simply implementing a mathematical
principle on a physical machine, namely a computer.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

30
to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and
conventional activities previously known to the industry.19
The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, 811 F.3d at 1325. In particular, “[t]he question of whether a
claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact.”
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
With respect to this phase of the analysis, Appellant urges reversal of
the Examiner’s rejection based upon the holding in Bascom.20
Bascom
Appellant argues “an inventive concept may be found in the non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of elements of the claims that
automatically generate an optimized combined forecast, corresponding to
weighted combinations of forecasts that are filtered and selected for
optimized prediction of future outcomes based on historic data and
predictive models.” Appeal Br. 18.
Appellant further contends:
Here, the claimed techniques make use of historical data
and predictive models to select and identify appropriate
forecasts through the application of quality tests and metadata
to use in an optimization process for combining forecasts to
generate an optimized combined forecast. Although any one or
more of these aspects may have been known or present in the

19 Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (explaining using a computer to obtain data, adjust
account balances, and issue automated instructions involves computer
functions that are well-understood, routine, conventional activities).
20 See Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

31
prior art, which Appellants do not concede, Appellant submits
that the specific order, arrangement, use, and combination of
these aspects is non-conventional, non-generic, and otherwise
not well-known — these aspects have not been applied in prior
optimization techniques in the combination specified in the
claims and are unconventional, novel, and nonobvious, as
described above.
Like in BASCOM, the instant claims, through their non-
generic ordering and combination provide an inventive use of
the alleged abstract ideas. As such, the claims amount to
significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. The rejections
should be reversed for at least this additional reason.
Appeal Br. 19.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. We are not
persuaded because in Bascom, the claims were directed to the inventive
concept of providing customizable Internet-content filtering which, under
Step 2 of the Alice analysis, was found to transform the abstract idea of
filtering content into a patent-eligible invention. Although the underlying
idea of filtering Internet content was deemed to be abstract, under step 2 of
the Alice analysis, the claims carved out a specific location for the filtering
system, namely a remote Internet service provider (ISP) server, and required
the filtering system to give users the ability to customize filtering for their
individual network accounts. Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v.
AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In response to Appellant’s reliance upon Bascom, supra, there is no
evidence of record to substantiate the assertion that the claims recite non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional
elements, as in Bascom. Moreover, we find no analogy between Appellant’s
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

32
claimed method for using multiple forecasts to generate a combined forecast
and the Internet content filtering claims in Bascom.
Evaluating representative claim 32 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we conclude it lacks an inventive concept that transforms the abstract idea of
using multiple forecasts to generate a combined forecast into a patent-
eligible application of that abstract idea.
As evidence of the conventional nature of the recited “computing
device” and “receiving a set of predictive models used to generate forecasts
associated with the forecast variable” in method claim 32; and “processor”
in system claim 43, the Specification discloses, “[a] processing system 3354
labeled CPU (central processing unit) (e.g., one or more computer
processors), may perform calculations and logic operations required to
execute a program.” Spec. 22, ll. 1–3. Further, we conclude limitation [L3]
“receiving a set of predictive models used to generate forecasts” represents
generic use of conventional computer components and techniques. See
Spec. 3, ll. 9–11 (“The data structures may include a predictive models data
structure, the predictive models data structure containing predictive data
model records for specifying predictive data models . . .”); Spec. 6, ll. 8–12
(“To generate the combined forecast 206, the combined forecast engine 202
may identify a number of individual predictive models. Those individual
predictive models may be provided historic data 208 as input, and those
individual predictive models provide individual forecasts based on the
provided historic data 208”). Thus, “receiving a set of predictive models”
involves reading data records from a data structure and subjecting the data to
routine computer processing.
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

33
Therefore, because the Specification describes the additional elements
in general terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim
limitations may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional
computer components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellant’s
Specification, as quoted above.21
Accordingly, in light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the
Revised Guidance, that each of Appellant’s claims 21–24, 27, 29, 30, 32–35,
38, 40, 41, 43–46, 49, 51, 52, and 54, considered as a whole, is directed to a
patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical
application and does not include an inventive concept. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent claim 32, and grouped
claims 21–24, 27, 29, 30, 33–35, 38, 40, 41, 43–46, 49, 51, 52, and 54 which
fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 1–11) not in response to a shift in the Examiner’s position
in the Answer, arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the
Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner’s
Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.

21 Claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation, as
understood by those of ordinary skill in the art and taking into account
whatever enlightenment may be had from the Specification. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2018-005613
Application 13/189,131

34
CONCLUSION
Under our Revised Guidance, governed by relevant case law, claims
21–24, 27, 29, 30, 32–35, 38, 40, 41, 43–46, 49, 51, 52, and 54 are patent-
ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Basis /
References Affirmed Reversed
21–24, 27, 29,
30, 32–35, 38,
40, 41, 43–46,
49, 51, 52, 54
101
Subject
Matter
Eligibility
21–24, 27, 29,
30, 32–35, 38,
40, 41, 43–46,
49, 51, 52, 54

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)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED