INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2020

2019003140 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 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.
14/291,796 05/30/2014 Praduemn K. Goyal IN920140026US1 8944
30449 7590 07/23/2020
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
WAESCO, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2020 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):
30449@IPLAWUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PRADUEMN K. GOYAL, HARI S. GUPTA, and
RENUKA R. SINDHGATTA
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796
Technology Center 3600
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20. See Final Act.
1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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 International
Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to selecting individuals for work assignment.
Spec. ¶ 6. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A technical maintenance resolution method comprising:
retrieving, by a computer processor, historical assignment
data describing past associations with agents and associated
tickets, wherein said associated tickets are associated with
software application and hardware and software infrastructure
maintenance;
tokenizing, by said computer processor, descriptions for
said associated tickets via a code extraction process;
identifying, by said computer processor, groups of tickets
of said associated tickets, each group of said tickets associated
with a different agent of said agents;
extracting, by said computer processor, historical
attributes from each said group of said tickets;
associating, by said computer processor based on said
groups of tickets and said historical attributes, a group of skills
to each said different agent;
identifying, by said computer processor, new attributes
associated with a new group of tickets;
generating, by said computer processor based on said
historical attributes, each said group of skills, and said new
attributes, an absolute score for each said different agent with
respect to said new group of tickets;
generating, by said computer processor based on each said
absolute score and via execution of a ticket ordering runtime
circuit, an ordered list of said new group of tickets for each said
different agent, wherein each said ordered list comprises a
different order of said new group of tickets for each said different
agent, wherein said ticket ordering runtime circuit comprises
programmable logic circuitry utilizing state information of
computer code to customize said programmable logic circuitry
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

3
for performing said generating said ordered list, and wherein said
generating said ordered list comprises:
identifying a number of displays required at a given
position for each ticket of said new group of tickets at a specified
position in a queue based memory device; and
identifying that each said ticket will be displayed at each
said given position;
presenting by said computer processor, via linear based
optimization code, said ordered list for executing a linear
program based optimization process for retrieving each said
ticket from a specified position in said queue based memory
device;
configuring said queue based memory device by
generating, by said computer processor, a queue position table
comprising a first plurality of logical rows and a first plurality of
logical columns intersecting said first plurality of logical rows,
wherein each logical row includes an object code identification
number to identify each said logical row corresponding to
information for each said ticket, wherein each logical column
includes an object code identification number to identify each
said logical column to define ticket criticality attributes with
respect to resolution times and display positions for each said
ticket at each said specified position in said queue based memory
device, and wherein said queue position table configures storage
of said new group of tickets for retrieving each said ticket from
a specified position in said queue based memory device thereby
reducing an amount of time for said retrieving each said ticket;
and
maintaining and calibrating, by said agents based on said
ordered list, a software application and a hardware and software
infrastructure such that a technical glitch associated with said
hardware and software infrastructure is addressed and resolved,
wherein said maintaining and calibrating comprises deploying
electronic circuitry and said software application and said
hardware and software infrastructure.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

4
REJECTION2
Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. Final Act. 11–18.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter is in error. To the extent
Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive arguments for particular
claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant argues claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 as a group.
Appeal Br. 11. Given our discretion under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we
decide the § 101 rejection of claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 based on
representative claim 1.
Principles of Law
“Whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue
of law that we review de novo.” SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601
F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and

2 Claims 1–6, 8–15, and 17–20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as
failing to comply with the written description requirement (Final Act. 10),
and claims 1–6, 8, and 9 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as
indefinite (Final Act. 11). Appellant amended the claims after the Final
Action, removing the claim limitations that were the focus of the § 112
rejections. Amendment dated Aug. 21, 2018.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

5
abstract ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework, we first
determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219
(“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not
become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.” Diehr,
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

6
450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We view respondents’ claims as
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also
indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. (citation omitted)
(citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace that
an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second part
of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the elements of
the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient
to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks omitted). “A claim that
recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to ensure ‘that the
[claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract
idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of

3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

7
internal agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see
also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, we
first look to whether the claim recites:
(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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to 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.
2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56.

USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
4 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Section III(A)(2), 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

8
Step 1
Claim 1, as a method claim, falls within the process category of § 101.
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54 (citing MPEP
§§ 2106.03, 2106.06).
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to an idea of itself
that employs a combination of abstract ideas—collecting information,
storing and analyzing the collected information, and transmitting/displaying
the analyzed and collected information—and thus recites an abstract idea.
Final Act. 12–13. The Examiner also determined that claim 1 recites the
concept of organizing and monitoring agent activity, which is a Certain
Method of Organizing Human Activity. Id. at 13. The Examiner determined
that claim 1 recites managing relationships or transactions between agents
and tasks. Id. The Examiner further determined that the recited absolute
score, generating an ordered list based on absolute scores, and linear
optimization are considered mathematical relationships, which are an
abstract idea. Id. at 14.
The Specification describes ranking agents based on expertise and
customer affinity, selecting agents for work assignments, and assigning tasks
to agents. Spec. ¶¶ 1–6. Consistent with Appellant’s description of the
claims, we find that the “tokenizing,” “generating,” “identifying,”
“extracting,” “associating,” and “configuring” steps, as recited in claim 1,
describe data processing steps that are fairly characterized as involving
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion, and which fall into the mental
processes category of abstract ideas. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

9
Such rule-based tasks can be performed by the human mind or with
pen and paper. The 2019 Revised Guidance explains that “mental processes”
include acts that people can perform in their minds or using pen and paper,
even if the claim recites that a generic computer component performs the
acts. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under
its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but
for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
in the mind.”); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic
computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that
foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and
paper.”), quoted in 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14.
Appellant presents no persuasive arguments as to whether claim 1
recites an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 13–14; Reply Br. 3.
Because we agree with the Examiner that the claim recites an abstract
idea, we proceed to Prong Two of Step 2A to determine if the idea is
integrated into a practical application, in which case the claim as a whole
would not be “directed to” merely an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
We next determine 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.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

10
We use the term “additional elements” for claim features, limitations,
or steps that the claim recites beyond the identified judicial exception. See
2019 Revised Guidance at 55 n.24. In claim 1, the additional elements
include the limitations “computer processor,” “execution of a ticket ordering
runtime circuit,” “programmable logic circuitry utilizing state information of
computer code,” “queue based memory device,” and “linear based
optimization code.” See Final Act. 15.
To integrate the exception into a practical application, the additional
claim elements must, for example, improve the functioning of a computer or
any other technology or technical field (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)), apply the
judicial exception with a particular machine (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), affect
a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or
thing (see MPEP § 2106.05(c)), or apply or use the judicial exception in
some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(e)). See 2019 Revised Guidance.
The Examiner determined that none of the additional limitations is
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because the additional computer elements “are generic computer
components and software claimed to perform their basic functions of storing,
retrieving, sending, and processing data, there is no change to device
themselves, or any other technology, and does not add meaningful limits to
practicing the abstract idea.” Final Act. 15. In addition, the Examiner
determined that the “maintenance and calibration” step is an intended use
and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. Ans. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

11
We first determine that the recited “retrieving” step amounts to
insignificant extra-solution activity because it recites retrieving data. Data
gathering or receiving data is merely insignificant extra-solution activity that
does not add significantly more to the abstract idea to render the claimed
invention patent-eligible. See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (en banc), aff’d on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (“[T]he
involvement of the machine or transformation in the claimed process must
not merely be insignificant extra-solution activity”); see also MPEP
§ 2106.05(g); see also buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
Next, Appellant contends that claim 1, as a whole, is directed to a
technical maintenance resolution method that improves the technical field of
optimizing hardware and software infrastructure. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant
argues that claim 1 is directed to an inventive and innovative mechanism for
improving a hardware and software infrastructure
by executing tokenizing, identifying, configuring, maintaining,
and calibrating processes such that group of components and
circuitry are deployed to ensure that a technical glitch
associated with the hardware and software infrastructure is
addressed and resolved.
Reply Br. 3. Appellant points to paragraphs 2, 12, 13, 22, 25, 32, and 38 of
the Specification as describing the improvement. Appeal Br. 16–17.
Appellant’s argument is not persuasive at least because the cited steps
in claim 1 are part of the abstract idea, not additional elements. Moreover,
the cited portions of the Specification do not describe an improvement to the
technical field of optimizing hardware and software infrastructure, or any
other technical field or technology. Paragraph 12 of Appellant’s
Specification, for example, describes Figure 1, which illustrates “a system
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

12
100 for enabling a process for performing optimized work assignment based
on an expectation of performance.” Spec. ¶ 12. Paragraph 13 describes
evaluating expertise levels associated with agents 104 relative to a new
ticket arriving in the system. Paragraph 13 also defines a ticket as “a service
request to address a technical glitch or issue associated with application or
infrastructure maintenance.” Spec. ¶ 13. As the Examiner points out, “[t]he
tickets do not fix the glitch or issue, rather the tickets tell an agent to do so.”
Ans. 4. Paragraph 22 describes displaying a ticket of a given priority and
time to resolution at a given position i in N agents’ queue, where the given
position i comprises a time that a ticket resides in a queue before it is
captured. Spec. ¶ 22. Paragraph 25 of the Specification describes Figure 4,
which illustrates a system 400 for enabling a ticket scoring and ordering
process. As part of that process, a ticket description is extracted and
analyzed, which the Specification describes as “tokenizes, stems, filter stop
words, etc.” Spec. ¶ 25. Paragraph 32 describes that, in some embodiments,
electronic circuitry including, for example, programmable logic
circuitry, field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or
programmable logic arrays (PLA) may execute the computer
readable program instructions by utilizing state information of
the computer readable program instructions to personalize the
electronic circuitry, in order to perform aspects of the present
invention.
Spec. ¶ 32. Appellant, however, fails to explain how paragraph 32 describes
an improvement to the technical field of optimizing hardware and software
infrastructure. Indeed, the Specification goes on to describe that computer
readable program instructions may be provided to the processor of a general
purpose computer. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 34, 37. Finally, paragraph 38 of the
Specification describes a service supplier performing “optimized work
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

13
assignment” by integrating computer-readable code into a computer system,
“wherein the code in combination with the computer system 90 is capable of
performing a method for monitoring, measuring, and tracking costs and
benefits associated with an IT infrastructure.” Id. ¶ 38. We agree with the
Examiner that there is no electronic circuitry that is modified to address the
hardware and software based technical glitch, as the glitch is associated with
a ticket or service request (see Spec. ¶ 13), where an agent would retrieve
the ticket from a queue associated with a score.
In short, Appellant has not identified an additional element that
provides an inventive and innovative mechanism for improving a hardware
and software infrastructure. The system presents an ordered list of tickets to
an agent to ensure correct ticket retrieval via a linear program based
optimization process. See id. Determining which tickets to assign to which
agents, as in claim 1, “does not improve the functioning of the computer,
make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem.”
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In Trading Technologies, the Federal Circuit held “[t]he claims are focused
on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process
information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology.” Id.
at 1384 (citation omitted). The same is true here because claim 1 is focused
on providing information to agents in a way that helps them process
information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology. The
claim simply “includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a
computer” and “does no more than generally link the use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” 2019
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

14
Appellant also argues that claim 1 includes an improvement to the
way a memory structure operates. Appeal Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant
argues that claim 1 improves the way a memory structure operates by
configuring a queue based memory device for reducing a
process retrieval time thereby improving a memory processing
speed resulting in an improvement to hardware memory
technology and resulting in a practical application for
maintaining and calibrating a software application and a
hardware and software infrastructure (via deploying the
software application and hardware and software infrastructure)
such that a technical glitch associated with the hardware and
software infrastructure is addressed and resolved.
Appeal Br. 19. Appellant maintains that claim 1 is patent eligible because it,
like the claims found patent eligible in Classen, recites patent-eligible
subject matter “by virtue of the . . . physical steps for configuring hardware
memory and performing a maintenance and calibration step according to a
generated ordered maintenance ticket.” Appeal Br. 19–20, citing Classen
Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
We are not persuaded that configuring a queue based memory device
for reducing a process retrieval time is an improvement analogous to the step
in Classen of immunizing according to an optimal risk schedule, which
represented a practical use that went beyond insignificant post-solution
activity. Although configuring a queue based memory device for reducing a
process retrieval time may improve a business process, Appellant has not
persuaded us that it achieves an improved technological result. For example,
Appellant has not explained, or pointed to a description in the Specification
of, relevant details about the alleged improvement, such as how, or by what
amount, the process retrieval time is reduced.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

15
Appellant next argues that claim 1 is analogous to the claims in
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016),
because claim 1 includes “a specific type of non-abstract computer
infrastructure technology improvement defined by and software structure
designed to ‘make non-abstract improvements to computer technology’.”
Appeal Br. 23. Appellant argues that “the improvement here is defined by
logical structures and processes.” Id. at 22.
Additionally, Appellant argues that
Appellants claim a specific type of non-abstract technical
maintenance queue memory storage and retrieval improvement
process comprising a “self-referential table...a specific type of
data structure to improve the way a computer stores and
retrieves data in memory...computer technology” defined by
process for configuring a queue based memory device by
generating a queue position table that includes logical rows and
logical columns (each including object code identification
numbers to identify the logical rows and columns) intersecting
the logical rows to define ticket criticality attributes with
respect to resolution times and display positions for tickets at
specific positions in the queue based memory device to
configure storage of tickets for retrieval specific positions in the
queue based memory device thereby providing memory
configuration resulting in generation of specialized storage for
the aforementioned items and reducing an amount of time for
said retrieving each ticket.
Appeal Br. 25.
Despite Appellant’s contention, we do not see where claim 1 recites a
“self-referential table” like that in Enfish. See id. The Enfish court
distinguished between claims that focus on a specific improvement in
computer capabilities, on the one hand, and an abstract idea that merely
invokes computers as a tool, on the other. Id. at 1336. This case is the latter.
The focus of the pending claims is on assigning tickets to agents, and the
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

16
recited computing elements are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1335–36.
In Enfish, the claims provided a unique software database table
structure that improved existing software database technology and, thus,
were “directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the
software arts,” and not unpatentably directed to an abstract idea. 822 F.3d at
1339. Claim 1 does not recite any unique software technology, instead it
recites generic underlying technology.
The disclosed technique in Enfish enabled faster searching and more
effective storage of data than previous methods. 822 F.3d at 1333. The
Enfish court found the claims directed to “a specific improvement to the way
computers operate, embodied in the self-referential table,” and explained
that the claims are “not simply directed to any form of storing tabular data,
but instead are specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer
database” that functions differently than conventional databases. Id. at 1336–
37.
To the extent Appellant contends that the claimed invention uses a
data structure to improve a computer’s functionality or efficiency, or
otherwise change the way that device functions (see Appeal Br. 23–27),
there is no persuasive evidence on this record to substantiate such a
contention. Appellant has not explained persuasively how the recited “queue
position table comprising a first plurality of logical rows and a first plurality
of logical columns intersecting said first plurality of logical rows” differs
from generic data structures used for storing data. Claim 1 also recites
“thereby reducing an amount of time for said retrieving each said ticket,” but
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

17
does not explain what amount of time is reduced or how such reduction is
accomplished.
Appellant further argues that “the tokenizing process as well as the
linear based programming are configured to improve a technical resolution
and maintenance process.” Appeal Br. 26. The recited “tokenizing” is part of
the abstract idea, and is not an additional element. The “linear based
optimization code” is an additional element, but Appellant has not explained
persuasively how such code improves the functioning of a computer or other
technology or technical field.
Appellant also argues that claim 1 improves the operational
performance or functioning of special purpose hardware and structure
including hardware and software infrastructure, a runtime circuit, and a
queue based memory device. Appeal Br. 27–39. Appellant specifically
argues that
the specialized hardware of Appellants claims executes a
process for tokenizing (encrypting via code extraction) data and
using software application and hardware and software
infrastructure maintenance tickets for generating (via a
hardware based computing system) an ordered maintenance list
by: identifying displays associated with positions (configured
by a specialized logical queue position table) in a queue based
memory device resulting in a process for maintaining and
calibrating (by agents deploying the specialized electronic
circuitry based on the aforementioned steps implemented via
the specialized hardware) a software application and a hardware
and software infrastructure such that a technical glitch
associated with the hardware and software infrastructure is
addressed and resolved.
Id. at 39–40, citing DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed.
Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

18
Appellant, however, has not persuaded us that claim 1 recites or
otherwise requires specialized hardware. To the contrary, the Specification
makes clear that the recited runtime circuit that includes programmable logic
circuitry, and the queue based memory device, are general purpose computer
components. See Spec. ¶¶ 32, 34, 37, Fig. 5.
We also agree with the Examiner that the tokenizing process is not a
technical improvement or dependent on specialized hardware. See Ans. 13.
The Specification describes tokenizing in general terms and only as part of
extracting and analyzing a ticket description. Spec. ¶ 25.
Moreover, claim 1 is unlike the claims in DDR, in which the Federal
Circuit found the claims at issue were “necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks” because they addressed a technical issue unique to
Internet website problems. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257. Here, claim 1 uses
conventional technologies to identify and assign work tickets to agents by
way of queues, which is not rooted in computer technology, but rather uses
general purpose technology to perform the abstract limitations of the claims,
without solving any underlying technological issues. See Ans. 11.
For these reasons, we agree with the Examiner that “the steps are all
functions that can be done on generic components.” Final Act. 17, citing
Spec. Fig. 5; Ans. 11, citing Spec. ¶ 32. Considering claim 1 as a whole,
then, Appellant’s invention lacks a technical solution to a technical problem
like the claims in Classen, Enfish, and DDR. Claim 1 as a whole merely uses
instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer or, alternatively,
merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Here, the
additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

19
application. More particularly, the claims do not recite (i) an improvement to
the functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field; (ii) a
“particular machine” to apply or use the judicial exception; (iii) a particular
transformation of an article to a different thing or state; or (iv) any other
meaningful limitation. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Rather, claim 1 recites an abstract ideas as identified in Step 2A(i), supra,
and none of the limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application.
Therefore, because the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application, we conclude that the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B — “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the “inventive concept” step. For Step 2B we
must “look with more specificity at what the claim elements add, in order to
determine ‘whether they identify an “inventive concept” in the application of
the ineligible subject matter’ to which the claim is directed.” Affinity Labs of
Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). We
look to see whether there are any “additional features” in the claims that
constitute an “inventive concept,” thereby rendering the claims eligible for
patenting even if they are directed to an abstract idea. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Those “additional features” must be more than “well-understood, routine,
conventional activity.” Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79.
The Examiner determined that the additional elements in claim 1
“provide conventional computer implementation utilizing a computer to
implement the abstract ideas.” Final Act. 16.
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

20
Appellant argues that all of the limitations in claim 1 comprise a non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,
as in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal Br. 29–31. Appellant points to the claim
language, but does not explain why the arrangement of claimed elements is
non-conventional. See id.
There is no evidence of record to substantiate the assertion that the
claims recite non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional elements, as in Bascom. We find no analogy between
Appellant’s claimed assignment of work and the Internet content filtering
claims in Bascom. In Bascom, the claims were directed to the inventive
concept of providing customizable Internet-content filtering which, under
step two of the Alice analysis, was found to transform the abstract idea of
filtering content into a patent-eligible invention. Although the underlying
idea of filtering Internet content was deemed abstract, the claims carved out
a specific location for the filtering system, namely, a remote Internet service
provider (ISP) server, and required the filtering system to give users the
ability to customize filtering for their individual network accounts. Bascom,
827 F.3d at 1349. That is not analogous to Appellant’s claim 1, in which
abstract mental processes are run on generic computer components.
Appellant next argues in a conclusory manner that the limitations
recited in claim 1 “are not widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant
industry.” Appeal Br. 34.
Appellant does not provide any basis for this argument. It is well
settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

21
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence).
Appellant does not direct our attention to anything in the Specification
that indicates the computer components perform anything other than well-
understood, routine, and conventional functions, such as receiving and
organizing information, and analyzing the information to generate and
present an ordered list and a queue position table. See buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer
receives and sends the information over a network—with no further
specification—is not even arguably inventive.”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC
Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (server that receives data,
extracts classification information from the received data, and stores the
digital images insufficient to add an inventive concept); Alice, 573 U.S. at
225–26 (receiving, storing, sending information over networks insufficient
to add an inventive concept); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (use of Internet to verify credit-card
transaction does not add enough to abstract idea of verifying the
transaction); see also MPEP § 2106.05(d) (“Courts have held computer-
implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea
(and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more
than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea,
such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by
merely thinking.”)).
Because the Specification describes the additional elements in general
terms, without describing the particulars, we conclude the claim limitations
may be broadly but reasonably construed as reciting conventional computer
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

22
components and techniques, particularly in light of Appellant’s
Specification. See Berkheimer Memo5 § III.A.1; Spec. ¶¶ 20, 29, 34, 37
(describing “computer processor”); Spec. ¶ 28 (describing “execution of a
ticket ordering runtime circuit”); Spec. ¶ 32 (describing “programmable
logic circuitry utilizing state information of computer code”); Spec. ¶ 37,
Fig. 5 (describing “queue based memory device”); and Spec. ¶¶ 20, 37, 38
(describing “linear based optimization code”).
We conclude claim 1 does not have an inventive concept because the
claim, in essence, merely recites various computer-based elements along
with no more than mere instructions to implement the identified abstract idea
using the computer-based elements.
Because claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, without significantly
more, we sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection of independent claim 1 and
grouped claims 2–6, 8–15, and 17–20, not argued separately with
particularity.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–6, 8–15,
and 17–20.

5 “Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter
Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc.)” at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018) (explaining that a specification that describes
additional elements “in a manner that indicates that the additional elements
are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe
the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can
show that the elements are well understood, routine, and conventional).
Appeal 2019-003140
Application 14/291,796

23
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 8–15,
17–20
101 Eligibility 1–6, 8–15,
17–20

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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED