Bruce Macmillan

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2020

2020002415 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
13/035,746 02/25/2011 Bruce Macmillan MAC-101 3475
123519 7590 10/19/2020
Law Office of J. Steven Svoboda
1312B Mallard Drive
Richmond, CA 94801
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3661
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2020 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRUCE MACMILLAN
____________

Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–14, 17–29, and 41–57. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed December 9, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 5,
2020), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 23, 2020) and
Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 16, 2019). Appellant
identifies the inventor, Bruce Macmillan, as the real party in interest (Appeal
Br. 3).
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention “relates generally to methods and apparatus for
providing product information” (Spec. 1).
Claims 1, 14, 28, and 29 are the independent claims on appeal.
Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations added, is illustrative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method of facilitating
comparing and verifying of information, the method comprising:
[(a)] receiving, by a computer system, characteristic
information relating to products and product supply chain
operations from one or more sources, said one or more sources
comprising at least one of a trusted third-party information
provider and an entity associated with said products and product
supply chain operations, said entity being one of a manufacturer,
a supplier, or a distributor of manufactured products, and said
information from the entity identifying the entity and including
information about the entity;
[(b)] validating, by the computer system, the information
received from the entity about itself based at least in part on the
information received from the at least one trusted third-party
information provider;
[(c)] responsive to successful validation of the
information received from the entity about itself, providing, by
the computer system, a plurality of unique identifiers to the
entity, said unique identifiers corresponding to said characteristic
information, said unique identifiers uniquely identifying product
items, for association by that entity with those product items,
wherein said identifier for said individual product item is
physically attached to said individual product item at a time of
manufacture of said individual product item or within a
predefined time period following manufacture of said individual
product item;
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

3
[(d)] receiving said characteristic information relating to
an individual product item and a corresponding supply chain
operation from said entity associated with said individual
product item and said corresponding supply chain operation, the
information relating to said individual product item including an
identifier from the plurality of identifiers provided to said entity;
[(e)] storing and associating, by the computer system, the
information received from said one or more sources with the
information received from said entity in a database of said
computer system;
[(f)] receiving, by the computer system, a request for
information from a potential purchaser of said individual product
item, said request including said identifier;
[(g)] looking up in real time, by the computer system, in
the database information associated with said individual product
item, using said identifier; and
[(h)] transmitting in real time, by the computer system, at
least part of said information associated with said individual
product item to said potential purchaser.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 3–14, 17–29, and 41–57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group (Appeal Br. 12–24).
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a claim is patent eligible if it claims a “new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

4
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “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. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79, 78). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) published
revised guidance on January 7, 2019 for use by USPTO personnel in
evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED
PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).2 That guidance revised the

2 The USPTO issued an update on October 17, 2019 (the “October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

5
USPTO’s examination procedure with respect to the first step of the
Mayo/Alice framework by (1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that
[are] considered an abstract idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not
“directed to” a judicial exception if the judicial exception is integrated into a
practical application of that exception. Id. at 50.
The first step, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e.,
Step 2A), is, thus, a two-prong test. In Step 2A, Prong One, we look to
whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of the following
three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain
methods of organizing human activity, e.g., fundamental economic
principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions; and (3) mental
processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next
determine, in Step 2A, Prong Two, whether the claim as a whole integrates
the recited judicial exception into a practical application, i.e., whether the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, 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. Id. at 54–55. Only if
the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea. Id.
If the claim is determined to be directed to a judicial exception under
revised Step 2A, we next evaluate the additional elements, individually and
in combination, in Step 2B, to determine whether they provide an inventive

default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) clarifying the
2019 Revised Guidance in response to public comments.
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

6
concept, i.e., whether the additional elements or combination of elements
amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself; only if so, is
the claim patent eligible. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Here, in rejecting the pending claims under § 101, the Examiner
determined that the claims recite an abstract idea, i.e., “providing product
information,” and that the claims do not include additional elements that
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner
also determined that the claims do not include additional elements or a
combination of elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself (Final Act. 5–10).
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Appeal
Br. 18–24). The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a
specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including
the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an abstract idea, and not on any
improvement to technology and/or a technical field.
The Specification is titled “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR
PROVIDING PRODUCT INFORMATION,” and describes, in the
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

7
Background section, that “[w]hen buying products . . ., many consumers
want, either prior to or at the point of purchase, to discover more information
about the products in order to exercise an informed decision as to which
products to buy” (Spec. 1). “Existing product labels make a range of
environmental, ethical and social claims,” e.g., regarding the origin of the
product, whether it has been produced organically, and its carbon footprint
(id. at 2). However, according to the Specification, these labels often
contain confusing or unsubstantiated claims from the producer (id.).
The claimed invention is intended to address this issue by providing a
method and apparatus for comparing and validating information supplied by
a manufacturer of an individual product item against information supplied
by an independent, reputable source, i.e., a trusted third party (Spec. 2).
Claim 1, thus, recites a method of facilitating comparing and verifying of
information comprising: (1) receiving characteristic information relating to
products and product supply chain operations from one or more sources,
including at least one of a trusted third-party information provider and an
entity associated with the products and product supply chain operations, i.e.,
receiving, by a computer system, characteristic
information relating to products and product supply chain
operations from one or more sources, said one or more sources
comprising at least one of a trusted third-party information
provider and an entity associated with said products and product
supply chain operations, said entity being one of a manufacturer,
a supplier, or a distributor of manufactured products, and said
information from the entity identifying the entity and including
information about the entity
(step (a)); (2) “validating . . . the information received from the entity about
itself based . . . on the information received from the . . . trusted third-party
information provider” (step (b)); (3) responsive to successful validation of
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

8
the information received from the entity about itself, providing a plurality of
product identifiers to the entity for association with individual product items,
i.e.,
responsive to successful validation of the information
received from the entity about itself, providing, by the computer
system, a plurality of unique identifiers to the entity, said unique
identifiers corresponding to said characteristic information, said
unique identifiers uniquely identifying product items, for
association by that entity with those product items, wherein said
identifier for said individual product item is physically attached
to said individual product item at a time of manufacture of said
individual product item or within a predefined time period
following manufacture of said individual product item
(step (c)); (4) receiving and storing characteristic information from the
entity, including an identifier relating to an individual product item and a
corresponding supply chain operation, i.e.,
receiving said characteristic information relating to an
individual product item and a corresponding supply chain
operation from said entity associated with said individual
product item and said corresponding supply chain operation, the
information relating to said individual product item including an
identifier from the plurality of identifiers provided to said entity;
[and]
storing and associating, by the computer system, the
information received from said one or more sources with the
information received from said entity in a database of said
computer system
(steps (d) and (e)); and (5) responsive to a request for information from a
potential purchaser, retrieving and transmitting information regarding an
individual product to the potential purchaser, i.e.,
receiving, by the computer system, a request for
information from a potential purchaser of said individual product
item, said request including said identifier;
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

9
looking up in real time, by the computer system, in the
database information associated with said individual product
item, using said identifier; and
transmitting in real time, by the computer system, at least
part of said information associated with said individual product
item to said potential purchaser.
(steps (f), (g), and (h)).
We agree with the Examiner that these limitations, when given their
broadest reasonable interpretation, recite providing product information to a
potential customer, i.e., a commercial interaction, which is a method of
organizing human activity, and, therefore, an abstract idea. See 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Referencing the 2019 Revised Guidance, Appellant argues, without
conceding, that even if claim 1 recites an abstract idea, claim 1 is not
“directed to” an abstract idea because the claim is “an almost paradigmatic
example of, per the 2019 Subject Matter Guidance, its integration into a
practical application” (Appeal Br. 19). Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive.
The 2019 Revised Guidance references MANUAL OF PATENT
EXAMINING PROCEDURE, Ninth Edition (rev. Jan 2018) (available at
https://mpep.uspto.gov/RDMS/MPEP/E9_R-08.2017.) § 2106.05(a)–(c) and
(e) in non-exhaustively listing considerations indicative that an additional
element or combination of elements may have integrated the recited judicial
exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55. For example, an additional element may have integrated the judicial
exception into a practical application if the additional element (1) reflects an
improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other
technology or technical field; (2) implements the judicial exception with, or
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

10
uses the judicial exception with, a particular machine or manufacture
integral to the claim; or (3) effects a transformation or reduction of an article
to a different state or thing. Id. However, merely using a computer to
perform an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra-solution activity, or only
generally linking to a particular technological environment or field are not
sufficient for a practical application. Id.
Appellant asserts here that the claimed invention “enable[s] a
customer to be both fully informed and spontaneous in purchasing
decisions” and that “[t]he independence of the [claimed] database” ensures
that customers can derive benefit from using the database, “as contrasted
with an alternative situation in which, for example, a manufacturer or retailer
provided the database [itself], with an obvious potential for bias” (Appeal
Br. 18). Appellant also asserts that the “capability provided by embodiments
of the invention enables the customer to be aware of what he or she is
buying, to get good value and, if desired, to make ethical decisions about the
way in which purchasing affects the environments in which the purchases
are manufactured” (id.).
Appellant maintains that claim 1, as such, provides “an improvement
to other technology or technical field” (Appeal Br. 18 (“The current claims
and application provide an almost paradigmatic example of ‘an improvement
to other technology or technical field,’ as outlined at page 12 of the
US Patent and Trademark Office’s guidance.”)). But, we are not persuaded
that ensuring that customers are provided accurate and reliable information
when making purchasing decisions is a technological improvement as
opposed to an improvement to the abstract idea of providing product
information to potential purchasers, which is not enough for patent
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

11
eligibility. See SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“[P]atent law does not protect such claims [i.e., claims to an
asserted advance in the realm of abstract ideas], without more, no matter
how groundbreaking the advance.”).
Considered in light of the Specification, the claimed invention clearly
appears focused on providing useful and reliable product information so that
potential purchasers are able to exercise informed judgment in deciding
which products to buy (see, e.g., Spec. 2 (describing that “embodiments
described herein allow for a purchaser, such as a consumer or retailer, to
obtain, in a simple way and possibly in real time, factual and qualitative
information about a particular product item that they are considering
purchasing”); id. at 15 (“Using the information provided by the
manufacturers and the trusted information source, the consumer is able . . .
to perform a comparison of competing offerings in the same store or
between products simultaneously available in different retailers”)), and not
on any claimed means for achieving that goal that improves technology.
This is particularly so, where, as here, there is no indication that the
operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized computer hardware or
other inventive computer components, invoke any allegedly inventive
programming, or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than
generic computer components as tools operating in their normal, routine, and
ordinary capacity.
Appellant argues that “another practical application is that, as recited
in the . . . independent claims. . . , a product item that the customer is
thinking of purchasing has a unique identifier physically attached to it when
it is manufactured or within a predetermined time after it is manufactured”
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

12
(Appeal Br. 20–21). Yet, not only does claim 1 fail to recite a step of
physically attaching a unique identifier to a product item, (see Final Act. 2),3
but physically attaching an identifier to a product item amounts, at best, to
an improvement to the abstract idea of providing product information to
potential purchasers (see Appeal Br. 20–21 (explaining that “prior to the
invention, customer can either be at best partially informed about an
individual product purchase (and mostly at the generic product description
level rather than at the level of detail of the exact item the customer is
contemplating) by identifying a potential purchase and then going off to
perform research tasks to find out about it from multiple sources (during
which time the item might have sold) or the customer can be spontaneous in
a purchase, thereby taking a risk”); see also Reply Br. 7 (arguing that the
invention “measurably and dramatically improve[s] on existing systems for
providing useful consumer information to potential purchasers”), which, as
described above, is not enough for patent eligibility.
We also are not persuaded of Examiner error to the extent Appellant
maintains that claim 1 is patent eligible because a computer is required (see
Appeal Br. 18–19 (arguing that the recitations in claim 1 of “characteristic
information relating to products and product supply chain operations,”
“characteristic information relating to an individual product item and said
corresponding supply chain operation,” and “unique identifiers” that
correspond to “characteristic information” (or “characteristic information”

3 Claim 1 merely recites that the computer system provides a plurality of
unique identifiers to the entity, “wherein said identifier for said individual
product item is physically attached to said individual product item at a time
of manufacture of said individual product item or within a predefined time
period following manufacture of said individual product item.”
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

13
that corresponds, to “unique identifiers”) do not describe an abstract idea,
but instead “describe a novel and non-obvious invention that is only possible
on a computer and that is valuable and useful”)). Rather than integrating the
recited abstract idea into a practical application by implementing the abstract
idea with a particular machine or manufacture, claim 1 merely recites
generic components (“a computer system” and “a database of said computer
system”) that perform generic computer functions, e.g., receiving,
processing, storing, and transmitting information (see Final Act. 3).
The mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept. See DDR Holdings,
LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter
Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic computer limitations
does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). And merely
implementing an abstract idea using generic components does not integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application.
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites a
method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea are no more
than generic computer components used as tools to perform the recited
abstract idea. As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic
computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’
that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is
directed to an abstract idea.
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

14
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the
2019 Revised Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework,
whether claim 1 includes additional elements or a combination of elements
that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or
combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial
exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in
the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply
appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appellant argues, “it is simply not true that the claims ‘require no
more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the
industry” (Appeal Br. 22). Instead, according to Appellant, “the claims
require the combined operation of several computers in different locations
and under different ownership and control,” with the several computers
“interacting in a series of novel steps . . ., integrating the physical step of
applying a unique identifier generated by the embodiments of invention and
subsequently associating back into the computers the characteristic
information regarding the individual product item” (id.).
Appellant asserts that “the Examiner has to date failed to provide a
single example of an invention or article prior to the Appellant’s invention
that has addressed any of the inventive ideas recited in its independent
claims” (Appeal Br. 23). Yet, to the extent Appellant intends, by that
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

15
assertion, that claim 1 is patent eligible, i.e., that claim 1 includes an
inventive concept, because the claim is allegedly novel and/or non-obvious
in view of the prior art (see also id. at 20 (“Embodiments of the invention
derive part of their value from the inventive, novel, non-obvious disclosure
of a very practical application, namely, they permit a buyer to make an
informed decision about a purchase they are considering at the moment in
time that they are considering purchasing it, using unique identifiers that
correspond to characteristic information relating to an individual item and a
corresponding supply chain operation.”); 23 (“The invention . . . makes it
possible to collect data that is one or more of presently unavailable,
inaccessible, inconsistently presented, and unverified. . . . None of this was
possible prior to the invention.”)), Appellant misapprehends the controlling
precedent.
Neither a finding of novelty nor a non-obviousness determination
automatically leads to the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is
patent eligible. Although the second step in the Mayo/Alice framework is
termed a search for an “inventive concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation
of novelty or non-obviousness, but rather, a search for “an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citation omitted).
“Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself
satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad
Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). A novel and non-obvious claim
directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 188–89
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

16
(1981) (“The ‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the
process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of
a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject
matter.”).
The Examiner determined here, and we agree, that the only additional
elements recited in claim 1 beyond the abstract idea are “a computer system”
and “a database of said computer system,” i.e., generic computer
components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea (Final Act. 7)
— a determination amply supported by and fully consistent with the
Specification (see, e.g., Spec. 16 (“Embodiments described herein can be
implemented by software on a general purpose computer or in a combination
of software and hardware.”)).4 Appellant cannot reasonably maintain that
there is insufficient factual support for the Examiner’s determination that the
operation of these components is well-understood, routine, or conventional,
where, as here, there is nothing in the Specification to indicate that the
operations recited in claim 1 require any specialized hardware or inventive
computer components, invoke any allegedly inventive programming, or that
the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic computer

4 The Office’s April 19, 2018 Memorandum to the Examining Corps from
Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy, Robert W. Bahr,
entitled, Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF, expressly directs that an examiner may
support the position that an additional element (or combination of elements)
is well-understood, routine or conventional with “[a] citation to an express
statement in the specification . . . that demonstrates the well-understood,
routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s)” (id. at 3).
Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

17
components to perform generic computer functions — either individually, or
in the recited combination. Indeed, the Federal Circuit, in accordance with
Alice, has “repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to
eligibility” where claims have been defended as involving an inventive
concept based “merely on the idea of using existing computers or the
Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no alteration of computer
functionality.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(Moore, J., concurring) (internal citations omitted); see also BSG Tech LLC
v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1291 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“BSG Tech does
not argue that other, non-abstract features of the claimed inventions, alone or
in combination, are not well-understood, routine and conventional database
structures and activities. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
determining that the asserted claims lack an inventive concept.”).
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 3–14, 17–29, and
41–57, which fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–14,
17–29, 41–
57
101 Eligibility 1, 3–14,
17–29, 41–
57

Appeal 2020-002415
Application 13/035,746

18
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