General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 13, 2020

2020001779 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/795,513 07/09/2015 Hongwei Liao 280058 (G30.045) 2722
161135 7590 07/13/2020
GRC c/o BUCKLEY, MASCHOFF & TALWALKAR LLC
50 LOCUST AVENUE
NEW CANAAN, CT 06840
EXAMINER
ROTARU, OCTAVIAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/13/2020 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):
GRCLegal.mail@ge.com
GRCdocketing@bmtpatent.com
szpara@bmtpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HONGWEI LIAO, DAVID SO KEUNG CHAN,
HAROLD WOODRUFF TOMLINSON,
MARK THOMAS HARRINGTON,
REEJO MATHEW, and HAN YU

Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513
Technology Center 3600

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, FRANCISCO C. PRATS, and
ULRIKE W. JENKS, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112 as indefinite,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious, and under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as reciting
patent ineligible subject matter. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1
appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as General
Electric Company. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

2
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims stand finally rejected by the Examiner as follows:
Claims 1–4, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA),2 as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter of the invention. Final Act. 10.
Claims 1–4, 7–11, 14–20, and 22–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious in view of Yu et al. US 2003/0225598 A1, published Dec. 4, 2003)
(“Yu”) and Konop (US 2005/0154634 A1, July 14, 2005) (“Konop”). Final
Act. 27.
Claims 25–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Yu,
Konop, and Shetty et al. (US 2003/0191678 A1, published Oct. 9, 2003)
(“Shetty”). Final Act. 39.
Claims 1–4, 7–11, 14–20, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligibility.
Final Act. 11.
We select claim 9 as representative of the appealed claims. Claim 9 is
reproduced below, annotated with bracketed numbed and letters, and
additional spacing, to reference the limitations in the claim.
9. A method comprising:
[1] receiving, at an event module [A] implemented on the
work disruption platform processor, a work schedule and
creating an event;

[2] receiving, at a crew tracking module [B] implemented
on the work disruption platform processor, the work schedule

2 It is unclear why the Examiner cited the pre-AIA statute since the
Application was filed after the America Invents Act (AIA) became effective.
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

3
and the event, and tracking and updating a status of individual
crew members assigned to each event;

[3] estimating, via a crew analytics module [C]
implemented on the work disruption platform processor, a
fatigue level of at least one of the individual crew members and
a group of the individual crew members;
[4] analyzing, via the crew analytics module, data
associated with at least one of the fatigue level of at least one of
the individual crew members, one or more historical events, a
crew rules violation, and a determined derived disruption
associated with the event, to determine if one or more predicted
work disruptions exist; and
[5] generating, via the crew analytics module, an
indication of one or more predicted work disruptions based on
one or more determined predicted work disruptions;

[6] receiving an output from the crew tracking module in
a crew rules module [D] implemented on the work disruption
platform processor;
[7] determining, via the crew rules module, if the status of
individual crew members poses at least one of a fatigue risk and
a rules violation;

[8] generating, via a crew recovery module [E]
implemented on the work disruption platform processor for
receiving an output from at least one of the crew analytics
module [C] and the crew rules module [D], a proposed recovery
solution to replace at least one of the individual crew members
and a group of the individual crew members in response to at
least one of the one or more predicted work disruptions, the
fatigue risk and the rules violation; and
[9] transmitting, via the crew recovery module, the
proposed recovery solution to one or more users,
[10] wherein the one or more users comprises at least one
of an operator, a controller, a station manager, a crew member, a
crew manager, an airline service provider, an airline schedule
assessor, and an airline network researcher,
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

4
[11] wherein the crew recovery module communicates
directly with the event module, and
[12] wherein the proposed solution is used by the at least
one user.

INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
Claims 1–4, 7, and 8 are rejected as indefinite. As noted by the
Examiner, Appellant did not address the indefiniteness rejection under
§ 112(b). Ans. 3. We therefore affirm the rejection for the reasons set forth
by the Examiner. Final Act. 10.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claim 9
We begin with a general discussion of the method of claim 9.
The method comprises a “work disruption platform” which has five
modules: (A) event module; (B) crew tracking module; (C) crew analytics
module; (D) crew rules module; and (E) crew recovery module. Each
module is recited in the claim to carry out specific functions. The
Specification does not provide a definition of “module,” although it refers to
hardware and software modules. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 44 (“a software application or
module”). We interpret the modules in claim 9 to be software modules, and
specifically to be software.
The event module A receives a work schedule and event. Appellant
disputes that this function is described in Yu.
The crew tracking module B receives the work schedule and event
from the event module A.
The crew analytics module C estimates fatigue (step [3]), analyzes at
least one of the fatigue level, historical events, crew rules violations, and
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

5
determined derived disruption associated with the event to determine if a
predicted work disruption(s) exists (step [4]). The crew analytics module
generates an indication of the work disruption(s) (step [5]). Appellant
disputes that this function is described by Yu in combination with Konop.
The crew rules module D receives output from the crew tracking
module B (step [6]) and determines if the a crew member’s status poses a
fatigue risk and a rules violation (step [7]).
The crew recovery module E receives output from crew analytics
module C and crew rules module D. The crew recovery module E generates
“a proposed recovery solution to replace at least one of the individual crew
members and a group of the individual crew members in response to at least
one of the one or more predicted work disruptions, the fatigue risk and the
rules violation” in step [4] by the crew analytics module C (step [8]). The
crew recovery module E transmits the solution to users (step [9]). The crew
recovery module E “communicates directly with the event module [A] (step
[11]).
A user uses the solution (step [12]).

Rejection
The Examiner found that Yu describes a method which comprises
most of the steps of claim 9 (Final Act. 27–31), but not expressly estimating
fatigue level as recited in step [3] of claim 9 (Final Act 31). However, the
Examiner found that Yu describes rest time for crew members (Yu ¶¶ 87,
108). Final Act. 31. The Examiner found that the “Optimization Server” 1 of
Yu serves as the claimed event module A and the “Crew Optimization
Engine” 5 serves as the claimed crew recovery module E in step [8] and that
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

6
both are in communication with each other as required by claim 9 (step [11].
Final Act. 30 (citing Fig. 1 and ¶ 10 of Yu).
The Examiner further found that Konop describes estimating fatigue
level as in step [7] and alerts the user when a rest is needed. Final Act. 30.
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to estimate fatigue level, as described by Konop, in Yu’s
method “order to ensure that working personnel will not accumulate fatigue
which will exceed predetermined levels, beyond those which are safe and/or
efficient.” Id. at 31.
Appellant argues that the Optimization Server 1 of Yu “does not
receive a work schedule or create an event or receive a recovery solution.”
Appeal Br. 16. Rather, Appellant states that the Optimization Server 1 of Yu
“receives a request for an optimal solution to a specific flight schedule
disruption, and in particular to the broken pairing of crew members for a
sequence of flights.” Id. Appellant further argues that “[w]hile Yu describes
logic steps included at the optimization server related to a request for
updating metadata and a request for solving a crew recovery problem (e.g.,
pairing of flight and crew), the optimization server of Yu does not
specifically ‘create an event,’ as claimed.” Reply Br. 2.
We do not agree with Appellant that the disputed functions of step [1]
of claim 9, using the claimed “event module [A],” are not performed by
Optimization Server 1 of Yu.
Event module A creates an “event.” We therefore start with the
definition of “event.” An “event” is defined in the Specification as “anything
that causes a change in the system state” and is “an instance of something
scheduled to occur at a particular time that uses a particular amount of
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

7
personnel.” Spec. ¶ 20. Events include scheduled flights and disruptions,
such as “weather disruption, congestion at runway, crew sick, crew report
late to airport, or generic consequential events such as flight cancellation and
flight delay.” Id.
With respect to Optimization Server 1, Yu discloses:
Optimization Server 1 . . . in electrical communication with a
user by way of a bi-directional communication path 2 receives a
request for optimal solutions to a specific flight schedule
disruption. In response to the request, the Optimization Server 1
initializes an Aircraft Optimization Engine 3 by way of a bi-
directional communication path 4, and provides the Aircraft
Optimization Engine 3 a filename of an Aircraft Problem
Specification.
Yu ¶ 9.
As explained in paragraph 9 reproduced above, Optimization Server 1
receives a request from a user for a solution to a flight schedule disruption.
The disruption meets the claimed definition of an “event” as recited in step
[1] of the claim. Spec. ¶ 20. The Optimization Server 1 of Yu provides
Engine 3 with “a filename of an Aircraft Problem Specification.” Yu ¶ 9.
We interpret the “filename” of the “Aircraft Problem Specification” to be the
computer record of the event (i.e., the disruption) either produced or
recorded by the Optimization Server 1. The Optimization Server 1 waits for
a user requirement (step 56 in Fig. 6 of Yu), receives the request (step 59 of
Fig. 6 of Yu), and then communicates the request to Aircraft Optimization
Engine 3 and Crew Optimization Engine 5 in Yu. Yu ¶¶ 9, 130 (disclosing
that steps 56 and 59 are performed by Optimization Server 1).
The “filename” of the event sent by the Optimization Server 1 to
Aircraft Optimization Engine 3 and/or Crew Optimization Engine 5 is the
computer representation of the event recorded by the Optimization Server 1.
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

8
The representation and recordation of the “filename” by the Optimization
Server 1 is “creating an event” as required by step [1] the claim because the
Optimization Server 1 must represent or instantiate a file for the file to be
transferred to the other parts of Yu’s system. Consequently, the Examiner’s
determination that Optimization Server 1 is “creating an event” as required
by step [1] of claim 9 is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Appellant also argues that the Optimization Server 1 of Yu does not
receive a work schedule as recited in step [1] of the claim. We do not find
this argument persuasive.
In the context of the Specification, we understand a “work schedule”
to be the work schedule of personnel. Spec. ¶¶ 1–3 (“personnel often follow
strict work schedules and rules, and as such, the shorter the reaction time
window for a disruption”).
Yu discloses:
The Crew Optimization Engine 5, upon being initialized,
receives a Crew Problem Specification from the user by way of
communication path 2, Optimization Server 1, and a bi-
directional communication path 7. The Crew Problem
Specification includes flight records, Pairing records, and
Broken Crew information records.
Yu ¶ 10.
The pertinent portion of Figure 1 of Yu which shows the
communication paths is reproduced below:
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

9

Figure 1 of Yu, reproduced above, shows the communication paths
between the Optimization Server 1 and the Crew Optimization Engine 5. As
explained in paragraph 10 of Yu, and shown above, the user communicates
to the Optimization Server 1 through path 2. Optimization Server 1
communicates with the Crew Optimization Engine 5 through path 7.
Optimization Server 1 is the “event module” A of claim 9 and Engine 5 is
the “crew recovery module” E of claim 9. Yu teaches that Crew
Optimization Engine 5 receives from the Optimization Server 1, via paths 2
and 7, the “Crew Problem Specification” which “includes flight records,
Pairing records, and Broken Crew information records.” Yu ¶ 10. Pairing,
as described by Yu, includes the pairing of crew members with flights. Yu
¶¶ 3, 21, 51. Thus, a pairing record at least includes information about the
work schedule of the crew members paired with a specific flight or flights.
Accordingly, we consider the pairing records to comprise a work schedule as
required by step [1] of the claim. Yu teaches that Crew Optimization Engine
5 receives the pairing record from the user through paths 2 and 7. The “Crew
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

10
Problem Specification,” which includes a work schedule of a crew member,
is therefore necessarily received by the Optimization Server 1, as required
by claim 9, because the “Crew Problem Specification” moves from the user
to Server 1 by path 2 and then to the Engine 5 from Server 1 by path 7.
Appellant acknowledged this teaching, but did not distinguish it from step
[1] of claim 9. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant states that a “flight leg” is not a
work schedule (id. at 16), but does not adequately address the pairing
records received by Optimization Server 1.
Appellant also argues that the Crew Optimization Engine 5 of Yu is
not described as receiving an output from at least one of the Crew Analytics
Module C and the Crew Rules Module D as required by the Crew Recovery
Module E of claim 9. Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant states that in Yu “the
problem has already occurred in Yu” and Yu “is trying to resolve the process
and test possible solutions, whereas the problem reported in Yu has not
occurred in the claimed invention.” Reply Br. 3. Appellant states that, in
contrast to Yu, “the claimed crew analytics module and crew rules modules
are associated with predicting work disruptions, and determining if a status
of a crew member assigned to the created event poses at least one of a
fatigue risk and a rules violation, respectively. See, e.g. paras. [0122]-[0123]
and [0130]-[0134] of Yu.” Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner identified paragraphs 18, 19, 28, 58, 101, 107, 125,
135, 137, and 154 of Yu as disclosing predicting work disruptions as recited
in step [4] of claim 9. Final Act. 28. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are most pertinent
and reproduced below:
[0018] Problems are detected and formulated during the course
of the database updates. Upon receiving each message, the
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

11
system analyzes the current operations, checks for any problems,
and formulates and records any problems that are detected.
[0019] Problems with open pairings are explicitly indicated by
pairing update messages and crew update messages received
from a user, and problems with open flights are explicitly
indicated by the flight update messages. Problems with crew
members, however, are detected as the result of current operation
analysis.
Yu describes detecting problems during database updates. Yu ¶ 18.
Yu further discloses that a problem with open pairing is indicated by pairing
update messages and crew update messages received from a user. Yu ¶ 19.
Yu also teaches that problems with crew members “are detected as the result
of current operation analysis.” Id. Therefore, Yu teaches identifying a
problem by analyzing data from update messages and current operations.
Step [4] of claim 9 recites that the crew analytics module has the
following function (emphasis added):
[A]nalyzing, via the crew analytics module, data associated with
at least one of the fatigue level of at least one of the individual
crew members, one or more historical events, a crew rules
violation, and a determined derived disruption associated with
the event, to determine if one or more predicted work disruptions
exist.
Yu, as explained above, uses data (“update messages and crew update
messages”; “current operation”) to detect problems. Yu ¶ 19. The claim uses
data “to determine if one or more predicted work disruptions exist.” The
problems addressed by Yu involve pairing of crew members with flights. Yu
¶ 3. The occurrence of a problem with pairings would result in a work
disruption. Thus, Yu discloses identifying work disruptions using data as
recited in step [4] of the rejected claim. The identification of these problems
occurs before they are reported by a user, but rather – as in step [4] of claim
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

12
9 – are determined from data. Yu also discloses that “irregularities occurring
in the near future may be anticipated during the setup subprocess” (Yu ¶
137), indicating that Yu is predicting (“anticipating”) a problem based on
data. The Examiner pointed to these specific paragraphs in Yu, but
Appellant did not adequately respond to them. Thus, the Examiner’s
determination that step [4] of claim 9 is described in Yu is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.
Furthermore, the Examiner relied on Konop as estimating fatigue
levels and providing for rest periods before flight (Final Act. 31; Konop ¶¶
33, 70) and explained why it would have been obvious to apply Konop to Yu
when providing a solution to a problem (Final Act. 31). Thus, even if Yu is
deficient in step [4], Konop teaches avoiding disruptions, before they are
reported, by estimating fatigue levels of crew and determining if they require
a rest. Thus, Konop also describes step [4] of “an indication of one or more
predicted work disruptions based on one or more determined predicted work
disruptions.” Appellant did not address Konop, other than to state that it
does “not cure the deficiencies of Yu.” Appeal Br. 17. However, the
Examiner found that it did. Final Act. 31–32.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the obviousness rejection of
claim 9 is affirmed. Claims 4, 7–11, 14–20, and 22–24 fall with claim 1
because they were not separately argued. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). The
obviousness rejection of claims 25–27 further based on Shetty is also
affirmed because the rejection was not argued separately.

Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

13
REJECTION BASED ON 101
Principles of Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
However, not every discovery is eligible for patent protection. Diamond v.
Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981). “Excluded from such patent protection are
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas.” Id. The Supreme
Court articulated a two-step analysis to determine whether a claim falls
within an excluded category of invention. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 134 S.Ct. 2347 (2014); Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012).
In the first step, it is determined “whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355.
If it is determined that the claims are directed to an ineligible concept, then
the second step of the two-part analysis is applied in which it is asked
“[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?” Id. The Court explained that
this step involves
a 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.’
Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2355 (citing from Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77).
Alice, relying on the analysis in Mayo of a claim directed to a law of
nature, stated that in the second part of the analysis, “the elements of each
claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” must be
considered “to determine whether the additional elements ‘transform the
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

14
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 134 S.Ct. at
2355.
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 51–57 (2019)
(“Eligibility Guidance”). The Eligibility Guidance provides additional
direction on how to implement the two-part analysis of Mayo and Alice.
Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, looks at the specific
limitations in the claim to determine whether the claim recites a judicial
exception to patent eligibility. In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims are
examined to identify whether there are additional elements in the claims that
integrate the exception in a practical application, namely, is there a
“meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” 84 Fed.
Reg. 54 (2. Prong Two).
If the claim recites a judicial exception that is not integrated into a
practical application, then as in the Mayo/Alice framework, Step 2B of the
Eligibility Guidance instructs us to determine whether there is a claimed
“inventive concept” to ensure that the claims define an invention that is
significantly more than the ineligible concept, itself. 84 Fed. Reg. 56.
With these guiding principles in mind, we proceed to determine
whether the claimed subject matter in this appeal is eligible for patent
protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

15
Discussion
Claim 9 is directed to a method. Following the first step of the
Mayo/Alice analysis, we find that the claim is directed to a “method” which
is also a “process” and therefore falls into one of the broad statutory
categories of patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We thus
proceed to Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance.

Step 2A, Prong One
In Step 2A, Prong One, of the Eligibility Guidance, the specific
limitations in the claim are examined to determine whether the claim recites
a judicial exception to patent eligibility, namely whether the claim recites an
abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon.
The Examiner found that the performance of the steps of the claim
under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover mental processes. Final
Act. 14. The Examiner also found that the claims recite certain methods of
organizing human activity. Final Act. 15.
Appellant argues “the claims describe a process for a quick and
effective way to pro-actively predict and handle future/potential disturbances
to personnel work schedules in safety critical industries, which is not one of
the abstract ideas as described in Section I of the Guidance.” Appeal Br. 8–
9.
This argument is not persuasive.
We begin with claim 9 (a similar analysis appears under the
obviousness rejection). The method of claim 9 comprises a “work disruption
platform” which has five modules: (A) event module; (B) crew tracking
module; (C) crew analytics module; (D) crew rules module; and (E) crew
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

16
recovery module. Each module is recited in the claim to carry out specific
functions. The Specification does not provide a definition of “module,”
although it refers to hardware and software modules. Spec. ¶¶ 8, 44 (“a
software application or module”). We interpret the modules in claim 9 to be
software.
The event module A receives a work schedule and event (step [1]).
The crew tracking module B receives the work schedule and event from the
event module A (step [2]). Both these steps involve the receipt of
information which could be accomplished by providing the data, for
example, in the form of a spreadsheet.
The crew analytics module C estimates fatigue (step [3]), analyzes at
least one of the fatigue level, historical events, crew rules violations, and
determined derived disruption associated with the event, which are used to
determine if a predicted work disruption(s) exists (step [4]). The crew
analytics module C also generates an indication of the work disruption(s)
(step [5]). Steps [4] and [5] could be accomplished by human evaluation,
one of the characteristics of the abstract idea of a mental process (Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 52), where a human determines based on a
spreadsheet from step [2], the fatigue level (e.g., by determining flight hours
of a crew member) and whether it violates the rule on how much rest a a
crew member must have been flight hours. Consistently, Konop indicates
that fatigue level of a crew member can be determined through manual or
computer computation. Konop ¶ 9.
The crew rules module D receives output from the crew tracking
module B (step [6]) and determines if the a crew member’s status poses a
fatigue risk and a rules violation (step [7]). This step could also be
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

17
performed by human evaluation because a human could determine, by
comparing the hours a crew member is scheduled to work to the rules, to
determine whether a violation will occur.3 The calculations can be
performed manually with the aid of paper and pen, if necessary, and then
compared to the regulations. “The use of a physical aid, such (i.e., the pen
and paper) to help perform a mental step (e.g., a mathematical calculation)
does not negate the mental nature of this limitation.” October 2019 Update
to Subject Matter Eligibility 4 9. (“Courts have examined claims that
required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-
ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person's
mind.” Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The crew recovery module E receives output from crew analytics
module C and crew rules module D in step [8] of the claim. The crew
recovery module E generates “a proposed recovery solution to replace at
least one of the individual crew members and a group of the individual crew
members in response to at least one of the one or more predicted work
disruptions, the fatigue risk and the rules violation” in step [4] by the crew
analytics module C (step [8]). Once a disruption is predicted, such as
identifying by human evaluation that a flight member is going to exceed the
number of hours worked if the crew member flies on a scheduled flight,

3 “Fatigue is assumed to be purely a function of the number of hours worked.
In the transportation industry, those limitations are set forth within
regulatory provisions, such as the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 C.F.R.
Part 121, Subparts Q, R, and S).” Konop ¶ 11.
4 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (last accessed Nov. 15, 2019) (“PEG Update”).

Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

18
crew recovery module E proposes a solution. The solution could be as
simple as picking a crew member who has remaining flight hours to replace
the fatigued member – by manually reviewing their work schedules. Thus,
step [8] also recites a mental process because it could be performed in the
human mind with the aid of pen and paper.
In sum, for the foregoing reasons, we find that claim 9 recites an
abstract idea. Accordingly, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two, of the
Eligibility Guidance

Step 2A, Prong 2
Prong Two of Step 2A under the 2019 Eligibility Guidance asks
whether there are additional elements that integrate the exception into a
practical application. We must look at the claim elements individually and
“as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements
integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. “A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on,
or use the judicial exception in a manner that places a meaningful limit on
the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 54. Integration into a practical application is evaluated by
identifying whether there are additional elements individually, and in
combination, which go beyond the judicial exception. Id. at 54–55. As
explained in the PEG Update, “first the specification should be evaluated to
determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing
an improvement.” PEG Update 12.
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

19
The Specification teaches that “[i]n safety critical industries (e.g.,
airlines, railways, healthcare, oil, and gas), personnel may often follow strict
work schedules and rules on a 24 hour a day, 7 days a week basis to ensure
safe operations.” Spec. ¶ 1. The Specification teaches that “Typically,
personnel work disruption management systems react to current disturbances
or past disturbances (i.e., reactively).” Spec. ¶ 2. As example, the
Specification discloses that “crew-related disruptions (e.g., crew fatigue) that
are detected close to departure time may result in a cancelled flight, which is
very costly for airlines.” Id. To address this problem, the Specification
describes a system comprising the modules and steps which are recited in
method claim 9. Spec. ¶¶ 4, 5.
Appellant argues that the “focus of the claims is directed to a
particular manner of pro-actively predicting and handling future/potential
disturbances to personnel work schedules in the highly technological
environment of ‘big data" processing.’ Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further
states that the “ability to synthesize and analyze this data and generate a
prediction and recommendation is possible given extremely large and fast
processing capabilities,” and that such implementation does not involve
generic computers. Id. at 10–11. Appellant also states that its embodiments
“provide for an improvement to conventional personnel work disruption
management systems that only react to current disturbances or past
disturbances (i.e., reactively), in expensive and inefficient manners, and do
not predict or plan for handling of future/potential disturbances.” Id. at 11.
To begin, our understanding of whether a generic computer is used in
a claim involves a determination of whether the computer structure or its
function is improved, enhanced, etc., by a limitation in the claim. For
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

20
example, in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2016), the claims were found to recite patent eligible subject matter because
“the self-referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of
data structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves
data in memory.” See also Visual Memory LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d
1253, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Our review of the ’740 patent claims
demonstrates that they are directed to an improved computer memory
system, not to the abstract idea of categorical data storage.”). Here,
Appellant has not pointed to a limitation in the claim which improves or
changes the way the computer handles the data used to accomplish the
functional limitations in the claim. It is well-established by now, as
explained by the Examiner, that simply automating an abstract process by
using a computer is not enough to avoid the judicial prohibition on patenting
an abstract idea. Final Act. 18–19.
The improvement described in the Specification, and by Appellant, is
using data to predict work disruptions rather than reacting to a disruption
when it occurs. Appeal Br. 10–11; Spec. ¶ 16 (“Conventional work
personnel management systems react to current or past disturbances (i.e.
reactively). It is desirable to pro-actively predict future and/or potential
disruptions, and use this information to better manage personnel
disruptions.”). For this improvement to confer eligibility to the claim, it must
be in an “additional element” recited in the claim, and not to the abstract
idea, itself. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–218.
In Alice, it was explained that, when a claim recites an abstract idea, it
must be asked “what else” is there in the claim in addition to the abstract
idea. Alice, U.S. at 218. Here, the steps in method claim 9 that accomplish
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

21
the work disruption prediction are mental processes and abstract ideas.
Specifically, as explained under Step 2A, Prong One, steps [4], [5], [7], and
[8] in which the predictions are made can each be accomplished by human
observation and evaluation. Although the Examiner specifically
characterized the claim as reciting mental processes (Ans. 5), Appellant did
not differentiate the recited steps from steps that could not be performed in
the human mind.
Appellant states that the claimed steps are not performed on a generic
or general purpose computer, but does not explain why this is true. Appeal
Br. 10. Software, itself, can be patent-eligible when the limitations “prevent
preemption of all processes for achieved” the stated function in the claim.
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1315 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). As explained in McRO, the “abstract idea exception has been
applied to prevent patenting of claims that abstractly cover results where ‘it
matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished.’
[O’Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. (15 How.) 62, 113,]; see also Mayo, 132 S.Ct. at
1301.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. McRO stated that therefore, a court must
“look to whether the claims in these patents focus on a specific means or
method that improves the relevant technology or are instead directed to a
result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic
processes and machinery.” Id. We have examined the claims and
Appellant’s arguments and do not find a specific means or rule that
improves the technology rather than improving the abstract idea, itself. See
also Ans. 6.
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

22
In sum, we have not been guided to an additional element in the
claim, beyond the abstract idea, that integrates the judicial exception into a
practical application.

Step 2B
Because we determined that the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application, we proceed to Step 2B of the Eligibility
Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. In making
this Step 2B determination, we must consider whether there are specific
limitations or elements recited in the claim “that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present” or whether the claim “simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception,
indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.” Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (footnote omitted). We must also consider
whether the combination of steps performs “in an unconventional way and
therefore includes an ‘inventive step,’ rendering the claim eligible at Step
2B.” Id. In this part of the analysis, we consider “the elements of each claim
both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine “whether
the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
The Examiner, after reviewing the limitations in the claim, determined
that the claim recites “well understood, routine and conventional activities”
and do not provide an inventive concept. Final Act. 23–24, 25.
Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

23
We agree with the Examiner’s determination. The steps in the claim
of receiving the work schedule and creating an event (steps [1], [2]),
receiving output (step [6]), and transmitting a solution to a user which is
used by the user (steps [9]. [12]) are not said by Appellant to provide an
inventive solution to the problem in combination with the abstract ideas
recited in the claim. Rather, as the Examiner found, these step appear to be
accomplished routinely and conventionally and do not interact with any of
the remaining steps in a different and unconventional way. Appellant did
not provide persuasive arguments to the contrary.

Summary
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 9 under
§ 101. Claims 1–4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14–20, and 22–27 fall with claim 9 because
separate reasons for their patentability were not provided. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7, 8 112 Indefiniteness 1–4, 7, 8
1–4, 7–11,
14–20, 22–
24
103 Yu, Konop 1–4, 7–11,
14–20, 22–
24

25–27 103 Yu, Konop, Shetty 25–27
1–4, 7–11,
14–20, 22–
27
101 Eligibility 1–4, 7–11,
14–20, 22–
27

Overall
Outcome
1–4, 7–11,
14–20, 22–
27

Appeal 2020-001779
Application 14/795,513

24

TIME PERIOD
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED