Ex Parte Ho et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 24, 2018

12383454 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/383,454 03/23/2009
79804 7590 10/26/2018
Duncan Galloway Egan Greenwald, PLLC
9625 Ormsby Station Road
Louisville, KY 40223
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Li Ho
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.
113027 .000025US 1 7771
EXAMINER
HAIDER,FAWAAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/26/2018 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):
kduncan@dgeglaw.com
carnold@dgeglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LI HO, MED EI KIT AG AKI, and BEN CHIEN
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/3 83,454
Technology Center 3600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.
COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final rejection2 of
claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20. Claims 6, 8, 9, 15, and 17-19 are
cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We Affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Thomson Reuters
Global Resources, which is the assignee of the present application. App. Br.
1.
2 We herein refer to the Specification, filed Mar. 25, 2009 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action, mailed June 3, 2016 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Nov.
7, 2016 ("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Feb. 13, 2017 ("Ans.");
and the Reply Brief, filed Apr. 13, 2017 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Embodiments of Appellants' invention "relate generally to the
technical field of data management, and, in one specific example, to a
system and a method for data documentation." Spec. ,r 2.
Exemplary Claim
1. A computer-implemented method comprising:
creating, by an event history generation module of a
computer, by a user representing a tax-paying entity an event
history record associated with a tax-related position by the tax-
paying entity, the event history record being created by the user
entering data related to the tax-related position by use of a
graphical user interface generated by a user interface module of
the computer;
storing, by the computer, the event history record in an
on line analytic processing (OLAP) database accessible by the
tax-paying entity, the OLAP database having a set of
dimensions comprising an event history dimension, a data set
dimension, and a document dimension, the event history record
stored in the event history dimension of the database and
comprising a set of at least one event including a first event and
a set of at least one cross-linking attribute including a first
cross-linking attribute;
storing, by the computer, a set of at least one data set
including a first data set in a data set table in the data set
dimension separate from the event history record in the
database;
associating, by an association module of the computer,
the first event with the first data set by the first cross-linking
attribute, the first data set including tax related data, wherein
2
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
the event history record includes attributes associated with the
first data set, including a time stamp attribute;
associating, by the association module of the computer,
the event history record with multiple versions of the first data
set and storing the multiple versions of the first data set in the
data set table;
associating, by the association module of the computer,
by the user representing the tax-paying entity a first tax related
document with the first event and cross-linking the
first tax related document with the first event and the first data
set by the first crosslinking attribute, the first tax related
document being represented within a document table
stored in the document dimension of the database separate from
the event history record;
storing, by the computer, the tax related document in the
database;
storing, by the computer, a reference to the first cross-
linking attribute in the document table;
accessing by an event history retrieving module of the
computer the event history record in the event history
dimension of the database;
modifying the first data set, the modification resulting in
a modified first data set, and storing the first modified data set
in the data dimension of the database with the first cross-linking
attribute;
associating by the association module of the computer a
second time stamp attribute with the modified first data set; and
associating by the association module of the computer a
second tax related document with the modified first data set
using the first cross-linking attribute.
3
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
App. Br. 23-24 (Claims Appendix).
Rejection
Claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
as being directed to a judicial exception, without significantly more. 3
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more?
ANALYSIS
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and any evidence
presented. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis in our analysis below.
35 USC§ 101
Mayo/Alice Analysis
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a patent may be obtained for "any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof." The Supreme Court has "long held that
this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable." Alice Corp. Pty.
Ltd. v. CLS Banklnt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
3 See MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 706.03(a) (9th
Ed., Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
4
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
The Supreme Court in Alice reiterated the two-step framework previously
set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 82-84 (2012), "for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
The first step in that analysis is to determine whether the claims at
issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts, such as an
abstract idea. 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. Id. at 2355-57.
If the "acts" of a claimed process manipulate only numbers, abstract
concepts or ideas, or signals representing any of the foregoing, the acts are
not being applied to appropriate subject matter. See Gottschalk v. Benson,
409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972). "'Phenomena of nature, thoughjust discovered,
mental processes, and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as
they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work."' In re
Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.
at 67). Moreover, if a method can be performed by human thought alone, or
by a human using pen and paper, it is merely an abstract idea and is not
patent eligible under § 101. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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).
5
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step in which the
elements of the claims are considered "individually and 'as an ordered
combination' to determine whether the additional elements 'transform the
nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78). We consider the question of
whether the claims are directed to a specific improvement in the capabilities
of the computing devices, or, instead, "a process that qualifies as an 'abstract
idea' for which computers are invoked merely as a tool." Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We, therefore, decide under step two, whether the claims: (a) set forth
an inventive concept that provides a specific means or method that improves
the relevant technology, or (b) are directed to a result or effect that itself is
the abstract idea, in which the claims merely invoke generic processes and
machinery. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336.
The Examiner's Rejection under 35 USC§ 101
Regarding the first step of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner
concludes that claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20 are directed to a judicial
exception, i.e., "the abstract idea of event history records, a method of
organizing human activities." Final Act. 2. 4
Regarding the second step of the Mayo/Alice analysis, the Examiner
finds the claims do not include additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception, because: "the generically
4 "Patent eligibility under§ 101 presents an issue of law." Accenture Glob.
Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1340-41 (Fed.
Cir. 2013).
6
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract
idea because the routine data gathering would be routine in any computer
implementation." Final Act. 2. 5
For the aforementioned reasons, the Examiner concludes that all
claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20 on appeal are not patent eligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Mayo/Alice Analysis- Step 1
Regarding Alice Step 1, Appellants contend the claims on appeal are
not directed to an abstract idea because the "Examiner's analysis is flawed
for failing to accurately summarize the claims. The overly generalized and
abstract characterization given by Examiner does not accurately describe the
language in claim 1." App. Br. 11. Appellants cite to Enfish in support:
Id.
[The] Examiner overly generalized the claims at issue in this
case, exactly what the court in Enfish suggested not be done in
determining if claims are directed towards patentable subject
matter. Here, Examiner suggests that the entirety of the claim
can be summarized as "event history records, without
significantly more". To the contrary, careful reading reveals
claim 1 comprises numerous specific limitations that
provide significantly more than the alleged abstract idea.
5 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 v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
7
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
In response, the Examiner analogizes Appellants' claims to the claims
considered by the courts in Enfzsh, buySaFE, 6 Bilski, Alice, and
Ultramercial. 7 Ans. 4--5. The Examiner further explains the basis for the
rejection: "According to the case law cited [(id.)], the [E]xaminer finds the
abstract idea to include at least the judicial descriptor(s) of: [a] fundamental
economic practice and/or certain methods of organizing human activity."
Ans. 5.
In determining whether claims are patent-eligible under Section 101,
"the decisional mechanism courts now apply is to examine earlier cases in
which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen-what prior cases
were about, and which way they were decided." Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal
Circuit also guides that "[E]xaminers are to continue to determine if the
claim recites (i.e., sets forth or describes) a concept that is similar to
concepts previously found abstract by the courts." Id. at 1294 n.2.
6 The Examiner is referring to buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (guaranty service for online transactions is abstract).
7 The Examiner is referring to Ultramercial Inc. v. Hulu LLC, 722 F.3d
1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (online method of ad serving is abstract: "[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."), vacated and remanded, WildTangent, Inc. v. Ultramercial
LLC, 134 S. Ct. 2870 (2014) (remanding for consideration in light of Alice,
134 S. Ct. 2347).
8
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
Appellants initially cite to Enfzsh and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), in support of their
arguments that claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20 are not directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 2-3.
We note the court in Enfzsh held that the subject claims "are not
directed to an abstract idea within the meaning of Alice. Rather, they are
directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate, embodied
in the self-referential table." Id., 822 F.3d at 1336. (emphasis added).
We emphasize the self-referential database table considered by the
court in Enfzsh was found to be a specific type of data structure that was
designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in
memory. Id., 822 F.3d at 1339. Thus, because the self-referential database
table improved the way the computer stored and retrieved data, the Enfzsh
court stopped the analysis after Alice step one, and concluded the Enfish
claims were not directed to an abstract idea. Id., 822 F.3d at 1336.
Here, Appellants have not shown that any features of the claims
before us on appeal improve the way the recited generic computer ( claim 1 ),
computer-based system ( claim 10), non-transitory machine-readable
medium (claim 20), and on line analytic processing (OLAP) database
(independent claims 1, 10, and 20), store and retrieve data, in a manner
analogous to that found by the court in Enfzsh. Although all of Appellants'
claims include an OLAP database, we find Appellants' have not shown that
claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20 include a self-referential database table, or
any other database implementation of the type considered by the court in
Enfzsh that was found to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves
data in memory.
9
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
Therefore, on this record, we are not persuaded that Appellants'
claimed invention improves the recited generic computer components'
functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way the claimed
computer components function, at least in the sense contemplated by the
Federal Circuit in Enfzsh.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' analogy of the claimed
invention on appeal to the subject claims considered by the court in McRO.
App. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellants urge:
Like the claims at issue in Enfzsh and McRO, the claimed
invention provides a technological improvement that is not
directed towards an abstract idea. The claimed method provides
an improvement over the prior art methods and can generate,
associate, store, access, and modify results accurately and
efficiently, where manual methods could not have possibly
yielded usable results.
App. Br. 14.
We note McRO concerned a method for automatically animating lip
synchronization and facial expressions. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1303. The
McRO court concluded that the subject claim did not recite an abstract idea
because the computer animation improved the prior art through the use of
rules, rather than artists, to set morph weights and transitions between
phonemes. Id. at 1308, 1309. Thus, the claimed invention in McRO allowed
for computer performance of animation steps that previously had to be
performed by human animators. Id. at 1309. Thus, the court concluded that
McRO 's exemplary claim was patent eligible because it "uses the limited
rules in a process specifically designed to achieve an improved
technological result" over "existing, manual 3-D animation techniques."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316. (emphasis added).
10
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
Unlike the subject claims considered by the court in McRO,
Appellants' claimed invention does not apply positively recited rules, per se.
Rather, the claimed invention under appeal is directed to the result of
storing, associating, accessing, and modifying tax-related data. We note
McRO (837 F.3d at 1312) guides that "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents
patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the
result is accomplished."' (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113
(1854)) (emphasis added.).
Appellants also contend "claim 1 does not preempt every system for
tax data management and tax validity documentation." App. Br. 15.
Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: "While
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);
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(collecting cases); Accenture Global Servs. v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728
F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
We note that data gathering is a classic example of insignificant extra-
solution activity. See, e.g., In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(en bane), ajf'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010). The
Federal Circuit 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); see also
Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1372
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage, and
11
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"); Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (the collection of
information and analysis of information are abstract ideas).
Cf RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1326 (2017)
( encoding and decoding image data using a mathematical formula is an
abstract idea).
But for the recitation of the generic computer system and OLAP
database, we agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 3) that the recited
steps, acts, or functions "include at least the judicial descriptor( s) of: [a]
fundamental economic practice and/or certain methods of organizing human
activity." Ans. 5 ( emphasis added).
"[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection
[ and] analysis ... does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes .... " Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355. Data
gathering, such as receiving and analyzing ( or identifying data), by itself,
does not transform an otherwise-abstract process or system of information
collection and analysis. See id.
Although here there is no rejection over prior art to consider on appeal
under§§ 102, 103, the Supreme Court guides: "[t]he 'novelty' of any
element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance
in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter." Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188-89
( emphasis added). Our reviewing court further emphasizes that "[ e ]ligibility
and novelty are separate inquiries." Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc 'ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017); see also Affinity
Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
12
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
(holding that "even assuming" that a particular claimed feature was novel
does not "avoid the problem of abstractness").
Appellants advance no further substantive arguments regarding Alice
Step 1. Therefore, on this record, we conclude Appellants' claims 1-5, 7,
10-14, 16, and 20 are directed to an abstract idea (i.e., at least a fundamental
economic practice and/or certain methods of organizing human activity-
Ans. 5), which is similar to the abstract ideas identified by our reviewing
courts, as discussed above.
Mayo/Alice Analysis-Step 2
Because we conclude the claims are directed to an abstract idea for
essentially the same reasons articulated by the Examiner (Final Act. 2; Ans.
3-5), we tum to the second part of the Alice/Mayo analysis. We analyze the
claims to determine if there are additional limitations that individually, or as
an ordered combination, ensure the claims amount to "significantly more"
than the abstract idea. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2357 (internal quotations and
citation omitted).
Regarding Alice Step 2, Appellants address the purported inventive
concept of the claims. App. Br. 15-20. In support, Appellants contend:
Like the subject matter of the claims in DDR Holdings, which
were directed towards a method for generating a target website
with the same look and feel as an originating web site, the
subject matter of claim 1 provides a technical solution by way
of improved OLAP database utility to address a problem unique
to data management for tax data management and tax validity
documentation. The claim has specific limitations that define a
narrow process for managing, storing, modifying and
structuring dimensions, tables, and data entries in an OLAP
database.
App. Br. 15.
13
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
In response to Appellants' arguments (id.), we do not find Appellants'
claims are similar to the claimed solution the court held to be patent-eligible
in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
In particular, we note the DDR court emphasized that the '399 patent claims
did not "recite a fundamental economic or longstanding commercial
practice." DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. As distinguished from the claims
considered by the court in DDR, we conclude Appellants' claims 1-5, 7, 10-
14, 16, and 20, which perform storing, associating, accessing, and modifying
tax-related data, are directed to at least a fundamental economic practice
(i.e., processing tax data), for the reasons discussed above regarding Alice
step 1.
In DDR, the Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court's Alice two-
step framework, and upheld the validity of DDR's patent on its web-page
display technology. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1255. However, we find the tax-
related problem addressed by Appellants' claims is not similar or otherwise
analogous to the specific technical problem addressed by the subject claims
in DDR, which were directed to retaining a website visitor when the visitor
clicked on a third-party merchant's advertisement on the host website.
Instead of taking the visitor to the third-party merchant's website (and thus
losing the visitor to the third-party merchant), DDR's claimed system
generated a hybrid web page that: (1) displayed product information from
the third-party merchant, but also (2) retained the host website's "look and
feel."
As distinguished from the claims considered by the court in DDR,
Appellants' claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20 are not directed to generating a
hybrid web page that retains the host website's "look and feel" while
14
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
displaying product information from a third-party merchant. See DDR, 773
F.3d at 1257. Although Appellants' invention is directed to the result of
storing, associating, accessing, and modifying tax-related data (claims 1, 10,
20), we find no language in the claims on appeal that focuses on a specific
means or method that improves the recited generic computer system and/ or
OLAP database.
In particular, we find the claims on appeal are silent regarding specific
limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory,
network, database, or Internet. Therefore, we find Appellants' claimed
invention does not provide a solution "necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks." DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. (Emphasis added).
Further, regarding the use of the recited generic computer system and
OLAP database, the Supreme Court held "the mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; see also Bascom Glob.
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir.
2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic
computer is still an abstract idea.").
Our reviewing court provides additional guidance: See Fair Warning
IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use
of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not
alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter."); OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending
messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system
to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to
15
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
potential customers found to merely recite "'well-understood, routine
conventional activit[ies ]'" by either requiring conventional computer
activities or routine data-gathering steps) (internal citation omitted); see also
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 ("We have repeatedly held that such
invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive
are 'insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application' of
an abstract idea" (quoting buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1353)); Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1341 (Fed.
Cir. 2017) ("Rather, the claims recite both a generic computer element-a
processor-and a series of generic computer 'components' that merely
restate their individual functions .... That is to say, they merely describe
the functions of the abstract idea itself, without particularity. This is simply
not enough under step two").
The Supreme Court additionally guides that the "prohibition against
patenting abstract ideas 'cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the
use of the formula to a particular technological environment' or [by] adding
'insignificant postsolution activity."' Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610-11 ( quoting
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191-92).
Because none of Appellants' claims are directed to an improvement
in a computer system, processor, OLAP database, or other
computer/network component, 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 matter.
In light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Mayol Alice analyses,
that each of Appellants' claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and 20, considered as a
16
Appeal2017-007508
Application 12/383,454
whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea (under step one), and
under step two, does not recite something "significantly more" to transform
the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and
20, as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. 8
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16, and
20, under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7, 10-14, 16,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
17