Dallas/Ft.Worth International Airport Board

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2022

2021000289 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2022)

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. 14/320,141 06/30/2014 Brian K. McKinney DALL16-00007 4344 23990 7590 01/04/2022 DOCKET CLERK P.O. DRAWER 800889 DALLAS, TX 75380 EXAMINER BULLINGTON, ROBERT P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2022 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): munckwilson@gmail.com patents@munckwilson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIAN K. MCKINNEY, MICHAEL W. FOSTER, CHARLES W. KNOWLES JR., PAUL R. DEVAUL, DAVID G. HENDERSON, MATTHEW R. BUGBEE, ZACHARY E. BRACKIN, DANIEL A. DURA, and CHRISTOPHER R. BARKER Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 Technology Center 3700 ____________ Before DANIEL S. SONG, EDWARD A. BROWN, and MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, and 26.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2013). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport Board. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 8, 17, and 24 are cancelled. Appeal Br. (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant’s invention “relates generally to training systems. More specifically, [the] disclosure relates to a system and method for supporting training of airport firefighters and other personnel.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1-7, 9, and 10 are directed to a method, claims 11-16 to a system, and claims 18- 23, 25, and 26 to a non-transitory computer readable medium. Appeal Br. 30-40 (Claims App.). Claim 1, reproduced below with added brackets and reference letters, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter. 1. A method comprising: [A] receiving user input from an instructor station in a classroom setting, the user input defining a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations and involving at least one aircraft and at least one vehicle on an image of an airfield; [B] displaying, on an instruction display device in the classroom setting, different types of aircraft on one or more first screens, the one or more first screens including first controls that allow a user to navigate around both an exterior of each of the different types of aircraft and an interior of each of the different types of aircraft within the one or more first screens, the instruction display device having a size and orientation for viewing by multiple students in the classroom setting; [C] displaying, on the instruction display device, at least one airport on one or more second screens, the one or more second screens including second controls that allow the user to navigate around the at least one airport within the one or more second screens; [D] displaying, on the instruction display device, the simulated emergency situation on one or more third screens, [E] displaying at least a portion of the one or more first screens, the one or more second screens or the one or more third screens on a display of at least one student station in the classroom setting; [F] receiving, at the instructor station in the classroom setting, information regarding a user-generated change to the at Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 3 least portion of the one or more first screens, the one or more second screens or the one or more third screens on the display of the at least one student station, wherein the user-generated change is generated in response to the simulated emergency situation; and [G] displaying the user-generated change on the one or more first screens, the one or more second screens or the one or more third screens on the instruction display device, [H] wherein the instruction display device, the at least one student station, and the instructor station are communicatively coupled via a network. REJECTIONS The following rejections are before us for review on appeal: 1. Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 2. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guirguis (US 2004/0191744 A1, pub. Sept. 30, 2004). 3. Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guirguis and Robbins (US 2013/0164725 A1, pub. June 27, 2013). Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 4 ANALYSIS Rejection 1 - Patent Eligibility Claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, and 26 are rejected under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2-5. Principles of Law Pertaining to Patent Eligibility 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. 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. 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. Concepts that have been determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent-ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594-95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). 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 Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 5 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. On January 7, 2019, the PTO issued revised guidance on the application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (hereinafter “Guidance”).3,4 Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities, or mental processes). See id. at 54. If a claim recites a judicial exception, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the Guidance and determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See id.; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h). Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, do we proceed to Step 2B of the Guidance. At step 2B, we determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well- 3 An Appendix to the Guidance (“Appendix I”) includes examples 37-42 illustrating eligibility analysis. 4 An update to the Guidance issued in October 2019 (“October 2019 Update,” available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ peg_oct_2019_update.pdf). An Appendix to the October 2019 Update (“Appendix II”) includes examples 43-46 illustrating eligibility analysis. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 6 understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Guidance at 56. Claim Grouping In contesting the rejection of claims 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, Appellant argues claims 1, 7, 10, 11, 18, and 25 as a group (Appeal Br. 10-17); claims 2-6, 12-16, and 19-23 as another group (id. at 17-19); and claims 9 and 26 separately (id. at 19-21). We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claims 1, 2, 9, and 26. Claims 7, 10, 11, 18, and 25 stand or fall with claim 1, and claims 3-6, 12-16, and 19-23 stand or fall with claim 2. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013) (“When multiple claims subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone. . . . Under each heading identifying the ground of rejection being contested, any claim(s) argued separately or as a subgroup shall be placed under a separate subheading that identifies the claim(s) by number.”) (emphasis added); MPEP § 1205.02. Step 2A, Prong One The Examiner finds that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of “a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations.” Final Act. 2. As to the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the Guidance, the Examiner finds that claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping, more specifically, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 7 between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions)”; or within the “mental processes” grouping, i.e., “processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion).” Id. at 2-3; see Guidance at 52, 54. The Examiner determines that each of limitations A-G of claim 1 recites multiple abstract ideas. Final Act. 3. The Examiner submits, “the ‘simulated emergency situation’ undertaken by a user is merely a method of organizing human activity (in this case, firefighting or rescue operations), which is similar to that of Alice.” Id. at 3-4. The Examiner also determines that the limitations “simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis.’” Id. at 3 (citing Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom S.A, 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Additionally, the Examiner determines that the “displaying” recited in limitations B-E and G, “on ‘a display device, one or more first screens, one or more second screens, and/or one or more third screens,’ is merely a delivery of user-selected media content to a generic computer device,” i.e., “‘a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations’ is selected and delivered to a display device.” Id. The Examiner submits that the “displaying” is similar to the case “Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com.”5 Id. Appellant contends that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant asserts, “[t]he Examiner alleges that the claims are directed to ‘an abstract idea’ of ‘a simulated emergency situation related to 5 It appears the Examiner is referring to Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com., 838 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 8 firefighting or rescue operations.’[] However, the Examiner improperly fails to comply with the first step of the Mayo test.” Id. at 10-11. Appellant states that according to the Guidance, in Step 2A, Prong One, “examiners must refer to a list of subject matter grouping of abstract ideas (including mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes).” Id. at 11. To the extent Appellant is contending that the Examiner failed to comply with the Guidance, we disagree. As discussed above, the Examiner determines that claim 1 recites abstract ideas falling within two different subject matter groupings of abstract ideas set forth in the Guidance. See Final Act. 2-3. Appellant does not address this determination in the Appeal Brief, and thus, does not apprise us of error. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites abstract ideas. Limitation A recites “receiving user input [from an instructor station] in a classroom setting, the user input defining a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations and involving at least one aircraft and at least one vehicle on an image of an airfield.” Appeal Br. 30 (Claims App.).6 Limitation B recites: displaying, [on an instruction display device] in the classroom setting, different types of aircraft [on one or more first screens, the one or more first screens including first controls] that allow a user to navigate around both an exterior 6 For limitation A and limitations B-H discussed below, we enclose claim language in brackets that corresponds to elements beyond the judicial exception. The remaining claim language that is not enclosed in brackets substantially corresponds to the limitations identified by the Examiner as reciting abstract ideas. See Final Act. 3. We further address the elements enclosed in brackets at Step 2A, Prong Two, of our analysis. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 9 of each of the different types of aircraft and an interior of each of the different types of aircraft [within the one or more first screens, the instruction display device] having a size and orientation for viewing by multiple students in the classroom setting. Id. Each of limitations C, D, and E relates to “displaying” information. Particularly, limitation C recites “displaying, [on the instruction display device,] at least one airport [on one or more second screens, the one or more second screens including second controls] that allow[s] the user to navigate around the at least one airport [within the one or more second screens]”; limitation D recites “displaying, [on the instruction display device,] the simulated emergency situation [on one or more third screens]”; and limitation E recites “displaying [at least a portion of the one or more first screens, the one or more second screens or the one or more third screens on a display of at least one student station] in the classroom setting.” Id.] Limitation F recites: receiving, [at the instructor station] in the classroom setting, information regarding a user-generated change [to the at least portion of the one or more first screens, the one or more second screens or the one or more third screens on the display of the at least one student station], wherein the user-generated change is generated in response to the simulated emergency situation. Id. Limitation G recites “displaying the user-generated change [on the one or more first screens, the one or more second screens or the one or more third screens on the instruction display device].” Id. at 31. Lastly, limitation H recites “[wherein the instruction display device, the at least one student station, and the instructor station are communicatively coupled via a network].” Id. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 10 We construe claim 1 as being directed to a method of instructing, or teaching, students in a classroom setting. In limitation A, the “user input” can be received from an instructor in the classroom setting. See Spec. ¶¶ 14, 46. We construe limitation A as involving an instructor defining a simulated emergency situation, as recited. Limitations B, C, and D involve displaying, in the classroom setting, different types of information (i.e., different types of aircraft, at least one airport, and the simulated emergency situation). A user (i.e., the instructor or the students) can navigate (move) around the interior and exterior of the as-displayed different types of aircraft and navigate around the as-displayed airport(s). Limitation E involves displaying at one or more locations for the students in the classroom setting. We note that limitation E does not recite explicitly what the “displaying” shows (i.e., what “at least a portion” shows). Limitation F involves the instructor receiving information regarding a user-generated change to what is displayed in limitation E, responsive to the simulated emergency situation. Limitation G involves displaying the user-generated change at the first location. We construe limitations A-G, individually and in combination, to involve managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including teaching (training) of students by an instructor in the classroom setting, and also the instructor and students following instructions. The method presents displayed information to students in a classroom setting who can make a change to the displayed information. The change is provided to the instructor and displayed. We agree with the Examiner that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the recited method falls within the abstract idea exception subgrouping of certain methods of organizing human activity. See Guidance at 52. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 11 We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites concepts that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.7 As to limitation A, the receiving of user input from an instructor can be performed by the instructor such as by writing on paper. As for limitations B, C, and D, the information including different types of aircraft, at least one airport, and the simulated emergency situation can be displayed by writing or drawing on paper, which can be sized to be viewable by multiple students in a classroom setting. A user would be able to navigate, i.e., move around, the displayed information, such as using a pen. The Specification indicates that the “user” can be the instructor or a student. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 42 (“an instructor or student could use various controls . . . to virtually ‘move’ around an aircraft. For example, a user could use various controls displayed on the screen to move around the outside or the inside of an aircraft.” (Emphasis added)). Limitation E can be performed by writing or drawing on paper in the classroom setting. Limitation F involves students in the classroom setting observing or evaluating the information displayed as recited in limitations B-D and making judgments as to making a change to what is displayed. Observation, evaluation, and making judgments are concepts that can be performed in the human mind. See Guidance at 52. Moreover, analyzing of data is a mental process of evaluating. See In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-Based Heredity Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Further, limitation F can be performed, for example, by a user writing on 7 A claim can recite more than one judicial exception. See Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1374-75, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Claim to a method for analyzing DNA recited both a law of nature and a mental process.); Planet Bingo, LLC v. VKGS LLC, 576 F. App’x 1005, 1007-08 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Claims to methods and systems of managing a game of bingo recited mental processes and methods of organizing human activity.) Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 12 paper on which information associated with limitations B, C, and D is provided, and submitting the user-generated change to the instructor. Alternatively, limitations A-G can be performed in the human mind, and are similar to processes that courts have determined are mental processes. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (determining that a claim whose “steps can all be performed in the human mind” is directed to an unpatentable mental process). Although limitations A-G recite “an instructor station”; “an instruction display device,” “one or more first screens . . . including first controls,” “one or more second screens . . . including second controls,” “one or more third screens,” “a display of at least one student station,” and step H recites that elements “are communicatively coupled via a network,” the recitation of these elements does not, by itself, establish that a claim does not recite mental steps. See, e.g., 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.”). The limitations apart from the enclosed elements recited in claim 1 could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Similarly, “performance of a claim limitation using generic computer components does not necessarily preclude the claim limitation from being in the . . . certain methods of organizing human activity grouping, Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20.” See Guidance at 52 n. 14 (emphasis omitted). For the above reasons, we determine that claim 1 recites the abstract ideas of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which are judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 13 Step 2A, Prong Two In Prong Two, we determine whether claim 1, as a whole, integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of that exception, and thus, is not “directed to” the judicial exception, by: (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claims beyond the judicial exception; and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application. See Guidance at 54-55. As discussed above, limitations A-H of claim 1 recite the following elements beyond the judicial exception: “an instructor station”; “an instruction display device,” “one or more first screens . . . including first controls,” “one or more second screens . . . including second controls,” “one or more third screens,” “a display of at least one student station,” and “the instruction display device, the at least one student station, and the instructor station are communicatively coupled via a network.” The Examiner identifies these elements as the “additional elements.” Final Act. 4. Appellant contends that the Examiner fails to demonstrate that the claims do not recite a combination of additional elements that integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application and “ignores all of the additional elements of the instant claims that extend beyond the presence of certain devices or hardware.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant asserts that the additional elements are: the entire limitations A and F; “displaying, on an instruction display device in the classroom setting, different types of aircraft on one or more first screens” in limitation B; “displaying, on the instruction display device, at least one airport on one or more second screens” in limitation C; “displaying, on the instruction display device, the simulated emergency situation on one or more third screens” in limitation D; and Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 14 “displaying the user-generated change . . . on the instruction device” in limitation G. Id. at 12-13 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that the purported additional elements integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal Br. 13. Particularly, Appellant contends: Claim l features multiple display devices that allow users to share ideas and collaborate on activities surrounding an emergency situation. The features of Claim l emphasized above allow an instructor to provide input to define an emergency situation for display on an instruction display device in a classroom setting. This allows the instructor to simulate multiple emergency situations. Each student can manipulate and change features of the aircraft or airport on the first, second, or third screens at their student station related to the emergency situation. The student-made changes can then be shared on the instruction display device. These operations of simulating emergency situations, displaying, and sharing changes through the use of multiple equipment (including an instruction display device, an instructor station, and one or more student stations) is certainly a practical application that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception, in accordance with the 2019 Guidance. Id. (emphasis added). These contentions are unpersuasive. Claim 1 does not require the instructor to simulate multiple emergency situations, more than one student station, or more than one “student-made change” to be received at the instructor station or displayed at the instruction display device. Further, an exemplary consideration that is indicative that an additional element, or a combination of elements, may integrate the exception into a practical application is an additional element that reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 15 technology or technical field. See Guidance at 55. The Specification does not, however, appear to disclose that the instructor station, the instruction display device, the first, second, or third screen(s), the student station(s), or the network are more than generic components. As for limitation A, the Examiner notes that the Specification discloses, “[t]he instructor station 102 can be used by an instructor teaching a class. For example, the instructor station 102 could include a podium with an embedded display, a desktop or laptop computer, or a tablet computer.” Ans. 9 (citing Spec. ¶ 14). Accordingly, an instructor station can include a generic display or computer. Appellant indicates that the “instruction display device” recited in limitations B, C, D, and G corresponds to display wall 101. Appeal Br. 4; see Spec. Fig. 1. The Specification discloses that “[t]he display wall 101 can be used to present various information during a classroom session” and “includes any suitable display for use in a classroom setting.” Spec. ¶ 13 (emphasis added). Display wall 101 can include multiple displays. Id. We understand that the display correspond to the recited first screen(s), second screen(s), and third screen(s). As for limitation E, the Specification discloses that “[e]ach student station 104a -104n includes any suitable display device and control device(s).” See Spec. ¶ 15 (emphasis added). Accordingly, the Specification does not disclose that the student station(s) require(s) more than generic electronic components. As for limitation H, the Specification discloses that “[t]he display wall 101, instructor station 102, and student stations 104a-104n are coupled to at least one network 106. Each network 106 facilitates communication between various components coupled to the network.” See Spec. ¶ 16. The Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 16 Specification does not appear to disclose that the “network” requires more than generic components. Appellant does not establish that the purported additional elements individually, or in combination, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not reflect such an improvement. Ans. 5. Rather, claim 1 recites an abstract method of organizing human activity and mental processes and the additional elements merely generally link the use of the abstract ideas to a particular field of use, namely, training of firefighting or rescue operations personnel. This is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See Guidance at 55. We construe limitations A-H as merely using the additional elements as tools to perform the abstract concepts, which likewise is insufficient to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. See id. Appellant also contends that Example 40 set forth in the Guidance provides evidence that the purported additional elements recited in claim 1 integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Appeal Br. 14 (reproducing claim 1 of Example 40). Example 40 discusses a hypothetical claim reciting “[a] method for adaptive monitoring of traffic data through a network appliance connected between computing devices in a network.” Id. According to Appellant, “Example 40 states, ‘Although each of the collecting steps analyzed individually may be viewed as mere pre- or post- solution activity, the claim as a whole is directed to a particular improvement in collecting traffic data.’” Id. (emphasis added). However, Appellant does not show persuasively that its claim integrates the recited abstract ideas into a practical application. The purported practical application identified by Appellant is: Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 17 Allow[ing] an instructor to provide input to define an emergency situation for display on an instruction display device in a classroom setting. This allows the instructor to simulate multiple emergency situations. Each student can manipulate and change features of the aircraft or airport on the first, second, or third screens at their student station related to emergency situation. The student-made changes can then be shared on the instruction display device. Appeal Br. 15. Even taking Appellant’s characterization of what Appellant clam 1 “allow[s]” at face value, the purported additional elements, considered individually or in combination, fail to reflect an improvement in technology as appears to be present in Example 40. Id. at 14-15. Accordingly, Appellant’s reliance on Example 40 of the Guidance is unpersuasive. For the above reasons, we determine that claim 1 does not recite an additional element, or a combination of additional elements, that integrate(s) the abstract ideas into a practical application, and thus, the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. See Guidance at 54. Step 2B We next determine whether claim 1 adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field so as to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas. See Guidance at 56. The Examiner concludes that claim 1 does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas, but rather, determines that the additional elements are “generic, well-known, and conventional data gather[ing] computing elements.” Final Act. 4. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not properly followed the procedure set forth in the Berkheimer Memo for Examiners to show that an Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 18 additional element, or combination of elements, is well-understood, routine, or conventional. Appeal Br. 15-16. This contention is unpersuasive. The Specification supports the Examiner’s position that the additional elements in claim 1 as identified by the Examiner (i.e., the instructor station, the instruction display device, the first, second, or third screen(s), the student station(s), and the network) are nothing more than generic electronic elements. The disclosure pertaining to these elements provides “an express statement in the specification,” in accordance with the Berkheimer Memo. Appellant contends: “[t]he combination of the different screens provides an inventive concept in that users can navigate through different scenarios for training purposes”; “[e]ach set of screens is not generic or well-known as each set of screens shows information for a specific use (e.g., navigate aircraft, navigate airport, etc.) while participating in a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting and rescue operations”; and [t]he additional elements of an instructor station, an instruction display device, at least one student station, and a network are also not mere data gathering computing elements, as the elements allow students to participate with each other and the instructor and perform various tasks related to a simulated emergency situation. Appeal Br. 16-17. These contentions are unpersuasive. Claim 1 recites a certain method of organizing human activity and “mental steps” or mental processes that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper. Apart from these abstract ideas, claim 1 recites the use of generic electronic components. Appellant does not persuasively establish that the additional elements, individually or in combination, are sufficient to amount to Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 19 significantly more than the abstract ideas themselves. To the extent Appellant is relying on the claim limitations that recite the abstract ideas as providing significantly more, “[i]t has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.” BSG Tech LLC, 899 F.3d. at 1290-91. We agree with the Examiner that the claimed method merely calls for using generic electronic components as tools to perform the abstract ideas, which use does not transform the claim into a patent-eligible application of the abstract ideas. Alice, 573 U.S. at 212. Appellant also contends that “the claims are not so general as to have broad applicability across many fields of endeavor. Instead, the claims recite a particular process that is for a specific purpose of a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations.” Appeal 17. Appellant contends there is lack of preemption here. Even accepting this contention, “‘[w]hile preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.’” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Further, even if the claim recites a “particular process that is for a specific purpose,” merely confining the use of an abstract idea to a particular purpose (technological field) does not provide an inventive concept to the claims. See Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 20 LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Appellant’s contention is unpersuasive. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 7, 10, 11, and 18 fall with claim 1. Claims 2-6, 12-16, and 19-23 The Examiner determines that claims 2-6, 12-16, and 19-23 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Final Act. 4. Thus, the Examiner rejects these claims under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appellant quotes the language of claim 2 and contends that claims 3- 6, 12-16, and 19-23 “contain[s] similar recitations” and “are patentable for the same reasons” as claims 1, 11, and 18, and “are patentable based on their own recitations.” Appeal Br. 17-18. Appellant also contends that the Examiner must evaluate the eligibility of each claim using the two-step analysis, including applying the Berkheimer Memo analysis, but has failed to do this. Id. at 18. Appellant also contends that “the elements recited in Claims 2-6, 12-16, and 19-23 combine with their parent claims to create an ordered combination that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional and that is not previously known to the industry.” Id. at 18-19. These contentions are unpersuasive. First, we select claim 2 as representative of the grouping. None of claims 3-6, 12-16, and 19-23 is argued under a separate heading. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Second, regarding patent eligibility, claim 2 recites features that are displayed. Claim 2 utilizes the first screen(s), which as discussed above, can be generic displays. We determine that claim 1 is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, and Appellant does not show that claim 2 recites an Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 21 additional element that integrate(s) the abstract ideas into a practical application, or provides an inventive concept. Third, as to Appellant’s contention that claim 2 combines with claim 1 “to create an ordered combination that is not previously known to the industry,” we note that “a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics, Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016). A novel and non-obvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent-ineligible. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90-91. Appellant does not apprise us of Examiner error. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 2, and claims 3-6, 12-16, and 19-23 falling with claim 2, under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 9 and 26 The Examiner determines that claims 9 and 26 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Final Act. 4. Appellant quotes the language of claims 9 and 26 and repeats substantially the same arguments as those made for claims 2-6, 12-16, and 19-23. Appeal Br. 19-21. These arguments are unpersuasive as to claims 9 and 26 for substantially the same reasons as discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 26 under the judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101. Rejection 2 The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guirguis. Final Act. 5-14. In contesting this rejection, Appellant argues all claims as a group under a single heading. Appeal Br. 22-26. We decide the appeal of this rejection on the basis of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23 stand or fall with claim 1. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 22 The Examiner finds that Guirguis discloses all limitations of claim 1 except for “the user input defining a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations and involving at least one aircraft and at least one vehicle on an image of an airfield” (limitation A); “displaying. . . different types of aircraft, . . . including first controls that allow a user to navigate around both an exterior of each of the different types of aircraft and an interior of each of the different types of aircraft” (limitation B); “displaying . . . at least one airport . . . , including second controls that allow the user to navigate around the at least one airport” (limitation C); and “displaying . . . the simulated emergency situation” (limitation D). Final Act. 6, 8 (bold face omitted). However, the Examiner interprets these limitations as being non-functional descriptive material (printed matter) that does not distinguish the claimed method from Guirguis. Id. (citing In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). The Examiner determines: there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., a simulated emergency situation related to firefighting or rescue operations and involving at least one aircraft and at least one vehicle on an image of an airfield) and the substrate (e.g., an instructor station) which is required for patentability. Id. at 7. Similarly, the Examiner also determines: there is no novel and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter (e.g., displaying different types of aircraft; displaying at least one airport; and displaying the simulated emergency situation) and the substrate (e.g., one or more first screens; one or more second screens; and one or more third screens) which is required for patentability. Id. at 9. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 23 Appellant contends that “[c]laim 1 does not claim a ‘product,’ but instead claims a method. Thus, a rejection based on non-functional descriptive material is not applicable to Claim 1.” Appeal Br. 24. We disagree. As stated in King Pharm., Inc. v. Eon Labs, Inc., 616 F.3d 1267, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010): Although these “printed matter” cases involved the addition of printed matter, such as written instructions, to a known product, we see no principled reason for limiting their reasoning to that specific factual context. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338-39; In re Gulack, 703 F.2d at 1385-87. Rather, we believe that the rationale underlying these cases extends to the situation presented in this case, wherein an instructional limitation is added to a method, as opposed to a product, known in the art. In our view, the claimed “user input” and the displayed “different types of aircraft,” “at least one airport,” and “simulated emergency situation” are, as in King, “instructional limitations” with respect to the claimed method. Furthermore, in In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 58-59 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the court addressed the patent eligibility of a method of playing a dice game utilizing a set of dice having die markings. The court determined that “[t]he markings on Appellant’s dice . . . constitute printed matter, as pointed out by the Board, and this court has generally found printed matter to fall outside the scope of § 101.” Id. at 1161. The court also determined that “the printed indicia on each die are not functionally related to the substrate of the dice.” Id. Accordingly, Guldenaar provides additional support that the doctrine of non-functional descriptive material (printed matter) is applicable to method claims, and that descriptive material Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 24 on a substrate used in a method needs to have a functional relationship with the substrate.8 Appellant also contends that “the information recited in Claim 1 that is alleged to be non-functional descriptive clearly performs a function with respect to the process to which it is associated.” Appeal Br. 24. But even assuming that the information identified by the Examiner as being non- functional descriptive material performs a function with respect to the method (i.e., a functional relationship exists), the descriptive material must also be functionally different from the prior art. That is, the functional relationship must be “new and nonobvious.” See King, 616 F.3d at 1279 (“[T]he relevant question is whether ‘there exists any new and unobvious functional relationship between the printed matter and the substrate.’”) (citations omitted). Appellant does not establish persuasively the recited information meets this additional requirement. Appellant also contends that “the displayed information recited in Claim 1 is based on data structures and computer programs that are encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium and are processed by multiple computing devices, not simply by the human mind. Such information cannot reasonably be considered non-functional descriptive material.” Appeal Br. 24-25 (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not, however, 8 In Guldenaar, the court concluded: “Because the only arguably unconventional aspect of the recited method of playing a dice game is printed matter, which falls outside the scope of § 101, the rejected claims do not recite an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application of the abstract idea.” Guldenaar, 911 F.3d at 1162. Should there be further prosecution of this application, the Examiner may want to consider the applicability of the printed matter doctrine to the patent eligibility of the claims. Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 25 recite any limitation as to “data structures and computer programs that are encoded on a non-transitory computer-readable medium.”9 Thus, this contention is also unpersuasive. Appellant does not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 based on applying the doctrine of non- functional descriptive material. The Examiner alternatively rejects claim 1 based on the position that the recited limitations that are not disclosed in Guirguis are “obvious design choices.” Final Act. 7, 9-10. We need not also address the Examiner’s alternative rationale. For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 as unpatentable over Guirguis. Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, and 23 fall with claim 1. Rejection 3 The Examiner rejects claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Guirguis and Robbins. Final Act. 14. Appellant relies on the dependency of claim 26 from claim 1 for patentability. Appeal Br. 27. As Appellant does not apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 26 as unpatentable over Guirguis and Robbins for the same reasons as for claim 1. 9 Claim 18 is directed to “[a] non-transitory computer readable medium embodying a computer program, the computer program comprising computer readable program code.” Appeal Br. 37-38. In the Reply Brief, “Appellant notes that instant Claims 18-20, for example, relate to stored data structures. The Examiner fails to explain why In Re Lowry would not be relevant to at least the rejection of Claims 18-20.” However, Appellant does not argue claim 18, 19, or 20 under a separate heading. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Appeal 2021-000289 Application 14/320,141 26 CONCLUSION We affirm the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, and 26. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, 26 101 Eligibility 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, 26 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23 103 Guirguis 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11-13, 15, 16, 18-20, 22, 23 26 103 Guirguis, Robbins 26 Overall Outcome 1-7, 9-16, 18-23, 25, 26 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED