Ex Parte Nagy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 24, 2018

14003611 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/003,611 09/06/2013
24335 7590 09/26/2018
WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GROUP
900 FIFTH THIRD CENTER
111 LYON STREET, N.W.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI 49503-2487
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gabor Nagy
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.
001030.147389 3289
EXAMINER
JEANTY, ROMAIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/26/2018 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):
patents@wnj.com
ckleinheksel@wnj.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABOR NAGY, JAY L. BRAND, DAVID A. PIK,
SALLY J. AUGUSTIN, HAIJIE DING, DAVID S. MEYER,
and RICK A. PERKINS
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
Technology Center 3600
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-57, which constitute all the claims
pending in this Application. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed invention is generally directed to methods,
media, and computer-based tools for evaluating individuals' work
characteristics to understand their workstyles and design implications in
support of designing workspaces. Spec. ,r,r 1--4; see App. Br. 22-35. More
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
specifically, Appellants invention relates to software and graphical user
interfaces ( GUis) that prompt users to answer questions relating to their
work characteristics, group the users, generate a confidence level for each
design implication, and display, based on user input, design implications and
relative confidence levels. Spec. ,r,r 12-23. Claim 38 is reproduced below:
38. A method for designing workspaces of a plurality of
individual employees working within an organization, the
method comprising:
providing a plurality of groups, each of the plurality of
groups being formed of a subset of the individual employees
working within the organization;
using a computer-based survey tool for assessing extrinsic
and intrinsic work characteristics of each of the individual
employees within the organization;
evaluating the assessed extrinsic and intrinsic work
characteristics of the plurality of individual employees for each
group;
automatically generating, based on receipt of information
from the computer-based survey tool, a confidence level for each
of the one or more design implications based on the extrinsic and
intrinsic work characteristics of each of the plurality of groups,
wherein the confidence level is indicative of a degree of
importance to the individual employees of each of the plurality
of groups for each of the one or more design implications;
based on said evaluating for each group, producing one or
more design implications for the workspaces and the confidence
level for each of the one or more design implications; and
based on a user selection of one or more selected groups
of the plurality of groups, displaying design implication
information associated with the one or more selected groups,
wherein the design implication information includes the one or
more design implications and one or more respective confidence
levels for the one or more selected groups of the plurality of
groups.
2
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
REJECTION
Claims 1-57 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 7-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments Appellants made.
Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make in the Briefs,
are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
THE§ 101 REJECTION
The Examiner concludes claims 1-57 are directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter. Final Act. 7-12; Ans. 7-11. Appellants argue the Examiner
has not presented a prima facie case that the claims are ineligible, the claims
are not directed to an abstract idea, and, to the extent the claims are directed
to an abstract idea, the claims recite additional limitations that provide
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. App. Br. 12-21; Reply
Br. 1-7. Appellants argue the claims as a group. See App. Br. 12-21; Reply
Br. 1-7. Accordingly, we select independent claim 38 as representative and
decide the appeal of the rejection based on claim 38. 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Alice/Mayo Framework
The Patent Act defines patent-eligible subject matter broadly:
"Whoever 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title." 35 U.S.C. § 101. There is no dispute that the
3
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
claims are directed to one of these categories-i.e., claims 1-37 are directed
to machines and claims 38-57 are directed to processes.
In Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) and Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International,
134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), the Supreme Court explained that§ 101
"contains an important implicit exception" for laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981 ). In Mayo and Alice, the Court set forth a two-step analytical
framework for evaluating patent-eligible subject matter: (1) "determine
whether the claims at issue are directed to" a patent-ineligible concept, such
as an abstract idea; and, if so, (2) "consider the elements of each claim both
individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine whether the
additional elements" add enough to transform the "nature of the claim" into
"significantly more" than a patent-ineligible concept. Alice, 134 S. Ct.
at 2355 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79); see Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v.
DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Step one in the Mayol Alice framework involves looking at the "focus"
of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec. Power Grp.,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Step two
involves the search for an "inventive concept." Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355;
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. For an inventive concept, "more is required
than 'well-understood, routine, conventional activity already engaged in"'
by the relevant community. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80).
4
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
Prima Facie Case
Appellants argue the Examiner has not established a prima facie case
of ineligibility. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5---6. Specifically, Appellants argue
the Examiner's comparison of Appellants' claims to various cases "are
unfounded, and provided with no reasoning sufficient to state a prima facie
case under 35 U.S.C. § 101." App. Br. 16-18 (citing July 2015 Update:
Subject Matter Eligibility). Appellants further contend the Examiner's
conclusions that the additional elements recited in Appellants' claims do not
add significantly more are not supported by "reasoned rational[ e] as to why
the claimed features do not amount to significantly more." Reply Br. 5---6.
The Federal Circuit has repeatedly noted that "the prima facie case is
merely a procedural device that enables an appropriate shift of the burden of
production." Hyatt v. Dudas, 492 F.3d. 1365, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing
In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). The court has, thus,
held that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) carries its
procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case when its rejection
satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the applicant of
the reasons for rejection, "together with such information and references as
may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the prosecution of
[the] application." See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see
also Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Section 132
"is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it prevents the
applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds for
rejection.").
The Examiner's rejection, as discussed further below, satisfies the
initial burden of production by determining that claim 3 8 is directed to
5
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
various data processing steps ( as discussed further below with respect to step
one), which are a combination of abstract ideas. Final Act. 9--10. The
Examiner further explains the computer-based survey tool is the only
additional element and explains why it does not add significantly more ( as
discussed further below with respect to step two). Final Act. 11.
Accordingly, the Examiner identified 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the statutory basis
for the rejection and, contrary to Appellants' contentions, explained and
analyzed the rejection in sufficient detail to permit Appellants to respond
meaningfully. See Jung, 637 F.3d at 1362. In fact, as discussed in detail
below, Appellants presented various arguments responding directly to the
Examiner's rejection and arguing the claims are patent eligible.
Furthermore, Appellants' argument that the Examiner failed to present
a prima facie case because the identified abstract ideas are not similar
enough to the concepts to which Appellants' claims are directed merely
expresses disagreement with the Examiner's conclusions, not a lack of the
requisite conclusions required for a prima facie case.
Step One of Alice Framework
Turning to step one of the Alice framework, the Examiner concludes
claim 3 8 is directed to assessing employees' work characteristics, evaluating
the assessed data for groups of employees, automatically generating, based
on the received information, design implications and a confidence level
(indicative of importance) for each design implication and displaying the
generated information based on user input, which the Examiner finds is a
combination of the abstract ideas of receiving data ( a routine business
practice in the art), collecting and comparing data to determine a risk level,
and routine computer functions, including displaying information. Final
6
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
Act. 9--10; Ans. 8-10. The Examiner identifies cases in which the Federal
Circuit found similar concepts to be abstract. Final Act. 9--10 ( citing
Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Elan Pharms., Inc., 786 F.3d 892 (Fed.
Cir. 2015); PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., 496 Fed. App'x 65 (Fed.
Cir. 2012); Cyberfone Sys., LLC v. CNN Interactive Grp., Inc., 558 Fed.
App'x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); Ans. 9--10 (additionally citing Alice, 134
S. Ct. 2347; Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); SmartGene, Inc. v. Adv.
Biological Labs., SA, 555 Fed. App'x 950 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Appellants argue their claims are different from other claims found
abstract by the courts and "necessarily rooted in computer technology in
order to overcome a challenge specifically arising in the realm of design
interfaces for workspaces" of "presenting a design implication and
associated confidence level for select groups of employees to a designer
based on intrinsic and extrinsic information received from the employees."
App. Br. 14. Appellants paraphrase various limitations and assert the
"claimed features, including the design implications interface, are not simply
a computerized version of some business practice or abstract idea," and,
instead, "focus on providing design implications and associated confidence
levels that enable a designer to selectively control and selectively identify
design implications and associated confidence levels for any number of
groups within an organization." App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 2.
Appellants argue their claims are not like those in Cyberfone because
their claims do not just separate and classify employee characteristics
because claim 3 8 's identified features "focus on determining one or more
design implications for a workspace ( e.g., storage options, desk size, desk
7
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
orientation) and generating a confidence level with respect to each of the one
or more design implications, both of which are based on the extrinsic and
intrinsic work characteristics of employees." App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants also contend their claims are not like the claims in CyberSource
because claim 3 8 allows selectively filtering views and ties the elements to a
display or design implications interface such that claim 3 8 's features cannot
be performed mentally or with a pencil and paper. App. Br. 18-19; Reply
Br. 3. Appellants also argue none of the abstract ideas identified in Alice,
Bilski, Classen, PerkinElmer, SmartGene, and Cyberfone related to
mitigating settlement risk or hedging, manipulating (i.e., collecting,
comparing, organizing, storing, transmitting, and performing calculations
on) information correspond to claim 38 's claimed concept of determining
design implications and confidence levels based on employees' work
characteristics. Reply Br. 3-5.
Rather, Appellants contend their claims recite "a particular
configuration of a processor and design implications interface and method of
analyzing information relating to extrinsic and intrinsic work characteristics
in order to more accurately provide" design implications and enable
selectively filtering the design implications. Reply Br. 4--5. Appellants
assert the "underlying aspects of the claims are a consequence of an
arrangement of the processor and design implications interface and the
unconventional choice of determining a design implication and associated
confidence level based on extrinsic and intrinsic work characteristics from
the processor and design implications interface." Reply Br. 4--5.
As explained above, in the first step of the Alice analysis, we identify
the "focus" of the claims at issue and their "character as a whole." Elec.
8
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. Some of Appellants' arguments appear to be
directed more to the second step of the Alice analysis, in which we
determine whether the additionally recited elements include an "inventive
concept" that adds significantly more to the claims to transform the abstract
idea into eligible subject matter. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355; Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1353.
Specifically, Appellants' assertion that claim 3 8 "does not merely
recite the performance of some business practice known from the business
world along with the requirement to perform it on computer" but is
"necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a challenge
specifically arising in the realm of design interfaces for workspaces," App.
Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 2, relates to the question of whether claim 3 8 recites
"significantly more" than the abstract idea under step two of Alice. See
DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (determining claims included significantly more than the abstract idea
under step two of Alice because "the claimed solution is necessarily rooted
in computer technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising
in the realm of computer networks" rather than "merely recit[ing] the
performance of some business practice known from the pre-Internet world
along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet"). Similarly,
Appellants' contention that the claims recite "a particular configuration of a
processor and design implications interface and method of analyzing
information" to provide design implications and enable selectively filtering
the design implications, Reply Br. 4--5, relates to step two of the Alice
analysis. See BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining claims recited
9
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
significantly more than the abstract idea based on the allegedly "non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces").
Nevertheless, to the extent Appellants intend this argument to
challenge whether claim 38, as a whole, is directed to an abstract idea, we
disagree for the reasons discussed below. Similarly, we disagree with
Appellants that claim 3 8 is not similar to concepts found to be abstract by
the courts, App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 3-5, for the reasons discussed below.
There is no definitive rule to determine what constitutes an "abstract
idea." Rather, we may look to other decisions where similar concepts were
previously found abstract by the courts. See Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("Instead of a definition
[for what an 'abstract idea' encompasses], then, 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."); see also Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1334--35 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Further, merely combining several abstract
ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC
v. Nintendo Co., Ltd., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one
abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea ... does not render the claim
non-abstract."); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining the pending claims were
directed to a combination of abstract ideas).
The Examiner determines "[ c ]laim 3 8 is directed to a method for
designing workspaces of a plurality of individual employees working within
an organization." Final Act. 5. More specifically, the Examiner determines
claim 3 8 is directed to "assessing" (i.e., receiving) work characteristic
10
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
information from employees, comparing the received information to stored
information and using rules to generate workspace design implications and
respective confidence levels for each employee group, and selectively
displaying the generated design implications and confidence levels. Final
Act. 9--10; Ans. 8-10. The Examiner identifies a combination of concepts to
which claim 38, as a whole, is directed and compares these aspects to
concepts recited in claims that the courts previously determined were
directed to abstract. Final Act. 9-10; Ans. 8-10.
We agree with the Examiner's conclusions because the focus of claim
38 is on receiving, manipulating, and displaying information. To be sure,
claim 38 recites a "computer-based survey tool" to "assess" or receive the
employees' work characteristics, but a generically recited computer-based
survey tool does not alter our analysis of the character of claim 38 as a
whole. Moreover, limiting the particular data analyzed does not change the
character of the claim. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353 (stating that
"collecting information, including when limited to particular content (which
does not change its character as information)" is treated as "within the realm
of abstract ideas"). In fact, Appellants acknowledge claim 38 focuses on
determining design implications and confidence levels based on employees'
work characteristics. App. Br. 18; Reply Br. 3-5.
Appellants argue the individual abstract ideas the Examiner points to
do not encompass the entirety of the concepts recited in claim 38. See App.
Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 3-5. However, the Examiner considers the entirety of
the claims and relies on a combination of abstract ideas in concluding the
claim as a whole is directed to an abstract idea. See Final Act. 5, 9--1 O;
Ans. 8-10.
11
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
In addition to the cases the Examiner cites, Appellants' claims are
similar to claims directed to collecting, analyzing, and displaying data that
our reviewing court determined were patent-ineligible. Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1351-53. More specifically, in Electric Power, the Federal
Circuit concluded claims reciting a method of collecting data from various
sources, "detecting and analyzing events" by identifying information in the
received data, reporting the event analysis results and visualizations of
measurements, aggregating the event analysis information, and providing a
composite indicator were directed to an abstract idea because the claims
were directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis." Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351-53.
Similarly, the Federal Circuit concluded claims directed to collecting and
analyzing information and presenting the results were ineligible as claiming
no more than an abstract idea. 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 Authority, 873 F.3d 1364,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (concluding "claims directed to the collection, storage,
and recognition of data are directed to an abstract idea"); SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("merely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information ...
is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis") ( quotations
omitted).
Notwithstanding Appellants' arguments to the contrary, we fail to see
how using different data than previously used or allowing a user to
selectively display certain data renders claim 3 8 's focus materially different
from other claims directed to manipulating data and found ineligible by the
12
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
courts. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 38 is directed to
an abstract idea. We also agree that the other claims do not add additional
details sufficient to change the character of the claim. Therefore, we tum to
step 2 of the Alice analysis.
Step Two of Alice Framework
Next, we tum to step two of Alice to determine whether the additional
limitations, when considered both "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' contain an "inventive concept" sufficient to transform the
claimed "abstract idea" into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 134 S. Ct. at
2355-58.
The Examiner concludes the only additional element is the computer-
based survey tool, which is merely a generic computer performing basic,
well-understood, routine, and conventional processor functions amounting to
no more than implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Final Act. 11.
In light of this determination, the Examiner concludes claim 3 8 does not
recite any improvement to a computer, any computer technology, or another
technical field and does nothing more than linking the abstract idea to a
particular technical environment-namely, the computer-based survey tool.
Ans. 10-11.
Appellants reiterate and add to their prior arguments-i.e., the claims
are necessarily rooted in computer technology to solve problems in
designing interfaces for workspaces and laying out workspaces, and the
claims are not simply a computerized version of a business practice or
abstract idea because the claims focus on determining workspace design
implications and confidence levels. App. Br. 19-20; see App. Br. 14--15;
Reply Br. 2. Appellants also contend the claims include an inventive
13
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
concept because the claims recite "selective filtering based on user input"
when displaying design implications and confidence levels. App. Br. 20.
An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of
elements that is recited in the claim in addition to the judicial exception and
sufficient to ensure the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than
the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355
(citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73); see BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (explaining that the Supreme Court in
Alice "only assessed whether the claim limitations other than the invention's
use of the ineligible concept to which it was directed were well-understood,
routine and conventional," ( emphasis added)). On the other hand, "[i]f 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, 899 F.3d at 1290-91 (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). "[I]t is irrelevant whether [the claimed abstract idea]
may have been non-routine or unconventional as a factual matter ...
narrowing or reformulating an abstract idea does not add 'significantly
more' to it." BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1291.
Appellants' conclusory statements do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred. First, claim 3 8 does not recite any particular interface and,
accordingly, cannot solve any problems related to designing interfaces.
Appellants provide insufficient argument or evidence that claim 3 8 's
computer-based survey tool, selective filtering based on user input, or any
other limitation indicate the system is rooted in computer technology or
represent more than the implementation of an abstract idea using a
14
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
computer-based survey tool. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[R]elying on a computer to perform
routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
claim patent eligible."); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One
Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ("[O]ur precedent is clear that
merely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or efficiency of
the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise abstract
idea."); Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. Finally, determining design
implications and confidence levels and selective filtering are part of the
abstract idea itself of collecting, analyzing, and displaying information.
Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
( stating the inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law
of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself."); see also Alice,
134 S. Ct. at 2355 (explaining that, after determining a claim is directed to a
judicial exception, "we then ask, '[w]hat else is there in the claims before
us?"' (emphasis added, brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at
78)).
Finally, to the extent Appellants contend the claims are eligible
because they do not pre-empt all ways of designing a workspace, we
disagree. App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 2. Although "preemption may signal
patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does
not demonstrate patent eligibility . . . . Where a patent's claims are deemed
only to disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the A1ayo framework,
as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made
moot." Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1362---63 ("And [the fact]
15
Appeal2017-007068
Application 14/003,611
that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to
price optimization in the e-commerce setting do[ es] not make them any less
abstract.").
Accordingly, the claimed limitations, considered both individually
and together, do not add significantly more to the abstract idea and,
therefore, do not render the subject matter patent eligible.
Summary
For the above reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-57 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to merely an abstract idea, rendering the claimed subject matter
ineligible.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-57 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).
AFFIRMED
16