comScore, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2021

2020003775 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2021)

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.
16/100,356 08/10/2018 Ying Li 048270.026994 9448
30734 7590 09/22/2021
BakerHostetler
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Ave. N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5304
EXAMINER
RIAZ, SAHAR AQIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2021 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):
edervis@bakerlaw.com
eofficemonitor@bakerlaw.com
patents@bakerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte YING LI and FRANK E. PECJAK
____________

Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final rejection of Claims 1–20 which are all of the pending
claims.1 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 states the real party in interest is
Comscore, Inc. of Reston, VA. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

2
We AFFIRM.2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims relate to a method to determine a probability that a certain
portion of a program was viewed by a household member. See Abstract.
CLAIMS
Claims 1, 13, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 17–21, Claims
App. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
Claim 1, which is reproduced below.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
accessing household member data that identifies a
plurality of individual members of a household;
accessing information that identifies, for each of the
plurality of individual members of the household, a probability
that a particular portion of a program was viewed by that
individual member of the household;
generating a plurality of state spaces, each of the plurality
of state spaces comprising an indication of whether or not the
particular portion of the program was viewed by each of the
plurality of individual members of the household;
generating a probability distribution that represents, for
each of the plurality of statespaces, a probability that the
particular portion of the program was viewed by the plurality of
individual members of the household represented by the state
space;

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief filed January 6, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply
Brief filed April 21, 2020 (“Reply Brief”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
March 2, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Action mailed August 13, 2019 (“Final
Act.”), and the Original Specification filed August 10, 2018 (“Spec.”) for
their respective details.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

3
determining, based on a simulation of the generated
probability distribution, a plurality of possible viewership
scenarios, each of the plurality of possible viewership scenarios
corresponding to one of the state spaces;
selecting one of the plurality of possible viewership
scenarios; and
generating a report that identifies, for the selected
viewership scenario and for each of the individual members of
the household, a Boolean output indicating whether or not the
particular portion of the program was viewed by the individual
member of the household.
Appeal Br. 1, Claims App.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
an abstract idea without significantly more.3 Final Act. 3–4.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1–20 in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred. We review the appealed rejections for
error based upon the issues identified by the Appellant and in light of the
arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung,
637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s
practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the
[E]xaminer’s rejections.”). We have considered in this decision only those
arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments

3 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

4
which the Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are
deemed to be forfeited. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We are not
persuaded of reversible error.
CLAIMS 1–20: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant states:
The features of independent claim 1 are incorporated in each of
the dependent claims and similarly recited by each of the other
independent claims. Thus, these arguments apply with equal
force to all of the claims. For the foregoing reasons, Appellant
respectfully asks that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be
withdrawn.
Appeal Br. 15.
Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 101 rejections on the basis of
claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as “the claims.”
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
We reviewed the record de novo. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Commission, 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.”). Based upon our review of the record in light of recent policy
guidance with respect to patent-eligible subject matter rejections under 35
U.S.C. § 101, we affirm the rejection of claims 1–3, 5–17, and 19–28 for the
specific reasons discussed below.
USPTO 35 U.S.C. § 101 Guidance.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published
revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See USPTO
January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

5
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg.”).4 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) (see January 2019
Memorandum Step 2A – Prong One); and

(2) any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c),
(e)–(h)) (see January 2019 Memorandum Step 2A – Prong
Two).5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

4 The Office issued a further memorandum on October 17, 2019 (“October
2019 Memorandum”) clarifying guidance of the January 2019 Memorandum
in response to received public comments. See https://www.uspto.gov/
sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf. Moreover, “[a]ll
USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected
to follow the guidance.” January 2019 Memorandum 51; see also October
2019 Memorandum 1.

5 This evaluation is performed by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception; and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See October 2019 Memorandum, Section III(A)(2),
page 10, et seq.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

6
(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 January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg., Step 2B.
Because there is no single definition of an “abstract idea” under Alice
Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) Step 1, the January 2019
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. synthesizes, for purposes of clarity,
predictability, and consistency, key concepts identified by the courts as
abstract ideas to explain that the “abstract idea” exception includes the
following three groupings:
1. Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical
calculations;
2. Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
and
3. 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).
See January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
According to the January 2019 Memorandum, “[c]laims that do not
recite [subject] matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of
abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas,” except in rare
circumstances. Even if the claims recite any one of these three groupings of
abstract ideas, these claims are still not “directed to” a judicial exception
(abstract idea), and thus are patent eligible, if “the claim as a whole
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

7
integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that
exception.” See January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 53.
For example, limitations that are indicative of integration into a
practical application include:
1. Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any
other technology or technical field — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a);
2. Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a
particular machine — see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
3. Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article
to a different state or thing — see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
4. Applying or using 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 — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of integration into a
practical application include:
1. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or merely including instructions to
implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a
computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea — see MPEP
§ 2106.05(f);
2. Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception — see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
3. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use — see
MPEP § 2106.05(h).
See 2019 January Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55 (“Prong Two”).

January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg., Step 2A, Prong One
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

8
The Judicial Exception
We reproduce infra independent claim 1 in Table One. We have
considered all of Appellant’s arguments and any evidence presented. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis in our
analysis below.6
The Examiner finds the claims recite generating a probability
distribution which as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer component. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner further finds the “generating a probability distribution” limitation
recites a “mental process” because under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, it is a limitation that, beyond a recitation of a processor, a
person could perform in the mind. Id. Moreover, the Examiner finds the
judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Id.
The Examiner finds it was routine in the art to perform the claimed data-
gathering steps for accessing household member data that identifies a
plurality of individual members of a household, accessing information that
identifies, for each of the plurality of individual members of the household a
probability that a particular portion of a program was viewed by that
individual member of the household, and generating a report that identifies,
for the selected viewership scenario, each of the individual members of the
household and an indication of whether the particular portion of the program

6 Throughout this opinion, we give the claim limitations the broadest
reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the Specification. See In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

9
was viewed by each of the individual members of the household. Final Act.
4 (citing Pecjak, US 2016/0249098). The Examiner further finds it routine
to provide a Boolean output to indicate whether a particular portion of a
program was viewed. Id. (citing Lewis, US 2017/0289595).
Appellant contends the claims are integrated into a practical
application. Appeal Br. 8 (“[T]the claims are directed to a patent-eligible,
technical solution.”).
Under the January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg., we begin our
analysis by first considering whether the claims recite any judicial
exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a)
mathematical concepts; (b) mental steps; and (c) certain methods of
organizing human activities.
Under the January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg., we begin our
analysis by first considering whether the claims recite any judicial
exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas, in particular: (a)
mathematical concepts; (b) mental steps; and (c) certain methods of
organizing human activities.
Claim 1 recites: “[a] computer-implemented method, comprising.” In
Table One below, we set forth the further limitations of Claim 1 and identify
in italics the specific claim limitations that we conclude recite an abstract
idea.

TABLE ONE
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

10

Independent Claim 1 January 2019 Memorandum
[a]7 accessing household member
data that identifies a plurality of
individual members of a household;

An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. See
January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. 55, n. 31.
[b] accessing information that
identifies, for each of the plurality
of individual members of the
household, a probability that a
particular portion of a program was
viewed by that individual member
of the household;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. See
January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. 55, n. 31.
[c] generating a plurality of state
spaces, each of the plurality of state
spaces comprising an indication of
whether or not the particular portion
of the program was viewed by each
of the plurality of individual
members of the household;
Mental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. 52.
[d] generating a probability
distribution that represents, for each
of the plurality of state spaces, a
probability that the particular
portion of the program was viewed
by the plurality of individual
members of the household
represented by the state space;
Mental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. 52.
[e] determining, based on a
simulation of the generated
probability distribution, a plurality
of possible viewership scenarios,
each of the plurality of possible
Mental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.

7 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

11
Independent Claim 1 January 2019 Memorandum
viewership scenarios corresponding
to one of the state spaces;
Reg. 52.
[f] selecting one of the plurality of
possible viewership scenarios; and
Mental processes—concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. 52.
[g] generating a report that
identifies, for the selected
viewership scenario and for each of
the individual members of the
household, a Boolean output
indicating whether or not the
particular portion of the program
was viewed by the individual
member of the household.
Generating a report is insignificant
extra-solution activity (i.e., data
transmission). See January 2019
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 n.31;
see also MPEP § 2106.05(g).

The limitations recited in the body of the claim are analyzed in Table
One against the categories of abstract ideas as set forth in the January 2019
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. As set forth in Table One above, we find
limitations [c]–[f] of independent Claim 1 recite abstract ideas, i.e., “mental
processes.”

Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we so conclude
above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) wherein the
“claims are considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character
as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citations
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

12
omitted). This test determines 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
not 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).
Appellant contends “the recited steps of simulating a probability
distribution for determining viewership scenarios, which correspond to
determined state spaces, and of identifying a Boolean (e.g., deterministic)
output of a generated report are more than mere ‘generic computer
function.’” Reply Br. 2.
We take Appellant’s contention that the claims provide “more than
mere generic computer function,” as arguing the claims improve the
functioning of the computer, itself. “[P]atent eligibility often turns on
whether the claims provide sufficient specificity to constitute an
improvement to computer functionality itself.” Universal Secure Registry
LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2020-2044, slip op. at 5 (Fed. Cir. August 26, 2021).
In considering claims to barcode-verification of mail objects, the
Federal Circuit held that claims directed to using a conventional barcode
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

13
affixed to the outside of a mail object to communicate information about the
mail object, including claims reciting a method for verifying the authenticity
of the mail object, were abstract because the claims were not directed to
specific details of the barcode or of the equipment for generating and
processing the barcode, nor was there a description of how the barcode was
generated, or how that barcode was different from long-standing
identification practices. Id., at 5–6 (citing Secured Mail Solutions LLC v.
Universal Wilde, Inc., 873 F.3d 905, 907, 910–11 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Appellant argues: “[t]he Answer thus fails to properly consider the
patent-eligibility of generating a report in a specific way.” Reply Br. 3.
However, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the claims, themselves, do not
provide a specific algorithm for simulating a probability distribution for
determining viewership scenarios, nor for identifying a Boolean,
deterministic output, nor for generating the claimed report. Moreover,
Appellant fails to indicate Specification disclosure of such an algorithm. We
are not persuaded that the claims improve computer technology, nor improve
any other technology.
MPEP § 2106.05(b): Particular Machine
The Bilski machine-or-transformation test is only applicable to
method (process) claims. However, “[r]egardless of what statutory category
(‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C.
§ 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the
underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, it is
clear that the invention underlying the processor device of claim 13 and the
computer-readable storage medium claim 17 is the method of claim 1. We
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

14
therefore, analyze the machine prong of the Bilski machine-or-
transformation test.
Appellant discloses generic machines and software are suitable:
The system 200 includes a reporting server 202. The reporting
server 202 may be implemented using, for example, a general-
purpose computer capable of responding to and executing
instructions in a defined manner, a personal computer, a
special-purpose computer, a workstation, a server, or a mobile
device. The reporting server 202 may receive instructions
from, for example, a software application, a program, a piece of
code, a device, a 30 computer, a computer system, or a
combination thereof, which independently or collectively direct
operations.
Spec., 7, ll. 25–31.
We find no indication, nor does Appellant so direct our attention, that
the claimed invention relies on other than generic devices or uses other than
generic software. We, therefore, conclude Appellant’s claims fail to satisfy
the machine prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c): Particular Transformation
This section of the MPEP guides: “Another consideration when
determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim
effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing.” “Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or
thing is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include
particular machines.” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 658 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.
at 70).
The claims select and analyze certain electronic data, i.e., “household
member data that identifies a plurality of individual members of a
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

15
household.” See Claim 1. From that data, the claims “generat[e] a report
that identifies, for [a] selected viewership scenario and for each of the
individual members of the household, a Boolean output indicating whether
or not the particular portion of the program was viewed by the individual
member of the household.” See Appeal Br. 17, Claims App. (claim 1).
The selection and analysis of electronic data is not a “transformation
or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-
eligible subject matter.” See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(emphasis added); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“The mere manipulation or reorganization
of data . . . does not satisfy the transformation prong.”). Applying this
guidance here, we conclude Appellant’s method claims fail to satisfy the
transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e): Other Meaningful Limitations
This section of the MPEP guides:
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
450 U.S. 175[] (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the
use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of nature)
in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press.
450 U.S. at 177-78. . . . The Court evaluated additional
elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press,
closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the
mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time,
and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently
limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical
application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184,
187. . . . In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

16
mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. 208 [](2014). In
particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements
such as the data processing system and communications
controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully
limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e.,
“implementation via computers”) or were well-understood,
routine, conventional activity.
“[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. Similarly as in Alice, we find
that “[t]aking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’” Id. (citation
omitted). “In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions.” Id. We find that Appellant’s
claims do not add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
MPEP § 2106.05(f): Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception
Appellant does not persuasively argue that the claims do any more
than to merely invoke generic computer components as a tool in which the
computer instructions apply the judicial exception.
MPEP § 2106.05(g): Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The claims acquire and display data, which are classic examples of
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (en
banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski, 561 U.S. at 593.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

17
MPEP § 2106.05(h): Field of Use and Technological
Environment
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not
wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited
meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or
post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience,
a category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
(citation omitted).
We find the claimed data-manipulation is simply a field of use that
attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments because the mere application
of an abstract idea in a particular field is not sufficient to integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. See January 2019
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 55, n.32. In view of the foregoing, we conclude
the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception.
B. Well-understood, routine, conventional
Because the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we must then reach the issue of
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. January
2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 56; see also Appeal Br. 23 (citing the
“Berkheimer Memorandum”).8 As discussed above, the written description

8 Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Comm’r for Patent
Examination Policy, to Patent Examining Corps, U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (April 19, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

18
describes the claimed computer system consistent with its being “well-
understood, routine, [and] conventional.”9 Appellant discloses the claimed
system relies on “a general-purpose computer capable of responding to and
executing instructions in a defined manner” and “a software application.”
See Spec., 7, ll. 26–29.
C. Specified at a high level of generality
It is indicative of the absence of an inventive concept where the
claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. January 2019 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
The claims fail to recite any specific steps of an algorithm, nor does
Appellant cite any Specification disclosure for the required specificity.
We find the limitations are specified at a high level of generality
consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. Considering the claim
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing to the abstract idea that
is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The ordered combination of limitations amounts to
nothing more than certain mental processes implemented with generic
computer components that operate “in a conventional way.” See also Alice,
573 U.S. at 225–26. Therefore, we conclude that none of the claim
limitations, viewed “both individually and as an ordered combination,”
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to
sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject

9 As evidence that the cited steps are “well-understood, routine, and
conventional,” the Examiner cites Lewis, US 2017/0289595 A1, Oct. 5,
2017 and Pecjak, US 2016/0249098 A1, Aug. 25, 2016.
Appeal 2020-003775
Application 16/100,356

19
matter.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 79).

CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of Claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20

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