Charles Lee. Oakes et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2019

14623179 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/623,179 02/16/2015 Charles Lee Oakes III US-0158.04 | 14538-568 9813
16530 7590 07/30/2019
BGL
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60611
EXAMINER
SHAIKH, MOHAMMAD Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3694
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2019 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 CHARLES LEE OAKES III,
RANDY RAY MORLEN,
R. BHARAT PRASAD NUGGEHALLI,
CAROL ANN WALLS,
GABRIEL GLENN GAVIA,
and REYNALDO MEDINA III
____________

Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,1791
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is United Services
Automobile Association (“USAA”) (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Charles Lee Oakes III, Randy Ray Morlen, R. Bharat Prasad
Nuggehalli, Carol Ann Walls, Gabriel Glenn Gavia, and Reynaldo Medina
III (Appellants) seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of
claims 1–7, 11–14, 16, 17, 31, and 32, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a way of verifying validity of remotely
deposited checks in a system for electronically receiving check images from
customers, and for automatically initiating a deposit of funds associated with
said payor check into a customer account. Specification para. 9.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A processor-implemented method comprising:
[1] transmitting,
to a remote computing device including an image
capturing component,
a software component for facilitating a session for
processing a financial document;

2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed January 23, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed July 11,
2017), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed May 11, 2017), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 20, 2016).
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

3

[2] receiving, by a processor, a request from the remote
computing device to initiate the session;
and
[3] upon authorizing the request based on authorization
information included in the request, initiating the session by the
processor,
wherein the processor is further configured to facilitate the
session by:
[4] electronically receiving an image of a front side of a
financial document captured by the image capturing component
of the computing device during the session;
[5] electronically receiving an image of a back side of the
financial document captured by the image capturing component
of the computing device during the session;
and
[6] automatically analyzing, during the session, the image of the
front side of the financial document to determine whether a
payor signature is present
by determining a presence of a signature marking in the
image of the front side at a predetermined location of the
financial document;
[7] automatically analyzing, during the session, the image of the
back side of the financial document to determine whether an
endorsement is present
by comparing a predetermined portion the image of the
back side of the financial document to a customer
signature verification image;
[8] automatically performing, during the session, an electronic
analysis of a Magnetic Ink Character Recognition (MICR) line
portion of the image of the front side of the financial document
to determine if said MICR line comprises at least one
predetermined feature;
and
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

4

[9] processing the financial document for a deposit transaction
during the session
and
[10] automatically notifying a customer that said financial
document will not be deposited if said MICR line comprises
said at least one predetermined feature or if a determination is
made that no endorsement is present.3
Claims 1–7, 11–14, 16, 17, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.4
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 15
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .

3 We note that limitation 10 refers to the outcomes from limtiations 7 and 8,
but not limitation 6.
4 A rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Final Act. 3), was withdrawn. Ans.
3.
5 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

5

determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question,
. . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and
“as an ordered combination” to determine whether the
additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a
patent-eligible application. [The Court] described step two of
this analysis as 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.”
Alice Corp., Pty. Ltd. v CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first
determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining
whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if claims recite a judicial
exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited
judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance at 54. If
the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining
whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional
elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited
judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites transmitting software, receiving a request, initiating a process
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

6

after authorization, receiving image data, analyzing an image to determine
the presence of certain image data, processing a deposit transaction, and
notifying a customer if the image analysis results meet specified criteria.
Initiating a request after authorization is conventional authentication.
Processing a deposit transaction is conventional data processing in the
financial industry. Thus, claim 1 recites transmitting, receiving,
authenticating, processing, and analyzing data. None of the limitations
recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead
recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts6, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity7, and (3) mental processes8. Among those certain methods of
organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial

6 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
8 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

7

and legal interaction. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
verifying validity of deposited checks. Specifically, claim 1 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to verify
deposited check validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain
criteria and for the presence of an endorsement. The advice to verify
deposited check validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain
criteria and for the presence of an endorsement involves making a deposit,
which is an economic act, and notifying a customer when a deposit will not
be completed, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “processing the financial document
for a deposit transaction,” which is an activity that would take place
whenever one is making a deposit. Similarly, claim 1 recites “automatically
notifying a customer that said financial document will not be deposited,”
which is also characteristic of a deposit transaction.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to electronically
processing a check image. Final Act. 4.
The preamble to claim 1 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 1 result in processing a deposit transaction by analyzing a
check image and determining if criteria for not completing the deposit are
met, absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional
computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1, 2, 4, and 5 recite receiving
data. Limitation 10 recites conventional data transmission. Limitations 3
and 9 recite conventional data processing operations of authentication and
financial deposit. Limitations 6–8 recite conventional generic analysis of
image data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

8

results. The limitations thus recite advice for verifying deposited check
validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for
the presence of an endorsement. To advocate verifying deposited check
validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for
the presence of an endorsement is conceptual advice for results desired and
not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 9 describes the invention as relating to
verifying validity of remotely deposited checks in a system for electronically
receiving check images from customers, and for automatically initiating a
deposit of funds associated with said payor check into a customer account.
Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 is directed to verifying
validity of deposited checks. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial and legal interaction as a
certain method of organizing human activity because a deposit transaction is
a commercial interaction. The concept of verifying validity of deposited
checks by verifying deposited check validity by checking whether the MICR
image meets certain criteria and for the presence of an endorsement is one
idea for testing whether a check should be deposited. The steps recited in
claim 1 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (2015) (tracking financial
transactions); Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333–34 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (processing financial transactions through a clearing house).
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

9

From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
verifying validity of deposited checks by verifying deposited check validity
by checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for the
presence of an endorsement, which is a commercial and legal interaction,
one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the
Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.9
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying
the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that
claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those
that integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 are pure data
gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter

9 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

10

this. Step 10 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing,
transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 3 and 6–9 recite generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, the Appellants’ claim 1 simply recites the concept of
verifying validity of deposited checks by verifying deposited check validity
by checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for the
presence of an endorsement as performed by a generic computer. This is no
more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the
generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do
not recite any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the
computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology
or technical field. The 21+ pages of specification do not bulge with
disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment10 and parameters
that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such
conventional processing would entail based on the concept of verifying
validity of deposited checks by verifying deposited check validity by
checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for the
presence of an endorsement under different scenarios. They do not describe
any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead,

10 The Specification describes a general purpose computer. Spec. para. 23.
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

11

claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply verifying validity of deposited checks by verifying deposited check
validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for
the presence of an endorsement using some unspecified, generic computer.
Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a
patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of verifying
validity of deposited checks by advising one to verify deposited check
validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain criteria and for
the presence of an endorsement, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

12

STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept because
the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than
the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implemen[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly 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.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply
instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for transmitting, receiving, authenticating, processing, and
analyzing data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

13

most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are
generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only
for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’
‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming”). None of these
activities are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some
unexpected result. The Appellants do not contend they invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of the
Appellants’ claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data transmission-reception-
authentication-processing-analysis is equally generic and conventional. See
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

14

LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing,
controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary
and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept because
the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more
than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe
process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

15

legal interaction of verifying validity of deposited checks by verifying
deposited check validity by checking whether the MICR image meets certain
criteria and for the presence of an endorsement, without significantly more.
THE APPELLANTS’ ARGUMENTS
As to the Appellants’ Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the
Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action 4–7 and Answer
4–16 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that
the claims are directed to specific improvements to computer
capabilities that address the technical problem of being able to
verify the validity of a financial document in an efficient and
accurate manner and "without opening opportunities to fraud."
(See Specification at ¶ [0008]). For example, the claimed
system and method overcome these limitations through the use
of “a software component for facilitating a session for
processing a financial document.” Therefore, the Examiner's
Answer is incorrect to assert that the claims are directed to the
broader purportedly abstract concept of "processing an
electronic check image."
Reply Br. 2. The improvements recited are specific only in the sense they
are specified with words. The claims recite conventional generic data
processing operations, and add up to no more than conceptual advice to use
generic technology to analyze a check image to determine whether certain
criteria are met. To recite a software component to do something is not a
technological improvement, but conceptual advice to find software to do
something.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants' argument that the claims are
analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 3–5. The claims differ from those found patent
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

16

eligible in Enfish, where the claims were “specifically directed to a self-
referential table for a computer database.” 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The claims thus were “directed to a specific improvement to the
way computers operate” rather than an abstract idea implemented on a
computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed to
an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims
purport to accelerate the process of detecting check validity, our reviewing
court has held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the
ordinary capabilities of a general purpose computer “do[] not materially
alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims are more analogous to those in
FairWarning, 839 F.3d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 2016), wherein claims reciting “a
few possible rules to analyze audit log data” were found directed an
abstract idea because they asked “the same questions (though perhaps
phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations
detecting fraud have asked for decades.” 839 F.3d at 1094, 1095.
The Appellants also attempt to analogize the claims to those involved
in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). Reply Br. 5–9. In McRO, the court held that, although the
processes were previously performed by humans, “the traditional process
and newly claimed method . . . produced . . . results in fundamentally
different ways.” FairWarning v. Iatric Systems, 839 F.3d 1089, 1094
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (differentiating the claims at issue from those in McRO).
In McRO, “it was the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the
computer, that improved the existing technology process,” because the
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

17

prior process performed by humans “was driven by subjective
determinations rather than specific, limited mathematical rules.” 837 F.3d
at 1314 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alterations omitted). In
contrast, the claims of the instant application merely implement an old
practice of using decision criteria in making deposit decisions in a new
environment. T h e Appellants have not argued that the claimed
processes of selecting checks apply rules of selection in a manner
technologically different from those which humans used, albeit with less
efficiency, before the invention was claimed. Merely automating the objects
of decision making to aid decision making is both old and itself abstract.
The claims in McRO were not directed to an abstract idea, but
instead were directed to “a specific asserted improvement in
computer animation, i.e., the automatic use of rules of a
particular type.” We explained that “the claimed improvement
[was] allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip
synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters’
that previously could only be produced by human animators.”
The claimed rules in McRO transformed a traditionally
subjective process performed by human artists into a
mathematically automated process executed on computers.
FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1094.
We are not persuaded by the Appellants’ argument that the claims
contain an inventive concept that is also found in the specific ordered
combination of the limitations, similar to the Federal Circuit's findings in
BASCOM (BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Reply Br. 9–12. Initially, we remind the Appellants that
BASCOM did not find claims eligible on the substance, but rather that the
Appellees did not provide sufficient evidence to support a 12(b)(6) motion to
dismiss in which facts are presumed in the non-movant’s favor.
Appeal 2017-009859
Application 14/623,179

18

The key fact in BASCOM was the presence of a structural change in
“installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-
users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. This
design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer
and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350.
The instant claims have no analogous structural benefit.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–7, 11–14, 16, 17, 31, and 32 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more is proper.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–7, 11–14, 16, 17, 31, and 32 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) (2011).

AFFIRMED