Ex Parte Peters et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 22, 2019

13436230 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/436,230 03/30/2012 Deborah A. Peters
79340 7590 02/26/2019
MANNA VA & KANG, P.C.
3201 Jermantown Road
SUITE 525
FAIRFAX, VA 22030
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.
Dl 1-113-02467-00-US 4735
EXAMINER
BOSWELL, BETH V
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3600
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2019 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):
ASHOKM@MANNA V AKANG.COM
docketing@mannavakang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEBORAH A. PETERS, TIMOTHY I. GOBRAN,
RANJIT A. SINGH, EMMA C. POTTER, and BHARAT GOSAI
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner'sfinalrejectionofclaims 1,3,4,6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19,and
20, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 2, 5, 8-10,
13, 16, and 18 are cancelled. App. Br. 29-40 (Claims App.). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, Accenture Global Services Limited is the real
party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed March 27, 2017
("App. Br."); Reply Brief filed September 13, 2017 ("Reply Br.");
Examiner's Answer mailed July 13, 2017 ("Ans."); Final Office Action
mailed November 14, 2016 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed
March 30, 2012 ("Spec.").
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a "role mapping and training tool
[ e.g., software]" for an organization to effectively utilize its work force and
resources in the context of "role mapping and training of its work force for
specialized roles and tasks within the organization." Spec. ,r,r 2-3.
According to Appellants, the "role mapping and training tool may include a
rule-based system determining parameters for tasks, roles, jobs, individuals,
and training courses, and determining mappings between the tasks, roles,
jobs, individuals, and training courses." Abstract.
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter, as reproduced below:
1. A method of generating a training plan, the method
compnsmg:
receiving, by a processor, training course parameters for
an entity;
receiving, by the processor, role and job parameters for the
entity, where the role and job parameters include job identifier
(ID), job title, job description, organization, report to ID, and
business, and transactional job parameters, where the role and
job parameters include parameters pertaining to a role assigned
to individuals associated with the entity, and where the role
includes responsibilities to perform a task and the task include[ s]
actions to be performed by the individual for a job associated
with the job parameters;
receiving by the processor, parameters for the individuals
associated with the entity, where the receiving of the training
course parameters, the role and job parameters and the
parameters for individuals comprises:
connecting, by the processor, with at least one
enterprise application through an application service
integration and communication layer; and
receiving, by the processor, at least one of the
training resource parameters, the role and job parameters
2
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
and the parameters for the individuals via an application
program interface in the application service integration
and communication layer;
storing, by the processor, the training course parameters,
the role and job parameters and the parameters for individuals,
where the storing comprises:
identifying types and categories or fields for each of
the training course parameters, the role and job parameters
and the parameters for the individuals;
determining a table in the data repository to store
each of the training course parameters, the role and job
parameters and the parameters for the individuals;
mapping the types and categories or fields for each
of the training course parameters, the role and job
parameters and the parameters for the individuals to a
schema of the table in the data repository; and
storing each of the training course parameters, the
role and job parameters and the parameters for individuals
in the table in the data repository according to the schema;
determining segregation rules to mitigate risk, where the
segregation rules identify roles, jobs, and tasks to be segregated,
where the segregation rules include a trigger for the segregation
that includes at least one of a particular process and country, and
where the segregation rules include:
a segregation rule that identifies exceptions to the
segregation and provides rationale for the segregation;
a segregation rule that specifies that a task be
mapped to a particular role and cannot also be mapped to
different role; and
a segregation rule that specifies roles that cannot be
assigned to a same individual, where the specified roles
include a purchasing role and a purchase approval role,
and the segregation rule indicates that the purchasing role
and the approval role must be assigned to different
individuals;
generating, by the processor, a hierarchical mapping of
roles to jobs based on the role and job parameters and the
segregation rules;
3
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
comparing, by the processor, the hierarchical mapping to
an organization chart of the entity to identify an imbalance
between roles assigned to different organizational sections of the
entity;
mapping, by the processor, training courses to the jobs
based on the training course parameters and the role to job
mappmgs;
mapping, by the processor, individuals to the jobs based
on the parameters for individuals and the job parameters; and
generating, by the processor, the training plan from the
mappings for training courses to jobs and the mappings for
individuals to jobs, where the training plan identifies at least one
of the training courses for each of the individuals.
App. Br. 29--31 (Claims App.).
EXAMINER'S REJECTION
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea
without significantly more. Final Act. 4--7.
DISCUSSION
Patent-Eligible Subject Matter
To determine whether claims are patent eligible under § 101, we apply
the Supreme Court's two-step framework articulated in Alice Corp. v. CLS
Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). First, we determine whether the claims are
directed to a patent-ineligible concept: laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas. Id. at 217. If so, we then proceed to the second step to
consider the elements of the claims "individually and 'as an ordered
combination"' to determine whether there are additional elements that
"'transform the nature of the claim' into a patent-eligible application." Id.
4
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
In other words, the second step is to "search for an 'inventive concept'-i.e.,
an element or combination of elements that is 'sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ ineligible concept] itself."' Id. at 21 7-18 ( alteration in original) ( quoting
Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72-73
(2012)).
The Federal Circuit has described the Alice step-I inquiry as looking
at the "focus" of the claims, their "character as a whole," and the Alice step-
two inquiry as looking more precisely at what the claim elements add-
whether they identify an "inventive concept" in the application of the
ineligible matter to which the claim is directed. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfzsh, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents
Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Because there is no single definition of an "abstract idea" under Alice
step 1, the Federal Circuit has adopted (1) the common law, analogy-driven
approach (a.k.a. "analogous claim" test) to determine whether a claim is
directed to an abstract idea, and (2) has instructed us "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) (citing
Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353-54; accordUSPTO Memorandum,
July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 3 (July 30, 2015),
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/ default/files/ documents/ieg-july-2015-
update. pdf (instructing examiners that "a claimed concept is not identified as
5
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
an abstract idea unless it is similar to at least one concept that the courts
have identified as an abstract idea").
The PTO has acknowledged that the Federal Circuit's common law,
analogy-driven approach (a.k.a. "analogous claim" test) was effective soon
after Alice, but recently concluded that approach has since become
impractical as the growing body of Federal Circuit precedent has become
increasing more difficult for the Office and Examiners to apply in a
predictable manner. In particular, the PTO has issued a new § 101
Memorandum that governs all patent-eligibility analysis under Alice and
§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("PTO§ 101 Memorandum"). In that§ 101
Memorandum, the PTO has synthesized, for purposes of clarity,
predictability, and consistency, key concepts identified by the courts as
abstract ideas to explain that the "abstract idea" exception includes the
following three groupings:
( 1) Mathematical
mathematical
calculations;
concepts-mathematical
formulas or equations,
relationships,
mathematical
(2) Mental processes- concepts performed in the human mind
(including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion);
and
(3) Certain methods of organizing human activity-fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging,
insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions
(including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
6
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
84 Fed. Reg. at 52. According to the PTO§ 101 Memorandum, "claims that
do not recite [subject] matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of
abstract ideas should not be treated as reciting abstract ideas," except in rare
circumstances. Id. at 53. Even if the claims recite any one of these three
groupings of abstract ideas, these claims are still not "directed to" a judicial
exception (abstract idea) and, thus, are "patent-eligible" if "the claim as a
whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of
that Liudicial] exception." Id. "Integration into a practical application"
requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the
claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Id.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a
practical application" include:
1) Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any
other technology or technical field - see MPEP
§ 2106.05(a);
2) Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular
machine-see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
3) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article
to a different state or thing-see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
4) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other
meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment,
such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e).
7
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a
practical application" include:
1) Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the
judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as
a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP
§ 2106.05(±);
2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception-see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a
particular technological environment or field of use - see
MPEP § 2106.05(h).
See PTO§ 101 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--55 ("Prong Two").
Examiner's Determination of Patent-Ineligibility
In rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determines these claims are directed to an
abstract idea of "generating a training plan [for an organization]," which is
considered (1) a method of organizing human activity or (2) a mental
process that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen
and paper, and include limitations that are analogous or similar to the
concept of gathering, analyzing, and displaying information as discussed in
Electric Power Group. Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 6-7 (citing Electric Power
Group, LLP v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that
claims directed to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying
certain results of the collection and analysis" are not patent-eligible)); see
also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed.
Cir. 2011) (holding that claims directed to "a method that can be performed
8
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" are not patent-
eligible ).
The Examiner also determines the claims fail to amount to
"significantly more than the judicial exception" or contain an "inventive
concept" because (1) "the invention does not improve any technology or
technological field or the functioning of the computer itself'; (2) "the claims
recite nothing more than using such generic computer elements to perform
generic, well-understood and routine computer functions"; and (3) the
claims are "nothing more than a generic computer system on a device."
Ans. 7-8.
Alice/Mayo-Step 1 (Abstract Idea)
Turning to the first step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants argue the
claims are not directed to an abstract idea because: (1) "the Examiner has
failed to explain why the alleged abstract idea of generating a training map
[ sic, plan for an organization] corresponds to a concept that the courts have
identified as an abstract idea"; and (2) like the claims in McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), "the
present application describes significant technical improvements over
conventional software training tools, including technical improvements that
provide a processor implemented rules based system to retrieve training
course parameters, generate a mapping, and to determine segregation rules."
App. Br. 15-19.
In the Reply, Appellants also argue (1) "the claims [] recite many
features [ for example, storing, determining a table in a data repository,
mapping fields to a schema of a table, and storing received data in the table
according to the schema] that cannot be performed in the human mind or by
9
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
a human using a pen and paper"; (2) the claim features "are not directed to
the abstract idea of Electric Power Group (i.e., collecting information,
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis) and
are not similar to another other concept that the courts have identified as an
abstract idea"; and (3) "[ s ]imilar to McRO, the present application describes
a rule-based expert system to perform mappings [] and to generate a training
plan" and "recites multiple, detailed segregation rules of the rule-based
expert system for determining the hierarchical mapping and the training
plan." Reply Br. 4--12.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note the
newly published PTO § 101 Memorandum now governs all patent-eligibility
analysis under Alice and§ 101 effective as of January 7, 2019. In particular,
the PTO has now synthesized, for purposes of clarity, predictability, and
consistency, the "abstract idea" exception to limit to three categories of
abstract ideas as outlined in the PTO§ 101 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54--55.
In this case, Appellants' invention relates to a "role mapping and
training tool [ e.g., software]" for an organization to effectively utilize its
work force and resources in the context of "role mapping and training of its
work force for specialized roles and tasks within the organization." Spec.
,r,r 2-3. According to Appellants, the "role mapping and training tool may
include a rule-based system determining parameters for tasks, roles, jobs,
individuals, and training courses, and determining mappings between the
tasks, roles, jobs, individuals, and training courses." Abstract.
As correctly recognized by the Examiner (Ans. 6-7), "generating a
training plan" for an organization to effectively utilize its work force and
10
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
resources, as recited in Appellants' independent claims 1 and 12, is plainly
directed to a "certain method of organizing human activity" because "role
mapping and training of [an organization's] work force for specialized roles
and tasks within the organization" that uses "a rule-based system [for]
determining parameters for tasks, roles, jobs, individuals, and training
courses, and determining mappings between the tasks, roles, jobs,
individuals, and training courses" (Spec. ,r,r 2-3; Abstract) is nothing more
than managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people
within an organization using certain rules or instructions-and is thus a
subject matter that falls within the three types of abstract ideas identified by
the PTO § 101 Memorandum. Moreover, "generating a training plan" for an
organization is also a building block of a market economy and, as such, is an
"abstract idea" beyond the scope of§ 101. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 220.
Alternatively, "generating a training plan" for an organization's work
force and resources using rules and parameters, as recited in Appellants'
independent claims 1 and 12, also is nothing more than "mental processes"
that could be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and
paper-subject matter that falls within the three types of abstract ideas
identified by the PTO § 101 Memorandum. See also CyberSource, 654 F .3d
at 13 72-73 ("[A] method that can be performed by human thought alone is
merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible under§ 101."); see also In
re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ("[M]ental processes-or
processes of human thinking-standing alone are not patentable even if they
have practical application."); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)
("Phenomena of nature, ... mental processes, and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
11
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
technological work." (Emphasis added)). Additionally, mental processes
remain unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user
of what once could have been done with pen and paper. CyberSource, 654
F.3d at 1375 ("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.").
For example, steps of "receiving ... [i] training course parameters for
an entity ... [ii] role and job parameters for the entity ... [iii] parameters for
the individuals associated with the entity" and "storing" the same, as recited
in Appellants' method claim 1, can be performed by a human resource
employee who simply collects various parameters such as roles and job
descriptions within an organization. Similarly, steps of "identifying,"
"mapping the types and categories or fields for each of the training course
parameters" and using "segregation rules to mitigate risk" and "specifies
jobs" and then "mapping ... [i] training courses to the job ...
[ii] individuals to the jobs" before "generating ... the training plan" can
also be performed by the same human resource employee who reviews the
jobs, job descriptions, the organization chart of the entity, and then maps the
appropriate training courses, and assigns individuals to the jobs in order to
generate a training plan on paper.
We discern no additional element ( or combination of elements)
recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 12 that integrates the judicial exception
into a practical application. See PTO§ 101 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54--55 ("Prong Two"). For example, Appellants' claims 1 and 12 do not
(1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, (2) are not
applied with any particular machine (except for a generic computer), (3) do
12
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
not effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state, and
( 4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use
of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h).
Furthermore, Appellants' reliance on McRO is misplaced. For
example, the McRO '576 patent (U.S. Patent No. 6,307,576) describes a
computer software for matching audio to a 3D animated mouth movement to
provide lip-synced animation. McRO 's claims contain (i) specific
limitations regarding a set of rules that "define[] a morph weight set stream
as a function of phoneme sequence and times associated with said phoneme
sequence" to enable computers to produce "'accurate and realistic lip
synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters"' (McRO, 837
F.3d at 1313) and, when viewed as a whole, are directed to (ii) a
"technological improvement over the existing, manual 3-D animation
techniques" that uses "limited rules in a process specifically designed to
achieve an improved technological result in conventional industry practice."
McRO, 837 F.3d at 1316.
In contrast to McRO, Appellants' claims and Specification are not
directed to any type of technologies, but rather "generating a training plan"
for an organization to utilize its work force and resources. See Spec. ,r,r 2-3;
claims 1 and 12. As previously discussed, such a training plan that uses "a
rule-based system [for] determining parameters for tasks, roles, jobs,
individuals, and training courses, and determining mappings between the
tasks, roles, jobs, individuals, and training courses" (Abstract) does not
improve the computer functionality, as discussed in Enfzsh. Instead, generic
13
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
computers are merely used as a tool to facilitate these transactions. Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335-36, 1338. As correctly recognized by the Examiner,
Appellants' "invention does not improve any technology or technological
field or the functioning of the computer itself. Ans. 8. Rather, Appellants'
solution is a business solution to help an organization better use its work
force and resources.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner's determination that
Appellants' claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 are directed to
an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application.
Alice/Mayo-Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
In the second step of the Alice inquiry, Appellants argue ( 1) the claims
include a combination of elements, for example, "features including,
determining segregation rules, generating a hierarchical mapping of roles to
jobs, mapping training courses to jobs, mapping individuals to the jobs, and
generating a training plan from the mappings" that "amounts to significantly
more than the abstract idea of generating a training plan"; and (2) "the
Examiner has failed to present any prior art as to suggest that the claimed
features are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field." App.
Br. 21-27.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive. Under current Federal
Circuit precedent, an "inventive concept" under Alice step 2 can be
established by showing, for example, that the patent claims:
(1) provide a technical solution to a technical problem unique
to the Internet, e.g., a "solution ... necessarily rooted in
computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks"
(DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257));
14
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
(2) transform the abstract idea into "a particular, practical
application of that abstract idea," e.g., "installation of a
filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-
users, with customizable filtering features specific to each
end user" (BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1352, 1350 (Fed. Cir.
2016)); or
(3) "entail[] an unconventional technological solution ([ e.g.,]
enhancing data in a distributed fashion) to a technological
problem ([e.g.,] massive record flows [that] previously
required massive databases)" and "improve the
performance of the system itself' (Amdocs, 841 F.3d at
1300, 1302).
Similarly, as recognized by the PTO § 101 Memorandum, an
"inventive concept" under Alice step 2 can also be evaluated based on
whether an additional element or combination of elements:
(1) adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations
that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity
in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept
may be present (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(2) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a
high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is
indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
See PTO§ 101 Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
In this case, however, we find no element or combination of elements
recited in Appellants' claims 1 and 12 that contains any "inventive concept"
or adds anything "significantly more" to transform the abstract concept into
a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221-22. For example,
Appellants' abstract idea of "generating a training plan" for an
organization's work force and resources using rules and parameters, as
15
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
recited in Appellants' independent claims 1 and 12, is not rooted in
computer technology; nor does it (1) provide any technical solution to a
technical problem as required by DDR Holdings; (2) provide any particular
practical application as required by Bascom; or (3) entail an unconventional
technological solution to a technological problem as required by Amdocs.
Instead, Appellants' invention simply uses generic computer components to
perform the abstract idea of "generating a training plan."
In fact, the only "additional elements" recited in Appellants' claims
merely implement the abstract idea on generic computing elements (i.e.,
processor, data storage). See Fig. 3; Spec. ,r,r 21, 27-28. However, the use
of a generic computer device does not alone transform an otherwise abstract
idea into patent-eligible subject matter. As our reviewing court has
observed, "after Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation of generic
computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-
eligible." DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 223).
Moreover, Appellants have not shown any specific limitation in claims 1 and
12 beyond the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, and
conventional" in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
Because Appellants' claims 1 and 12 are directed to a patent-ineligible
abstract concept and do not recite something "significantly more" under the
second prong of the Alice analysis, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
16
Appeal 2017-011447
Application 13/436,230
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 14,
15, 17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 7,
11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 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).
AFFIRMED
17