13656886 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2020)

Buchmann, Daniel

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 30, 2020

13656886 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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. 13/656,886 10/22/2012 Daniel Buchmann 2012E00347DEUS01 6940 52025 7590 03/30/2020 SAP SE c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC 50 LOCUST AVENUE NEW CANAAN, CT 06840 EXAMINER MAMILLAPALLI, PAVAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2159 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/30/2020 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): colabella@bmtpatent.com martin@BMTPATENT.COM szpara@bmtpatent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DANIEL BUCHMANN ____________ Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22.1 Appeal Br. 2. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 17, and 19 are canceled. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant identifies SAP SE as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 2 We REVERSE.2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to a computer implemented system for determining whether a search term corresponds to a table column comprising Boolean operators. See Abstract. Invention Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 2. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of claim 1, which is reproduced in Table I. References and Rejections3 Rajak US 2003/0126152 A1 July 3, 2003 Berger US 2004/0093344 A1 May 13, 2004 Elder US 2005/0043940 A1 Feb. 24, 2005 Rosie Jones, et al., Generating Query Substitutions, WWW 2006, 387–396 (2006) (“Jones”). 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed May 17, 2018, (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed November 15, 2018, (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed September 17, 2018, (“Ans.”); the Non-Final Action mailed January 11, 2018, (“Non-Final Act.”); and the Specification filed October 22, 2012, (“Spec.”) for their respective details. 3 The present application was examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Non-Final Act. 2. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 3 SQL Tutorial – Data Types, (Erack Network) (2003–2008), http://www.tizag.com/sqlTutorial/sqldatatypes.php (last visited March 19, 2020) (“SQL”).4 1. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18 and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Non-Final Act. 2–13. 2. Claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 13–15, 18, and 20–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elder, Rajak, Berger, and SQL. Non-Final Act. 14–20. 3. Claims 2, 9, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Elder, Rajak, Berger, SQL, and Jones. Non- Final Act. 20–21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5–21. CLAIMS 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, AND 20–22: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER 4 The “SQL” reference, retrieved from the Internet site “The WayBack Machine,” is designated “SQL Tutorial — Data Types, 2003-2008 Erack Network,” by the Examiner. It bears a 2003–2008 copyright date. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 4 Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the recitations of claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8, 13. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the section 101 rejection on the basis of representative claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Rejection and Appellant’s Contentions. The Examiner finds the claims are directed to the abstract idea of receiving and determining data and then adding a condition based on metadata and Boolean operator for a received query. Non-Final Act. 2. The Examiner finds that, absent additional limitations, a process that merely receives and determines existing information in order to generate additional information is not patent eligible. Id. at 3 (citing generally Classen,5 and Electric Power Group).6 Appellant initially contends “[a]dditional authority binding on this Honorable Board includes the MPEP 2106. This section of the MPEP serves to further refine the metes and bounds of the Alice test in view of recent decisions of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.” Appeal Br. 5. Guidance documents do not establish legal requirements and, therefore, the PTAB is not bound by them. See, e.g., Ex parte Rama, 2017 5 Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (2011) (“Classen”). 6 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (2016) (“Electric Power Group”). Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 5 WL 6816891 (Dec. 15, 2017). This does not mean that the PTAB will avoid mentioning a Guidance in its decisions. Instead, the PTAB may refer to a Guidance and, through it, cite and rely upon the underlying case law to inform its decision. See, e.g., Ex parte Tryggvason, 2017 WL 394203 (Jan. 26, 2017). Appellant contends claim 1 is not “an un-instantiated concept, plan or scheme or mental process,” but is “connected or tied to concrete and/or tangible devices and systems (i.e., entities).” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant contends the claims are not directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of the Alice test at least because the claims are clearly focused on a specific asserted technological improvement. Id. Appellant argues prior art systems provide plain text (i.e., semantic) keyword search of databases to identify relevant records. Appellant identifies a “technical problem” in the prior art, i.e., database table columns that consist of Boolean operators7 (e.g., 0/1, Yes/No, TRUE/FALSE, NULL/X, etc.) do not contain any semantic information that identifies relevant records. In other words, including search terms such as “yes” or “l” in a keyword search does not 7 The art generally uses the term “Boolean operators” to refer to logical operators such as “AND,” “OR,” “NOT,” and “NOT AND” used in Boolean expressions that generate a Boolean value. Appellant, however, uses the phrase “Boolean operators” consistently to refer to Boolean values stored in a Boolean data type field. See, e.g., 4:30–32 (“A Boolean table column is a column of a database table whose values consist of Boolean operators. Examples of Boolean operators include, but are not limited to, 0/1, Yes/No, TRUE/FALSE, NULL/X.”). Therefore, consistent with the Specification, we construe the recited “Boolean operators” to be Boolean values. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 6 typically assist in identifying desired records. Id. at 8–9 (citing Spec. 1:1– 10). According to Appellant, the inventive method receives a query comprising one or more search terms and determines whether one or more search terms correspond to a language-dependent table column name. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec. 3:24–26, 5:1–5). Appellant explains metadata associates the language-dependent table column name with a column of Boolean operators. Id. (citing Spec. 5:1–5, 12–15). Appellant argues that, as a solution to the identified problem, the query is modified to replace the search term with the metadata technical name of the column, and then the modified query is run. Id. (citing Spec. 6:15–23). De novo review. We reviewed the record de novo. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.”); see also Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012); and In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 951 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc), aff’d, 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010). However, that legal conclusion “may contain underlying factual issues.” Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1341. Based upon our review of the record in light of recent policy guidance with respect to the subject matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, we reverse the rejection of claims 1–2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 for the Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 7 specific reasons discussed below.8 35 U.S.C. § 101 Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has long recognized, however, that section 101 implicitly excludes “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” from the realm of patent- eligible subject matter, as monopolization of these “basic tools of scientific and technological work” would stifle the very innovation that the patent system aims to promote. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–78 (2012); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). Under the Revised Guidance, we consider whether Appellant’s claims recite: 1. any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes), and 2. additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a 8 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”). Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 8 practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). Only if a claim, (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then reach the issue of 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. A. Whether the claims recite a judicial exception. The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract-idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation or combination of limitations: (a) mathematical concepts,9 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas, 9 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of hedging . . . reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an unpatentable abstract idea.”). Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 9 equations,10 and mathematical calculations;11 (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);12 and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).13 The preamble of independent claim 1 recites: “A system comprising.” The limitations recited in the body of the claim are analyzed in Table I against the categories of abstract ideas as set forth in the Revised Guidance, 10 Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent laws.”); see also Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594 (1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.”). 11 SAP Am., 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). 12 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus an abstract idea); see Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52 n.13, for a more extensive listing of “certain methods of organizing human activity” that have been found to be abstract ideas. 13 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work.” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 10 84 Fed. Reg. Claim 1 Revised Guidance, [a] a data storage device storing data;14 An additional element that adds insignificant extra-solution activity to a judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. [b] a computing device comprising: Generic computer component. [c] a memory storing processor- executable program code; and Generic computer component. [d] a processor to execute the processor-executable program code in order to cause the computing device to: Generic computer component. [e] receive a query comprising one or more search terms; Insignificant extra-solution activity, mere data-gathering. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31. [f] determine that one of the one or more search terms corresponds to a language-dependent table column name associated with a table column in metadata, the table column comprising Boolean operators; Mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). [g] determine a value of the table column corresponding to TRUE; and Mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind. 14 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 11 [h] add a condition to the query to change the query, the condition specifying a technical name of the table column as determined from metadata and the value of the table column. Mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind. In view of Table I, we find limitations [f]–[h] of independent claim 1 recite abstract ideas, i.e., mental processes. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application? If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) wherein 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. For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellant’s claims do, in fact, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.” “In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’” or “any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.05(a). Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 12 With respect to technological improvements, Appellant contends “the claims are clearly directed to a technological improvement realized by the invention (e.g., performing a plain text keyword search where the database records include Boolean operators), and not only receiving and determining data.” Appeal Br. 11. Contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the Examiner finds: Exemplary claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to the abstract idea of providing a query with addition of a condition to the change the query by manipulating a Boolean operators of the table column by determination of the column type and applying translation rules to convert data that is understandable. This is similar to other ideas found to be abstract by various courts, not patentable by courts as per case law Electric Power Group which considers abstract idea as “Collecting Information, analyzing it and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Ans. 23. Citing Finjan15 and Core Wireless,16 Appellant contends “the claims are directed to reciting specific steps to accomplish a desired result, and to an improvement in the functioning of computers.” Reply Br. 2 (citing Appeal Brief, 11–12). Appellant argues: The claims provide a specific implementation of a technical solution (performing a plain text keyword search where the database records include Boolean operators) to a particular 15 Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Systems, Inc., 879 F.3d 1299 (2018). 16 Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (2018). Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 13 technological problem (when table columns in a stored database record include Boolean operators, they do not contain any semantic information which is usable to identify relevant records), and thus are not directed to an abstract idea. Id. The Enfish Court found the claims provided an improvement in computer function because “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.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Similarly, Appellant argues performing a semantic (natural language) search of a database comprising Boolean operators will fail to return viable results. Appeal Br. 9 (citing Spec., 1:1–10). Appellant argues the claims use the database metadata to convert a plaintext keyword search into a mixed semantic and Boolean query. See Appeal Br. 11 (citing Spec. 3:26–30, 6:5–10, 6:15–19, 20–23). We agree with Appellants that, similarly to Finjan, “the claims recite more than a mere result. Instead, they recite specific steps . . . that accomplish the desired result.” Finjan, Inc., 879 F.3d at 1305. Further, similarly to Core Wireless, “these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362. We conclude that Appellant’s claims do, in fact, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by improving the functioning of a computer and are thus, subject matter eligible. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 14 CLAIMS 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 13–15, 18, AND 20–22: OBVIOUSNESS OVER ELDER, RAJAK, BERGER, AND SQL Appellant argues these claims as a group in view of the recitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 103 rejection on the basis of representative claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “add a condition to the query to change the query, the condition specifying a technical name of the table column as determined from metadata and the value of the table column.” Appellant contends the cited art fails to teach code to cause the computing device to add a condition to the query to change the query, the condition specifying a technical name of the table column as determined from metadata and the value of the table column. Appeal Br. 16. The Examiner finds Elder teaches target models comprising “terms” which are mapped, through a natural language search, to a table in a target data source and each attribute is mapped to a column in the table. Ans. 38 (citing Elder ¶¶ 31, 32). The Examiner finds the search is conducted through natural language and metadata associated with the target source. Id. (citing Elder ¶ 34). The Examiner cites Rajak as teaching the table column comprises Boolean operators. Id. Appellant contends Elder fails to determine that a search term corresponds to a language-dependent table column name identified by metadata. Reply Br. 3. Appellant argues instead, Elder simply describes capturing metadata that defines a target concept model and discloses an Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 15 algorithm processes the model to enable search of multiple databases using natural language. Id. (citing Elder ¶ 31). Appellant argues Elder discloses a target concept model comprises entities logically mapped to a table and multiple repositories (databases) are linked and organized to answer a natural language request. Id. (citing Elder ¶¶ 32, 34). Elder discloses an enabled natural language algorithm (ENL algorithm) begins by capturing the metadata associated with a target data source, such as a database spreadsheet XML file. Elder ¶ 31. Elder discloses the metadata defines a target concept model which is processed by the ENL algorithm to enable data base searching through natural language queries. Id. Elder further discloses the concept model comprises entities which are logically-mapped to a table and each entity comprises at least one attribute which is logically mapped to one column in the table. Elder ¶ 32. We find no disclosure in Elder that teaches or suggests changing a semantic query to specify a technical name of the table column as determined from metadata and the value of the table column, as claimed. In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 13–15, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CLAIMS 2, 9, AND 16: OBVIOUSNESS OVER ELDER, RAJAK, BERGER, SQL, AND JONES. Appellant contends Jones fails to cure the deficiencies of Elder, Rajak, Berger, and SQL. Appeal Br. 20–21. The Examiner does not apply Jones to the limitations discussed above. See Ans. 39. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 16 In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of claims 2, 9, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSION In Summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, 20–22 101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, 20–22 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 13–15, 18, 20–22 103(a) Elder, Rajak, Berger, SQL 1, 4, 6–8, 11, 13–15, 18, 20–22 2, 9, 16 103(a) Elder, Rajak, Berger, SQL, Jones 2, 9, 16 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, 20–22 REVERSED Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 17 BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting. I agree with the Majority Opinion’s decision to reverse the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. I write separately, however, because I respectfully disagree with the Majority Opinion’s decision to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Instead, I agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusions and, therefore, I would affirm the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. I agree with the Majority that the determining steps and the adding step are mental processes. I disagree, however, that representative claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Because the steps of accessing the metadata and adding a condition to the query based on the metadata are mental steps that make up the abstract idea of modifying a query to search databases including columns identifying the presence of certain characteristics using Boolean values, I find no additional elements sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. That the claim requires each step to be performed by a “computer device” does not remove those limitations from properly being considered a mental process. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. Moreover, these steps do not provide a level of detail suggesting an improvement to electronic searching or another technology. Instead, the claims recite a result of adding a search term using metadata to identify records including Boolean values, rather than particular technical details of how the added search terms are determined. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 18 Moreover, I agree with the Examiner, and I would find all the additional elements (the data storage device, computing device, memory, and processor) as well as the additional receiving a query step, alone or in combination and considered in light of the claim as a whole, are generic computer components recited at a high level or pre-solution data gathering that simply apply the abstract idea on a generic computer to automate the mental steps. See Ans. 33–35; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. These additional limitations cannot integrate the mental processes into a practical application because they simply recite using a generic computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea and do not reflect an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. As an analogy, the claimed process is similar to the mental steps a person would perform if asked to look up information in a spreadsheet that included data with Boolean values. As an example, at a small company, I may maintain a spreadsheet with employee information that included various information, including marital status stored in a column labeled “Married” represented by a “T” in the record (row) for an employee who is married and an “F” in the row for an employee who is not married. Continuing this example, if I wanted to find all employees who work in IT and are married, I would search the spreadsheet for “IT” (or something similar) in the content, probably focusing on particular fields (e.g., department, organization, specialties). Of the records that match, I would then look in the “Married” column to identify only records having a “T” in that column. Appeal 2019-000914 Application 13/656,886 19 Because I agree with the Examiner that representative claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, I next look to whether the claim provides an inventive concept. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. The claimed use of generic computing devices to carry out the abstract idea “simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry.” See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Indeed, the Specification concedes that the computer components used are well-known, routine, and conventional. See Spec. 7:28–8:24, Fig. 5. Appellant’s arguments that the claims improve computer functionality are not persuasive. This is made clear by the fact that the steps can each be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Accordingly, claim 1 does not add any inventive concept. For these reasons, I would sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6–9, 11, 13–16, 18, and 20–22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, I dissent.