Cecil Sunder et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 29, 2020

2018005090 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
14/456,846 08/11/2014 Cecil Sunder 0467-US-U1 5998
83579 7590 07/29/2020
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
ULLAH, ARIF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patent.docketing@centurylink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CECIL SUNDER, OPHIR RAHMANI, TARA RISSER, and
DERICK K. ZINES
____________________

Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,8461
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and JASON J.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–6, 8–14, and 16–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellant’s invention is a system and method for tracking changes to
order attributes to prevent defects in a provisioned order. A record for an
order for one or more products is generated, specifying sales exit criteria that
correspond to one or more defects in the order. The record is stored in one or

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Level 3 Communications,
LLC. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

2
more databases. A notification for modifying the order is generated based on
the sales exit criteria, and changes made to the order are tracked based on the
sales exit criteria. The record is updated based on the tracked changes. Spec.
¶ 5. Once the defects in the order are corrected, a closure code is entered
identifying the nature of the sales exit criteria. The record is then closed and
a tracking system releases the order. The completed record may be stored in
the one or more databases. Spec. ¶ 26.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
A method for managing changes to an electronic record for an order
for one or more products for a customer comprising:
generating an electronic record for the order using at least one
computing device, the electronic record specifying sales exit criteria
required to release the order, the sales exit criteria corresponding to
additional information not in the generated electronic record and related to
provisioning the one or more products;
storing the electronic record, including the sales exit criteria, in one or
more databases using the at least one computing device;
submitting the electronic record for modifying the order based on the
sales exit criteria using the at least one computing device;
receiving, by the at least one computing device, a closure code
identifying a nature of the sales exit criteria;
storing a completed record in the one or more databases using the at
least one computing device, the completed record including the additional
information and the closure code; and
analyzing the closure code and additional closure codes to identify
one or more common order defects.

Claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Rejection 10.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Borders, Bleser, Sano, and Gatto. Final
Rejection 16.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

3
Claims 5 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Borders, Bleser, Sano, Gatto, and Admitted Prior Art
(APA). Final Rejection 48.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed October 2, 2017) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,”
mailed February 12, 2018) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea?
2. Is the recited abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
3. Do the claims recite additional elements that transform the nature of
the claims into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea?
4. Does the combination of Borders, Bleser, Sano, and Gatto teach or
suggest receiving a closure code identifying a nature of the sales exit criteria,
as recited in the independent claims?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category,
we are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

4
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). 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 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, 69 (1972)).
Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning
v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour
(Benson, 409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785
(1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 at 176; see also id. at 192 (“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
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

5
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. at 191(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g.,
id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature
or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.”).
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 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to
transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
Under that 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); and
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

6
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
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 look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are 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.
See Memorandum.

ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
Representative claim 1 recites the following limitations. Aspects of
the claimed abstract idea are indicated in italics. Additional non-abstract
limitations are noted in bold:
1. (Previously Presented) A method for managing changes to an
electronic record for an order for one or more products for a customer
comprising:
(a) generating an electronic record for the order using at least
one computing device, the electronic record specifying sales exit
criteria required to release the order, the sales exit criteria
corresponding to additional information not in the generated electronic
record and related to provisioning the one or more products;
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

7
(b) storing the electronic record, including the sales exit
criteria, in one or more databases using the at least one computing
device;
(c) submitting the electronic record for modifying the order
based on the sales exit criteria using the at least one computing
device;
(d) receiving, by the at least one computing device, a closure code
identifying a nature of the sales exit criteria;
(e) storing a completed record in the one or more databases
using the at least one computing device, the completed record
including the additional information and the closure code; and
(f) analyzing the closure code and additional closure codes to
identify one or more common order defects.
These limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
constitute a plurality of steps to track changes to order attributes to prevent
defects in a provisioned order and to eliminate rework. Spec. ¶ 14.
We determine that limitations (a) and (d) correspond to the gathering
of data: generating an electronic record, and receiving a closure code. We
determine that limitations (b) and (e) constitute post-solution activity:
storing an electronic record in one or more databases, and storing a
completed record.
The Memorandum recognizes that certain groupings of subject matter
have been found by the courts to constitute judicially excepted abstract
ideas: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and (c) mental processes. Memorandum, 84 FR at 52. If a claim,
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

8
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
in the mind.2 We determine that the claim steps beyond those directed to

2 See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for “anonymous
loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by
humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”);
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of “computer” or “computer
readable medium” does not make a claim otherwise directed to process that
“can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
paper” patent eligible); id. at 1376 distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v.
Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l
Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions
that “could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human’s
mind”). 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 Benson, 409 U.S. at 67));
Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 (same); Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65 (noting that the
claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary
numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and
hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139,
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to the mental process of “translating a
functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the
claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with
pencil and paper”); In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test
Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (concluding that concept of
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

9
extra-solution activity (i.e., gathering, display, or storage of data) – a portion
of limitation (a), determining (i.e., gathering) sales exit criteria (i.e., data)
required to release an order, the sales exit criteria corresponding to
additional information not in the generated electronic record; limitation (c),
submitting an electronic record for modifying an order based on the sales
exit criteria;3 and limitation (f), analyzing a closure code and additional
closure codes to identify one or more common order defects, constitute steps
that may be performed in the mind, but for the recitation of generic
computer components.
We agree with the Examiner that the limitations at issue are analogous
to those at issue in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2016). Ans. 4. The representative claim in Electric Power Group
recited, in pertinent part, “receiving a plurality of data streams,” “receiving
data from other power system data sources,” “receiving data from a plurality
of non-grid data sources,” “detecting and analyzing events in real-time from
the plurality of data streams,” “displaying the event analysis results,”

“comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations”
is an “abstract mental process”); In re Brown, 645 F. App’x. 1014, 1017
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (claim limitations “encompass the mere
idea of applying different known hair styles to balance one’s head.
Identifying head shape and applying hair designs accordingly is an abstract
idea capable, as the Board notes, of being performed entirely in one’s
mind”).
3 Limitation (c), “submitting an electronic record,” corresponds to disclosure
at paragraph 32 of Appellant’s Specification. “If the determining operation
204 identifies defects in the order . . . [a]n operation 208 submits the record
for review and action for modifying the order based on the sales exit
criteria.” [W]here the record is in the CCM [customer care manager] stage,
the operation 208 submits the record to a sales representative that took the
order.”
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

10
“displaying concurrent visualization of measurements from the data
streams,” “accumulating and updating the measurements from the data
streams and the dynamic stability metrics,” and “deriving a composite
indicator of reliability.” Id. at 1352. The Federal Circuit determined that the
focus of the asserted claims was on “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.” Id. at 1353.
Like Electric Power Group, the invention under appeal recites
receiving data (sales exit criteria required to release the order, and a closure
code identifying a nature of the sales exit criteria). The invention under
appeal also recites detecting and analyzing data (i.e., submitting an
electronic record for modifying the order based on the sales exit criteria;
analyzing the closure code to identify one or more common order defects);
accumulating and updating measurements (i.e., tracking changes made to the
order based on the sales exit criteria, as recited in claim 12; analyzing
closure codes to identify one or more common order defects); and deriving a
composite indicator (i.e., analyzing closure codes to identify one or more
common order defects). As in the invention of Electric Power Group, we
determine that the results of the claimed analysis of closure codes to identify
common order defects could be kept in a person’s head.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is directed to a specific
asserted improvement in computer capabilities, citing McRO.4 Appeal Br.
10. “Like the claims in [McRO], the present claims ‘focus on a specific
means or method that improves the relevant technology.’” Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant does not support this assertion with evidence of such specific

4 McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

11
means or method. As a result, we regard the claimed method of managing
changes to an electronic record to constitute an improved abstract idea for
which computers are invoked merely as a tool.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a mental process, one
of the categories of abstract ideas recognized in the Memorandum. 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. We thus conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea.

INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea of comparing attributes from transaction information against norms of
behavior, in order to identify users who diverge from such norms as
potential problem users, into a practical application. See Memorandum, 84
Fed. Reg. at 51. We consider whether there are any additional elements
beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in combination, “integrate the
[abstract ideas] into a practical application, using one or more of the
considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.” Id. at
54–55.
The Memorandum provides exemplary considerations that are
indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception (i.e.,
the abstract idea recited in the claim) into a practical application:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

12
See Memorandum, 84 FR at 55; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).

As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a computing device and a database. “Computing device” is nominally
recited in the specification – for example, “the order is received at a
computing device for automatic analysis.” Spec. ¶ 31. Appellant also recites
an “example computing system 700” which “may be a general purpose
computer system capable of executing a computer program product.” Spec.
¶¶ 47, 48. Computing system 700 is shown as having an input/output section
704, central processing unit 706, and memory section 708. Id. Computing
system 700 “may be a conventional computer, a distributed computer, or any
other type of computer, such as one or more external computers made
available via a cloud computing architecture.” Id.
With respect to the term “database,” Appellant discloses that records
for orders, specifying sales exit criteria, are stored in one or more databases
110. Spec. ¶ 24. Operation 210 corrects an order based on the record. Once
defects are addressed, the record is completed, and stored in one or more
(such) databases. Spec. ¶ 33. Appellant does not disclose the database in
further detail. We determine that Appellant’s Specification does not describe
the claimed computing device or database as comprising anything other than
generic components.
Appellant further contends that claim 1 is similar to, and even more
rooted in computing technology, than claim 1 in Amdocs.5 Appeal Br. 11.
Appellant then presents a table displaying the claims side-by-side, and

5 Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

13
asserts without further specifics that “[e]ven a cursory comparison between
claim 1 in Amdocs and the present claim 1 reveals that the present claims
provide significantly more than the alleged abstract idea under current case
law.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s bare assertion that it should be apparent
from a “cursory comparison” that the claimed invention integrates an
abstract idea into a practical application, with no evidence whatsoever cited
in support, is wholly unpersuasive to show Examiner error.
Appellant urges that the claims under appeal should be interpreted
similar to those in DDR Holdings.6 Appeal Br. 11. Appellant alleges,
without evidentiary support, that the claims under appeal “are directed
towards processing that amounts to significantly more than mere instructions
performed by a general purpose computer” and “are clearly rooted in the
improvement of a computer system.” Id. Appellant has not identified the
processing that is allegedly “significantly more;”. Appellant has not
specified what computer system improvement is present in the invention.
Appellant thus fails to persuade the Board that the invention under appeal
satisfies DDR Holdings’ requirement of something necessarily rooted in
computer technology to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks. DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1253.
Despite Appellant’s submissions, Appellant does not explain, and we
find no basis for, the contention that the claimed invention involves applying
the abstract idea by use of a particular machine. We are not persuaded that
Appellant’s claims are clearly rooted in the improvement of a computer
system. We determine that Appellant’s claimed invention does not provide

6 DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

14
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea
to a particular technological environment.
In response to Appellant’s argument (Appeal Br. 9-10) that the claims
do not pre-empt the abstract idea of analyzing a closure code to identify
common order defects, we note that lack of preemption will not demonstrate
patent eligibility. “Where a patent's claims are deemed only to disclose
patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in
this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We conclude that the claims do not recite additional elements that
integrate the recited abstract idea of analyzing a closure code to identify
common order defects into a practical application under the considerations
laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.
INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Last, we consider whether claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20 express an
inventive concept, i.e., whether any additional claim elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether
the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in
the field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50, 56.
“The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

15
relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a computing device and one or more databases. As discussed supra, we
find that Appellants’ Specification does not define these terms in other than
generic fashion. We determine, then, that Appellant’s disclosure of a
“computing device” and one or more “databases” are similarly well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding the use of the recited generic computer components
identified – i.e., “computing device” and one or more “databases” -- the
Supreme Court has held that “the mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. Our reviewing court provides additional
guidance: See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (“[T]he use of generic
computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone
transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”);
OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages
over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system to
automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to
potential customers found to merely recite “‘well-understood, routine
conventional activit[ies],’ either by requiring conventional computer
activities or routine data-gathering steps” (alteration in original)). We
determine from Appellant’s bare disclosure of these elements that the
claimed computing device and databases should be considered generic
computer components. As such, they cannot transform the recited patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

16
Appellant has presented no argument contesting the Examiner’s
characterization of any additional claim element as well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Appellant has not contended that the Examiner lacked
factual support for any finding that a claim element is well-understood,
routine, and conventional. As a result, we determine that none of the claim
elements, additional to those limitations we determined to constitute a
mental process, recite a limitation or combination of limitations that are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of managing
changes to an electronic record for an order for one or more products.
SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY - CONCLUSION
We conclude that the claims recite a process of managing changes to
an electronic record for an order for one or more products, which we
determine to constitute a mental process, one of the categories of invention
found by the courts to constitute an abstract idea.
We further conclude that the claims do not integrate the identified
abstract idea into a practical application.
We further conclude that the claimed invention does not recite
additional claim elements that transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1-6, 8-14, and 16-20.

REJECTION OVER BORDERS, BLESER, SANO, AND GATTO
Each of the independent claims (1, 12, and 17) recites “receiving . . . a
closure code identifying a nature of the sales exit criteria,” or substantially
identical language. The Examiner finds that Sano teaches this limitation.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

17
Final Act. 21-22. The Examiner finds that Sano teaches a point of sale
system that can determine that a commodity deviating from a standard is
defective, by comparing the commodity with stored commodity images.
Final Act. 22. The Examiner then finds (albeit without citation to evidence)
that Sano “teaches the ability to adhere to a plurality of standards (exit
criteria) for a plurality of products (additional closure codes).” Id. The
Examiner further finds that the specification defines a closure code as
“identifying the nature of the defects and/or other aspects of the sales exit
criteria.” Ans. 12; Spec. ¶ 29. The Examiner then finds that Sano’s database
has a plurality of codes that align to a plurality of products, each product
having its own set of standards (i.e., exit criteria). “Thus, the plurality of
products can be understood as ‘additional closure codes.’” Ans. 12.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. As mentioned supra,
Appellant’s Specification describes a closure code as “identifying the nature
of the defects and/or other aspects of the sales exit criteria.” Spec. ¶ 29. The
Specification discloses that “sales exit criteria . . . identif[y] defects present
in the order,” or “correspond[] to information that needs addressing before
the order may be released for provisioning the product,” or “identify one or
more defects in information contained in the order that need[] to be
remedied to provision the product for the customer correctly.” Spec. ¶ 14,
24. Thus we construe the claimed “receiving . . . a closure code identifying a
nature of the sales exit criteria” as receiving some form of data or
information that identifies one or more defects present in an order, or
identifies defects in the information contained in an order that need to be
remedied.
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

18
Sano discloses a point of sale system in which a commodity, desired
to be purchased by a consumer, is imaged, the image then being compared
with one or more stored images of such a commodity. Sano ¶¶ 47, 56. A
similarity determining section determines whether the commodity to be
purchased appears sufficiently similar to the stored images. Sano ¶ 61. If the
similarity score exceeds a threshold, the sale of the product proceeds
normally. If the similarity score does not exceed the threshold, the
commodity is “regarded as a defective commodity” and “is not subjected to
sales registration.” Sano ¶ 63. Although Sano discloses that a commodity
could be adjudged defective based on several different characteristics – it
could be “aged and discolored,” “damaged,” “deformed,” have an “abnormal
tint,” uneven surface, insufficient or excess baking, insufficient or excess
frying, etc. Sano does not disclose that the particular characteristic causing
the product’s “failure” is transmitted or stored, and thus received, by any
system, as the claim recites. Sano ¶¶ 63, 64. Sano teaches only a Yes/No
indication about whether the “job is ended,” which corresponds to the term
“closure code” without further limitation; but Sano does not teach a closure
code that identifies a nature of the sales exit criteria (i.e., the defects present
in the order) as is required in the claims.
We have reviewed Gatto and we find that it does not remedy the
deficiency of Borders, Bleser, and Sano. We therefore find that none of the
applied references teach or suggest receiving a closure code identifying a
nature of the sales exit criteria. As a result, we determine that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-14, and 16-20 over Borders, Bleser,
Sano, and Gatto. We further determine that the Examiner erred in rejecting
Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

19
claims 5 and 11 over Borders, Bleser, Sano, Gatto, and APA. We do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.

CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
2. The recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application.
3. The claims do not recite additional elements that transform the
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
4. The combination of Borders, Bleser, Sano, and Gatto does not teach
or suggest receiving a closure code identifying a nature of the sales exit
criteria, as recited in the independent claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis 
Affirmed Reversed
1-6, 8–14,
and 16–20
101 Patent Eligible
Subject Matter
1-6, 8–
14, and
16–20

1-4, 6, 8-10,
12-14, and
16-20
103 Borders, Bleser,
Sano, and Gatto
1-4, 6, 8-10,
12-14, and
16-20
5 and 11 103 Borders, Bleser,
Sano, Gatto, and
APA
5 and 11
Overall
Outcome

1-6, 8–
14, and
16–20

Appeal 2018–005090
Application No. 14/456,846

20
ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-6, 8–14, and 16–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
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