Ex Parte Armstrong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 19, 2018

14023363 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/023,363 09/10/2013
25096 7590 09/21/2018
PERKINS COIE LLP - SEA General
PATENT-SEA
P.O. BOX 1247
SEATTLE, WA 98111-1247
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Phillip Ashton Armstrong
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
080147-8003.USOO 8229
EXAMINER
ZARE, SCOTT A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2018 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):
patentprocurement@perkinscoie.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PHILLIP ASHTON ARMSTRONG,
TYLER McKAY HAWS, JEREK J. ANDERSON,
SHAWN RUSSELL O'NEILL, and
SCOTT STANLEY ERICKSON
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363 1
Technology Center 3600
Before LARRY J. HUME, JASON J. CHUNG, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-22, which are all claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Clearwater Analytics,
LLC. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to a
"method and system for reconciling an account among three data sources,
including data provided by or on behalf of an entity, data provided by an
asset manager, and data provided by a custodian of an account held by the
entity." Spec. 36 (Abstract).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal ( formatting added):
1. A method for reconciling financial data associated
with an entity among three data sources, the method performed
by a computing system having a processor and a memory, the
method comprising:
maintaining financial data associated with an entity from
three data sources, the maintained financial data comprising:
entity financial data associated with the
entity and received from the entity, the entity
financial data enhanced by:
generating predictable transactions
based on the entity financial data;
adding the generated predictable
transactions to the entity financial data;
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed
Mar. 24, 2016); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Nov. 7, 2016); Final
Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Apr. 23, 2015); and the original
Specification ("Spec.," filed Sept. 10, 2013). We note Appellants did not file
a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the
Examiner's Answer.
2
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
manager financial data associated with the
entity and received from a manager of financial
assets for the entity,
wherein the manager financial data is
received on a periodic basis having a
frequency of at least one time per business
day;
custodian financial data associated with the
entity and received from a custodian of financial
transactions for the entity,
wherein the custodian financial data is
received on a periodic basis having a
frequency of at least one time per business
day;
comparing transactions described in entity financial data,
manager financial data, and custodian financial data;
matching a transaction among the entity financial data,
manager financial data, and custodian financial data;
identifying a property associated with the transaction that
is common to the transaction among the entity financial data,
manager financial data, and custodian financial data;
comparing a value of the property among the entity
financial data, manager financial data, and custodian financial
data;
identifying a difference in the value of the property
among the entity financial data, manager financial data, and
custodian financial data;
reconciling the value of the property,
wherein reconciling the value of the
property includes selecting a reconciled
value for the property based at least in part
on the value of the property as specified by
the entity financial data, the value of the
property as specified by the manager
financial data, and the value of the property
3
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
as specified by the custodian financial data;
and
storing the reconciled value of the property.
Rejection on Appea/3
Claims 1-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 3.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 6-16), we decide the appeal of
patent-ineligible subject matter Rejection RI of claims 1-22 on the basis of
representative claim 1. 4
ISSUE
Appellants argue (id.) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is in error.
These contentions present us with the following issue:
Under our governing case law, did the Examiner err in concluding
claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, specifically
the abstract idea of reconciling financial data, without significantly more,
and thus is patent-ineligible under§ 101?
3 We note the Examiner indicates " [ c ]laims 1-22 appear allowable over the
prior art of record." Final Act. 5.
4 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
4
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. To the extent Appellants have not
advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular claims, or other
issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1-22
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set
forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for
emphasis as follows.
Alice Framework
Section 101 provides that anyone who "invents or discovers any new
and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any
new and useful improvement thereof' may obtain a patent. 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that patent protection should
not extend to claims that monopolize "the basic tools of scientific and
technological work." Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972); Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012);
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bankint'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014).
Accordingly, laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patent-eligible subject matter. Id.
The Supreme Court's two-part Mayo/Alice framework guides us in
distinguishing between patent claims that impermissibly claim the "building
5
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
blocks ofhmnan ingenuity" and those that "integrate the building blocks into
something more." Id. (internal quotation marks, citation, and bracketing
omitted). First, we "determine whether the claims at issue are directed to [a]
patent-ineligible concept[]." Id. at 2355. If so, we "examine the elements of
the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive concept' sufficient to
'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application." Id. at
2357 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72, 79). Although the two steps of the
Alice framework are related, the "Supreme Court's formulation makes clear
that the first-stage filter is a meaningful one, sometimes ending the § 101
inquiry." Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). We note the Supreme Court "has not established a definitive rule
to determine what constitutes an 'abstract idea"' for the purposes of step one.
Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing
Alice, 134 S. Ct at 2357).
However, our reviewing court has held claims ineligible as directed to
an abstract idea when they merely collect electronic information, display
information, or embody mental processes that could be performed by
humans. Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting cases). At the
same time, "all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or
apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas." Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 71. Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, an idea of
itself, and mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice 134 S. Ct. at 2355-
57. Under this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we
articulate what the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure
6
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
the step one inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 2354 ("[W]e tread carefully in
construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.").
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (internal citation
omitted). If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the
inquiry ends. See Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253,
1262 (Fed. Cir. 2017). If the concept is directed to a patent-ineligible
concept, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that second step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
Alice Step I -Abstract Idea
Appellant contends the Examiner must refer to the body of case law
precedent to identify abstract ideas by comparison to concepts already found
to be abstract. Br. 8. "In other words, as explained in the July 2015 Update,
'a claimed concept [ should not be] identified as an abstract idea unless it is
similar to at least one concept that the courts have identified as an abstract
idea.'[]" Br. 9 (footnotes omitted).
Along these lines, Appellant further argues, "[t]he Examiner,
however, offers no case law in which the reconciliation of financial data
received from three different sources has been identified as an abstract idea.
Nor has the Examiner demonstrated, with reference to case law, how
7
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
Appellants' claims are comparable to any other abstract ideas established in
the body of precedential case law." Br. 9--10.
In response, the Examiner reiterated that the Final Action "identified
the abstract idea represented by the claims as 'reconciling financial data
received from three different sources' explaining that this was an abstract
idea because is merely an accounting practice." Ans. 3--4 ( citing Final
Act. 5.
Under the "abstract idea" step we must evaluate "the 'focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art' to determine if the claim's 'character as a
whole' is directed to excluded subject matter." Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at
1257 ( citation omitted).
Turning to the claimed invention, claim 1 recites: "A method for
reconciling financial data associated with an entity among three data
sources, the method performed by a computing system having a processor
and a memory." Claim 1 (preamble).
Method claim 1 limitations also require the steps of:
(a) "maintaining ... data ... from three data sources";
(b) "comparing transactions;"
( c) "matching a transaction;"
( d) "identifying a property associated with the
transactioll""
'
(e) "comparing a value;"
(f) "identifying a difference in the value;"
(g) "reconciling the value of the property," and
(h) "storing the reconciled value of the property."
8
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
Because the rejection in the Final Action was not presented in the
form of the two-step Mayo/Alice analysis, 5 in the Answer, the Examiner
restated the rejection of claim 1 under § 101 by applying the current
Mayo/Alice Examination Guidelines and identifying case law precedent by
comparison to concepts already found to be abstract by the Federal Circuit.
Ans. 4--8. In this regard, we incorporate the Examiner's factual findings and
legal conclusions herein by reference, and adopt them as our own.
Thus, under step one, we agree with the Examiner that the inventions
claimed in each of independent claims 1, 9, and 1 7 are directed to an abstract
idea, i.e., reconciling financial data, an accounting practice, which we also
conclude is a method of organizing human activity. See Ans. 4; see also
Final Act. 5.
As the Specification discloses,
A method and system are described for reconciling differences
in financial data associated with an account held by an entity.
The system performs reconciliation based on three data sources:
a first data source maintained by or on behalf of the entity, a
second data source received from an asset manager associated
with the entity, and a third data source received from a
custodian associated with the entity.
5 The Examiner noted "the original§ 101 rejection (see non-final Office
action mailed on 09/19/2014) was prepared and written prior to and without
the benefit of either the 2014 Interim Guidance or the July 2015 Update."
Ans. 2. The Examiner also noted that, because the guidelines did not
constitute substantive rulemaking and did not have the force and effect of
law, "failing to adhere to these guidelines does not in itself render the
Examiner's rejection insufficient to establish a prima facie case of
eligibility." Ans. 3. We agree. Our Decisions are based upon relevant case
law.
9
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
Spec. ,r 11. 6
We find this type of activity, i.e., comparing new and stored
information and using rules to reconcile differences, for example, includes
longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of computers and
the Internet, and could be carried out by a human with pen and paper. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson."). 7
Our reviewing court has previously held other patent claims ineligible
for reciting similar abstract concepts. For example, although the Supreme
Court has enhanced the § 101 analysis in cases like Mayo and Alice, the
Federal Circuit continues to "treat[] analyzing information by steps people
6 See also Spec. 36 ("Abstract"):
A method and system for reconciling an account among
three data sources, including data provided by or on behalf of
an entity, data provided by an asset manager, and data provided
by a custodian of an account held by the entity. The system
identifies data provided by the entity and receives data from the
asset manager and data from the custodian on a daily basis. The
system normalizes and aggregates the data. The system matches
transactions and positions executed on behalf of the entity
among the three data sets. The system compares data associated
with matched transactions and positions among the three data
sets. If the system identifies any differences in the data
associated with a matched transaction and positions among the
three data sets, the system reconciles the data. The system may
also generate a reconciliation report.
7 CyberSource further guides that "a method that can be performed by
human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible
under§ 101." CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1373.
10
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category." Synopsys,
Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146-47 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(alteration in original) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354).
In addition, our reviewing court has concluded that abstract ideas
include the concepts of collecting data, recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and storing the data in memory. Content Extraction &
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Moreover, the collection of information and analysis of
information ( e.g., recognizing certain data within the dataset) are also
abstract ideas. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353-54 (collecting information
and "analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or by
mathematical algorithms, without more, [are] essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category"). Similarly, "collecting, displaying, and
manipulating data" is an abstract idea. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Also,
collecting and comparing known information has been determined to be an
abstract idea. Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d
1057, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2011). More recently, our reviewing court has also
concluded that acts of parsing, comparing, storing, and editing data are
abstract ideas. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
Appellant also alleges claim 1 is patent-eligible because its practice
does not preempt practice by others. Br. 11-12. We agree with the
Examiner's response, which we incorporate herein by reference. Ans. 7-8;
and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
11
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
( collecting cases); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software,
Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("While preemption
may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility").
Therefore, in agreement with the Examiner, we conclude claim 1
involves nothing more than reconciling financial transactions, i.e.,
comparing new and stored information and using rules to reconcile
differences, without any particular inventive technology- an abstract idea.
See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1354. 8
Accordingly, on this record, and under step one of Alice, we agree
with the Examiner's conclusion the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Alice Step 2 -Inventive Concept
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the "inventive concept" step. For that step
we must "look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order
to determine 'whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application
of the ineligible subject matter' to which the claim is directed." Affinity
Labs, 838 F.3d at 1258 (quoting Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353).
In applying step two of the Alice analysis, our reviewing court guides
we must "determine whether the claims do significantly more than simply
describe [the] abstract method" and thus transform the abstract idea into
8 Merely automating previously manual processing by using computers does
not qualify as an eligibility-rejection-defeating improvement. Credit
Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
12
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
patentable subject matter. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709,
715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). We look to see whether there are
any "additional features" in the claims that constitute an "inventive concept,"
thereby rendering the claims eligible for patenting even if they are directed
to an abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357. Those "additional features"
must be more than "well-understood, routine, conventional activity." Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79.
Evaluating representative claim 1 under step 2 of the Alice analysis,
we agree with the Examiner that it lacks an inventive concept that
transforms the abstract idea of comparing new and stored information and
using rules to reconcile differences into a patent-eligible application of that
abstract idea. See Ans. 8-11. 9
The Examiner concludes "the claims merely recite within the
preamble 'a computing system having a processor and a memory' to perform
the recited method steps. Claim 17 merely recites 'a memory' and 'a
processor' configured to execute instructions to perform the abstract idea.
The remaining claims do not add any further additional technological
components." Ans. 9.
Moreover, the Examiner explained that "the proposed solution
is not rooted in computer technology, but rather is rooted in
accounting practices which are incidentally performed on a
computer," concluding that "in this instance, the additional of
the machine does not play a significant part in permitting the
claimed method to be performed, but rather, 'function[ s] solely
9 The Examiner concludes, " [ m ]oreover, when considering the elements and
combinations of elements, the claims as a whole, do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. This is because the claims
merely amount to applying the abstract idea on a computer." Final Act. 5.
13
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
Id.
as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be
achieved more quickly, i.e., though the utilization of a computer
for performing calculations."
We note the patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of
fact. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, "[t]he question of whether a claim
element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and
conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field is a question of fact."
Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1368.
As evidence of the conventional nature of the claimed network
components and processes, we note the Examiner's citation to Appellants'
Specification in paragraph 17. 1° For example:
[0017] .... The invention can also be embodied in a special
purpose computer or data processor that is specifically
programmed, configured, or constructed to perform one or more
of the computer-executable instructions explained in detail
herein. Indeed, the terms "computer" and "computing device,"
as used generally herein, refer to devices that have a processor
and non-transitory memory, like any of the above devices, as
well as any data processor or any device capable of
communicating with a network. Data processors include
programmable general-purpose or special-purpose
microprocessors, programmable controllers, application-
specific integrated circuits (ASICs), programmable logic
devices (PLDs ), or the like, or a combination of such devices.
Computer-executable instructions may be stored in memory,
such as random access memory (RAM), read-only memory
10 "[T]he Examiner found that 'any generic computer could be used to
perform the claim[ ed] method' based on Appellant's own statements made in
the disclosure." Ans. 9 ( citing Final Act. 6 ( citing Spec. ,r 1 7, describing a
methods may be executed by "a general-purpose computer")).
14
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
(ROM), flash memory, or the like, or a combination of such
components. Computer-executable instructions may also be
stored in one or more storage devices, such as magnetic or
optical-based disks, flash memory devices, or any other type of
non-volatile storage medium or non-transitory medium for data.
Computer-executable instructions may include one or more
program modules, which include routines, programs, objects,
components, data structures, and so on that perform particular
tasks or implement particular abstract data types.
[0018] The system and method can also be practiced in
distributed computing environments, where tasks or modules
are performed by remote processing devices, which are linked
through a communications network 160, such as a Local Area
Network ("LAN"), Wide Area Network ("WAN"), or the
Internet. In a distributed computing environment, program
modules or subroutines may be located in both local and remote
memory storage devices. Aspects of the invention described
herein may be stored or distributed on tangible, non-transitory
computer-readable media, including magnetic and optically
readable and removable computer discs, stored in firmware in
chips ( e.g., EEPROM chips). Alternatively, aspects of the
invention may be distributed electronically over the Internet or
over other networks (including wireless networks). Those
skilled in the relevant art will recognize that portions of the
invention may reside on a server computer, while
corresponding portions reside on a client computer. Data
structures and transmission of data particular to aspects of the
invention are also encompassed within the scope of the
invention.
Spec. ,r,r 1 7-18.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim limitations may be broadly
but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer components and
15
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
techniques, particularly in light of Appellant's Specification, as quoted
above. 11
Further, Appellants' brief citation to DDR (Br. 15) in a Step 2
inventive concept analysis is misplaced as the recited claims do not improve
the computer. In DDR, which we point out is associated with analysis under
Step 1, i.e., the Abstract Idea analysis, the claims at issue involved, inter
alia, "web pages displays [with] at least one active link associated with a
commerce object associated with a buying opportunity of a selected one of a
plurality of merchants" (claim 1 of US 7,818,399). The Federal Circuit held
"the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user
interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-
eligible subject matter." FairWarning IP LLC v. Iatric Sys. Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
With respect to the Step 2 analysis, we agree with the Examiner
because, as in Alice, the recitation of either a "method performed by a
computing system having a processor and a memory" ( claims 1 and 9), or a
"system for reconciling financial data associated with an entity among three
data sources" having a "memory," an "aggregation module," a "prediction
11 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using "the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant's specification." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
16
Appeal2017-005376
Application 14/023,363
module," a "reconciliation module," and "a processor" ( claim 17) is simply
not enough to transform the patent-ineligible abstract idea here into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 ("[C]laims, which merely
require generic computer implementation, fail to transform [an] abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention."). 12
Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are
not persuaded of error in the Examiner's conclusion that the appealed claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's § 101 rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2-22, not argued separately, and which fall therewith. See Claim
Grouping, supra.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the patent-ineligible subject
matter rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we sustain the
rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a)( 1 )(iv). See 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
12 Appellant merely alleges, "[b ]ecause the present claims demonstrate
"significantly more" than any alleged abstract idea under the guidance of
Alice, the claims satisfy part two of the two-part Alice framework and are
therefore patent-eligible." Br. 16.
17