Groupon, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 23, 2020

14454695 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 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.
14/454,695 08/07/2014 Tuomas Santeri Artman 058407/448096 7779
826 7590 04/23/2020
ALSTON & BIRD LLP
BANK OF AMERICA PLAZA
101 SOUTH TRYON STREET, SUITE 4000
CHARLOTTE, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
KANERVO, VIRPI H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/23/2020 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TUOMAS SANTERI ARTMAN,
JYRI ENGESTROM, and ULF SCHWEKENDIEK
____________

Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Jurisdiction
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–24, all pending claims. Appeal Br. 6.
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 (2017). Appellant states the real party in interest is
Groupon, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

2
We AFFIRM.2
Summary of the Invention
The claims relate to systems and methods to facilitate interactions
between a merchant device, a central system, and a consumer device. See
Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1 and 13 are independent. Claims App’x. An understanding
of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is
reproduced in Table 1, infra.
Rejections3
Claims 1–24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 4–5.4

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 31, 2018, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply Brief
(filed October 29, 2018, “Reply Brief”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
August 28, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed May 9, 2017, “Final
Act.”), and the Specification (filed August 7, 2014, “Spec.”) for their
respective details.
3 The present application was examined under the AIA first inventor to file
provisions. Final Act. 2.
4 The Examiner’s analysis of this ground of rejection was substantially
repeated in the Answer as a “New Ground of Rejection.” Compare Final
Act. 4–5, to Ans. 3–7.
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

3
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–24 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in
the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We
provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific
arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellant’s
arguments as they are presented in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief.
CLAIMS 1–24: INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant principally argues the merits of independent Claim 1 and
argues independent Claim 13 is substantially similar. Cf. Appeal Br. 16, 18,
and 20. Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 101 rejection on the basis
of illustrative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as
“the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We reviewed the record de novo. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Whether a claim is drawn
to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.”).
Based upon our review of the record in light of recent policy guidance with
respect to patent-eligible subject matter rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101,5
we affirm the rejection of Claims 1–24 for the specific reasons discussed

5 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

4
below.
Preemption
Appellant contends the claims do not pose any risk of preempting, or
monopolizing, any idea the Office may identify as abstract. See App.
Br. 17–18. Although preemption may denote patent ineligibility, its absence
does not demonstrate patent eligibility. See FairWarning, IP, LLC v. Iatric
Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For claims covering a
patent-ineligible concept, preemption concerns “are fully addressed and
made moot” by an analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework. Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
We conduct such an analysis below.
35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
long recognized, however, that § 101 implicitly excludes “[l]aws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” from the realm of patent-eligible
subject matter, as monopolization of these “basic tools of scientific and
technological work” would stifle the very innovation that the patent system
aims to promote. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–78 (2012); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 185
(1981).
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

5
Under the mandatory Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether
Appellant’s claims recite:
1. any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes), and
2. additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim, (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then reach the
issue of whether the claim:
3. adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
4. simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.

A. Whether the claims recite a judicial exception
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract-idea
exception includes the following groupings of subject matter:
(a) mathematical concepts,6 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical

6 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of hedging . . .
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

6
formulas, equations,7 and mathematical calculations8; (b) 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)9; and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).10
The preamble of independent Claim 1 recites: “A merchant device
comprising.” The limitations recited in the body of the claim are analyzed in
Table I against the categories of abstract ideas as set forth in the Revised

reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an unpatentable abstract idea.”).
7 Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded
the protection of our patent laws”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594
(1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a
patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.”).
8 SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information” are directed to abstract ideas).
9 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate
settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus an abstract
idea); see Revised Guidance, at 52 n.13 for a more extensive listing of
“[c]ertain methods of organizing human activity” that have been found to be
abstract ideas.
10 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“‘[M]ental processes[ ] and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work’” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972))).
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

7
Guidance. As set forth in Table I below, we find limitations [e]–[g] of
independent Claim 1 recite abstract ideas, i.e., “mental processes.”

Claim 1 Revised Guidance
[a]11 a display of the merchant
device configured to present
interactive displays;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. See Rev.
Guid. 55.
[b] communications circuitry of the
merchant device configured to
facilitate communications with a
consumer device and a central
system, the communication
circuitry being configured to
establish a direct wireless
connection via a first network with
a plurality of consumer devices to
receive wallet identifying data, the
communications circuitry further
configured to establish a separate
connection via a second network
including the Internet with the
central system to exchange the
wallet identifying data received
from the consumer device with
consumer identifying data
associated with the wallet
identifying data,
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. Rev.
Guid.55.
[c] wherein the first network is
separate from the second network,
and wherein the wallet identifying
data includes a random code
generated by the central system;
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. See Rev.
Guid. at 55.

11 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

8
[d] processing circuitry of the
merchant device configured to:
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. See Rev.
Guid. at 55.
[e] determine location data
indicating a location of the
consumer device;
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
Rev. Guid. at 52.
[f] determine a unit of location of a
plurality of units of location at a
merchant shop, the unit of location
determined based on the location
data and as the nearest unit of
location to the consumer device of
the plurality of units of location;
and
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
Rev. Guid. at 52.
[g] associate the consumer
identifying data with the unit of
location; and
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
(including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion). See
Rev. Guid. at 52.
[h] an output module of the
merchant device configured to
provide a user interface to the
display, the user interface
comprising a graphical
representation of a floor plan
including at least some of the
consumer identifying data and the
unit of location within the floor
plan.
An additional element that adds
insignificant extra-solution activity
to the judicial exception. See Rev.
Guid. at 55.

Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

9
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
If the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude above,
we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) wherein the “claims are
considered in their entirety to ascertain whether their character as a whole is
directed to excluded subject matter.” McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games
Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2016). This test determines
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellant’s claims do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.

MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer
or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field”
“In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether
the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’” or
“any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant contends the claims have been found to be free of the prior
art, but Appellant “is at a loss to explain how claim elements can form a
critical part of an invention for one purpose but can then be completely
disregarded for another. Claim elements either limit the claims or they do
not.” Appeal Br. 22.
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

10
The Supreme Court has made clear that the analysis of whether claims
satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101 is independent of whether those
claims satisfy the other requirements for patentability under the patent
statute. Indeed, the § 101 analysis is a threshold inquiry. See Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 594 (2010). In other words, whether the subject
matter of the claims under appeal is novel and non-obvious is immaterial to
the § 101 inquiry. See Ex parte Schlumbrecht, Appeal 2012-012597 (May
13, 2015). “The search for a § 101 inventive concept is . . . distinct from
demonstrating § 102 novelty.” Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp.,
839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89; Two-
Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appellant contends:
[i]mprovements to technological processes, novelty, and
nonobviousness are all evidence suggesting that the claims
recite an unconventional and non-generic arrangements of
features (and this is true even if one were to assume that
individual constituent elements recited in the claims might be
considered conventional in isolation).
Appeal Br. 26.
Appellant recognizes that “[i]mprovements to technological
processes” may confer patent subject-matter eligibility. Appeal Br. 26.
Appellant does not specifically argue which aspects of the claims improve
what technology. However, Appellant’s Specification discloses it is the
customer experience, a non-technological area, which the claims purport to
improve:
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

11
Financial transactions between merchants and consumers
typically require the consumers to present a form of payment to
the merchant. As a result, consumers may be required to keep
wallets that include payment instruments such as cash, credit
cards, [etc]. These payment instruments . . . do not provide
consumer information to merchants that can be leveraged to
improve service. In this regard, areas for improving current
systems have been identified.
Spec. ¶ 1. Appellant further discloses:
Systems, methods, and computer readable program code are
provided to, in general, facilitate consumer location-based
service at a merchant shop.
Spec. ¶ 5. Moreover:
Embodiments discussed herein may be configured to allow a
merchant device at a merchant’s shop to communicate with a
consumer device carried by a consumer to enhance consumer
service.
Spec. ¶ 32.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
The Bilski machine-or-transformation test is only applicable to
method (process) claims. However, “[r]egardless of what statutory category
(‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C.
§ 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the
underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, it is
clear that the invention underlying Claim 1 is the method embodied in the
claimed system. We therefore, analyze the machine prong of the Bilski
machine-or-transformation test.
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

12
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a display,” “a consumer device,” and “a
merchant device,” Appellant discloses generic machines are suitable: “[i]n
some embodiments, any suitable computing device may be configured to
perform the functionalities described herein with respect to both merchant
devices and consumer devices.” Spec. ¶ 68. We find no indication, nor does
Appellant so direct our attention, that the claimed generic devices use other
than generic software.
We, therefore, conclude Appellant’s claims fail to satisfy the machine
prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
This section of the MPEP guides: “Another consideration when
determining whether a claim recites significantly more is whether the claim
effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing.” “‘Transformation and reduction of an article to a different state or
thing is the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include
particular machines.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 658 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.
at 70).
The claims select and analyze certain electronic data. The selection of
electronic data is not a “transformation or reduction of an article into a
different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]” See In
re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); see also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“The mere manipulation or reorganization of data . . . does not satisfy
the transformation prong.”). Applying this guidance here, we conclude
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

13
Appellant’s method claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the
Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations

This section of the MPEP guides:
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
450 U.S. 175 . . . (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to
the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of
nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding
press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 . . . . The Court evaluated additional
elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press,
closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the
mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time,
and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently
limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical
application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184,
187. . . . In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of
mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. . . . . In particular, the
Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data
processing system and communications controllers recited in
the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea
because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation via
computers”) or were well-understood, routine, conventional
activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(e).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Similarly as in Alice, we find
that “[t]aking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

14
computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’” Id. “In
short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions.” Id. We find that Appellant’s claims do not
add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception
Appellant does not persuasively argue that their claims do any more
than to merely invoke generic computer components merely as a tool in
which the computer instructions apply the judicial exception.

MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
The claims acquire and display data, which are classic examples of
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (en
banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski, 561 U.S. 593.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment

[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not
wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited
meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or
post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience,
a category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We
find the claims manipulate data, particularly as relating to a consumer’s
experience within a retail (most specifically a dine-in) location, which is
simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular
technological environment. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments
because “[t]he courts have also identified examples in which a judicial
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

15
exception has not been integrated into a practical application.” Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claims fail to recite a practical
application where the additional element does more than generally link the
use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field
of use. Id. The mere application of an abstract idea in a particular field is
not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
See id. at 55 n.32. In view of the foregoing, we conclude the claims are
“directed to” a judicial exception.

B. Well-understood, routine, conventional
Because the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we must then reach the issue of
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56; see Appeal Br. 23 (citing the “Berkheimer
Memorandum”).12
The written description describes the claimed computer system
consistent with its being “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.” For
example:
Central server 2704 may be any suitable network server, a
plurality of networked servers, and/or other type of processing
device. Central database 2706 may be any suitable network

12 Memorandum from Robert W. Bahr, Deputy Comm’r for Patent
Examination Policy, to Patent Examining Corps, U.S. Patent and Trademark
Office (April 19, 2018), https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc.,
881 F.3d 1360, 1367–68 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

16
database configured to store information that may be used to
facilitate the techniques as discussed herein. In this regard,
system 2702 may include, for example, at least one backend
data server, network database, cloud computing device, among
other things.
Spec. ¶ 182.
network 2708 may include any wired or wireless
communication network including, for example, a wired or
wireless local area network (LAN), personal area network
(PAN), metropolitan area network (MAN), wide area network
(WAN), mobile broadband network, or the like, as well as any
hardware, software and/or firmware required to implement it
(such as, e.g., network routers, etc.). For example, network
2708 may include a cellular telephone, an 802.11, 802.16,
802.20, and/or WiMax network. Further, the network 2708
may include a public network, such as the Internet, a private
network, such as an intranet, or combinations thereof, and may
utilize a variety of networking protocols now available or later
developed including, but not limited to TCP/IP based
networking protocols.
Spec. ¶ 183.
merchant device 2710 may be a POS device that is configured
to receive payments at the merchant’s shop. As such, merchant
device 2710 may include a personal computer and/or other
networked device, such as a cellular phone, tablet computer,
mobile device, etc., that may be used for any suitable purpose
in addition to providing POS functionality at the restaurant.
Spec. ¶ 184.
the means of circuitry 2800 as described herein may be
embodied as, for example, circuitry, hardware elements (e.g., a
suitably programmed processor, combinational logic circuit,
and/or the like), a computer program product comprising
computer-readable program instructions stored on a non-
transitory computer-readable medium (e.g., memory 2804) that
Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

17
is executable by a suitably configured processing device (e.g.,
processor 2802), or some combination thereof.
Spec. ¶ 189.
C. Specified at a high level of generality
It is indicative of the absence of an inventive concept where the
claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The claims fail to recite any specific steps of an algorithm, nor does
Appellant cite any Specification disclosure for the required specificity.
We find the limitations are specified at such a high level of generality
consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. Considering the claim
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing to the abstract idea that
is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The ordered combination of limitations amounts to
nothing more than certain mental processes implemented with generic
computer components that operate “in a conventional way.” See also Alice,
573 U.S. at 225–26. Therefore, we conclude that none of the claim
limitations, viewed “both individually and as an ordered combination,”
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to
sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject
matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–24
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Appeal 2019-000552
Application 14/454,695

18
DECISION SUMMARY

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24 --

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED