James J. Zenni

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 8, 2020

14090650 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 8, 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.
14/090,650 11/26/2013 James J. Zenni JR. 10-1403-US-CON 9407
20306 7590 04/08/2020
MCDONNELL BOEHNEN HULBERT & BERGHOFF LLP
300 S. WACKER DRIVE
32ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
SHARVIN, DAVID P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES J. ZENNI JR.
____________

Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
James J. Zenni Jr. (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
of a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–10, 12–19, 23–27, and 29–34, the only

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed March 5, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 22,
2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 22, 2018), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 4, 2017).
2 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 ZAPP
Systems, L.L.C. (Appeal Br. 1).
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

2

claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of identification, sourcing, and
acquisition of distressed debt. Specification para. 46.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 18, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
18. A method facilitating the identification, sourcing, and
acquisition of distressed debt, the method carried out by a
computing system comprising at least one user interface, at
least one communication interface, at least one processor, and
data storage having stored thereon instructions executable by
the at least one processor for carrying out the method, the
method comprising:
[1] the computing system downloading loan-profile data
records from at least one loan- profile data source in at least one
first automated manner,
wherein each received loan- profile data record is
associated with an original loan from a respective
original lender to a respective original borrower for a
respective original loan amount,
wherein said at least one first automated manner involves
at least one of execution of at least one macro, execution
of a least one script, or execution of at least one batch
download,
and
wherein each downloaded loan-profile data record
includes data that reflects one or more loan
characteristics of the loan associated with that loan-
profile data record;
[2] the computing system processing each downloaded loan-
profile data record in at least one second automated manner to

Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

3

extract one or more loan characteristics of the loan associated
with that loan-profile data record,
wherein processing each downloaded loan- profile data
record in at least one second automated manner
comprises processing by one or more optical-character-
recognition (OCR) algorithms;
[3] the computing system storing in at least one third automated
manner at least a subset of the downloaded loan-profile data
records in a manner that is organized at least according to at
least one of the extracted loan characteristic included in the
respective received loan-profile data records;
[4] the computing system receiving special-purpose-vehicle-
(SPV)-modeling data records from at least one SPV-modeling
data source;
[5] the computing system mining at least a subset of the
received SPV-modeling data records to extract therefrom and
store associations between respective original loans and
respective downstream pieces of said respective original loans,
wherein the stored associations include identifications of
respective downstream lending institutions currently
holding said respective downstream pieces of said
respective original loans,
wherein receiving SPV-modeling data records comprises
repeatedly receiving updated data feeds and responsively
updating at least one stored association of the stored
associations;
[6] the computing system presenting via the at least one user
interface
(i) access to the stored subset of downloaded loan-profile
data records from the at least one loan-profile data source
according to the manner in which the subset is stored
and
(ii) access to the stored associations extracted from the
subset of the SPV-modeling data records,
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

4

wherein said access to the downloaded loan-profile data
records from the at least one loan-profile data source and
said access to the stored associations extracted from the
subset of the SPV- modeling data records are correlated
with one another by at least one loan characteristic;
and
[7] the computing system providing via the at least one user
interface a single display comprising respective points of access
to respective cross-referenced displays of stored data,
wherein the cross-referenced displays include displays
that respectively pertain to target companies, target loans,
target pieces of target loans, and a distressed-loan
universe,
wherein the display pertaining to the target companies
comprises a list of target companies,
wherein the display pertaining to the target loans
comprises a plurality of target loans,
wherein each target loan is associated with one of the
target companies,
wherein the display pertaining to the target pieces of
target loans comprises data reflecting an extent to which
target pieces of target loans associated with at least one
target company have been identified, located, and
acquired,
and
wherein the display pertaining to the distressed-loan
universe comprises data organized on a macro-loan level
and reflecting loans being evaluated as potentially
distressed.
Claims 1, 2, 6–10, 12–19, 23–27, and 29–34 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

5

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
STEP 13
Claim 18, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of
those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat
else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, .
. . 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. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as 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 Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are
directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

6

judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract
idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether
the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether
the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception
in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such
that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If the claims are
directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims
provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the
claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 18 recites downloading data, extracting characteristics data after
optical character recognition (OCR), storing data, receiving modelling data,
mining to extract association data, presenting access to data, and providing a
display of data. Downloading is receiving data. OCR and data extraction
are rudimentary and conventional forms of data analysis. Mining to extract
data is further rudimentary data analysis. Presenting access to data is data
display and reception of access instructions. Thus, claim 18 recites
receiving, analyzing, storing, and displaying data. None of the limitations
recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead
recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 18 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

7

Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent ineligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts,4 (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity,5 and (3) mental processes.6 Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 18 recites the concept of
presenting commercial financial analysis. Specifically, claim 18 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to present a
financial analysis from downloaded financial data subjected to analysis,
modelling, and access. The advice to present a financial analysis from
downloaded financial data subjected to analysis, modelling, and access
involves displaying financial analysis of distressed commercial loans, which
is an economic act, and acquiring loan data, which is an act ordinarily
performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 18 recites “the
display pertaining to the distressed-loan universe comprises data organized
on a macro-loan level and reflecting loans being evaluated as potentially

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

8

distressed,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
performing commercial loan acquisition that might include distressed loans.
Similarly, claim 18 recites “downloading loan-profile data records,” which is
also characteristic of acquiring commercial debt.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to facilitating the
identification, sourcing, and acquisition of distressed debt. Final Act. 4.
The preamble to claim 18 recites that it is a method facilitating the
identification, sourcing, and acquisition of distressed debt. The steps in
claim 18 result in displaying financial analysis from downloaded financial
data subjected to analysis, modelling, and access absent any technological
mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 4 recite receiving data.
Limitations 2, 3, and 5–7 recite generic and conventional analyzing, storing,
and displaying of loan data, which advise one to apply generic functions to
get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for presenting a
financial analysis from downloaded financial data subjected to analysis,
modelling, and access. To advocate presenting a financial analysis from
downloaded financial data subjected to analysis, modelling, and access is
conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 46 describes the invention as relating
to identification, sourcing, and acquisition of distressed debt. Thus, all this
intrinsic evidence shows that claim 18 recites presenting commercial
financial analysis. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because acquiring debt is a
commercial interaction. The concept of presenting commercial financial
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

9

analysis by presenting a financial analysis from downloaded financial data
subjected to analysis, modelling, and access is one idea for analyzing such
debt. The steps recited in claim 18 are part of how this might conceptually
be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (display to help users process
information more quickly); Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Amazon.com Inc.,
838 F.3d 1266, 1271 (2016) (customizing user interface and tailoring
content).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, storing,
and displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the
data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 18, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, storage,
and display and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they
“focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As
such, claim 18 recites receiving, analyzing, storing, and displaying data, and
not a technological implementation or application of that idea.
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

10

From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 18 recites
presenting commercial financial analysis by presenting a financial analysis
from downloaded financial data subjected to analysis, modelling, and access,
which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of
organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an
abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 18 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At
some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon,
or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.”
Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g]
block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (alteration in original, citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1 and 4 are pure data gathering

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

11

steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. The
limitation listing three download manners is no more than a recital of
conventional coding styles, viz. coding textual commands as a macro, a
script, and a batch command file. None of these styles would be considered
technological implementations by those of ordinary skill, but instead
conceptual ideas for how such commands might be packaged. Step 3 recites
basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing
data. Step 7 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing,
transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 2, 5, and 6 recite generic
computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all
possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. The
recitation of using OCR processing in step 2 is conventional data
representation change. No technological implementation details for the
OCR process are recited. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the
data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process
physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing
technologically achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 18 simply recites the concept of
presenting commercial financial analysis by presenting a financial analysis
from downloaded financial data subjected to analysis, modelling, and access
as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice
on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes
necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular
implementation.
Claim 18 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

12

technology or technical field. The 28 pages of Specification only spell out
different generic equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this
concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail
based on the concept of presenting commercial financial analysis by
presenting a financial analysis from downloaded financial data subjected to
analysis, modelling, and access under different scenarios. They do not
describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions.
Instead, claim 18 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an
instruction to apply presenting commercial financial analysis by presenting a
financial analysis from downloaded financial data subjected to analysis,
modelling, and access using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.

8 The Specification describes a laptop computer, a desktop computer, a tablet
device, a cell phone, a personal digital assistant. Spec. para. 92.
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

13

We conclude that claim 18 is directed to achieving the result of
presenting commercial financial analysis by advising one to present a
financial analysis from downloaded financial data subjected to analysis,
modelling, and access, as distinguished from a technological improvement
for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal
interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity
that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 18 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is
not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract
idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the pre-emption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

14

process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (alteration in original, citations omitted).
“[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. We determine that they do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for receiving, analyzing, storing, and displaying data amounts to
electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a
computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional
computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See
Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Also see In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend they invented any of
these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated
upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited
to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make
the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v.
InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citation omitted).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 18 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

15

are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-storage-
display is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting,
offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment
recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 18 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 18 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting
§ 101“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on
the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226 (alteration in original, citations omitted). As a
corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine.
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

16

LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not
recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of presenting commercial financial analysis by advising one
to present a financial analysis from downloaded financial data subjected to
analysis, modelling, and access, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 4–6 and Answer 3–7 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claimed
invention is a patent-eligible improvement to a graphical user interface and
therefore non-abstract under part one of Alice.” Reply Br. 4 (emphasis
omitted).
Appellant argues this on the basis that that the asserted claims are
akin to the claims found patent-eligible in Core Wireless Licensing
S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Reply Br.
5. But the Court in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC addressed
Appellant’s Core Wireless argument.
Relying principally on Core Wireless, TT argues the claimed
invention provides an improvement in the way a computer
operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not
improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more
efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

17

recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information
that assists traders in processing information more quickly.
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093 (citations omitted).
The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it
operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they
recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists
users in processing information more quickly. Appellant admits as much.
“[T]he claimed invention improves a user’s identification of relevant
information in a timely fashion.” Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “the claimed
invention is similar to that of Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., No.
2016-1616 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 18, 2017) (non-precedential).” Reply Br. 7.
Appellant cites to Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 875 Fed.
Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). First, this case is non-precedential and two
related precedential cases with user interfaces had the claims held
ineligible. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir.
2019) and Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2019). Second, the claims do not recite and the Specification does not
describe structure associated with the interface, only data content. In
Trading Technologies, in response to a similar argument that the claims
“provide a particular graphical user interface that improves usability,
visualization, and efficiency,” the Court determined that “[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. . . .
The “tool for presentation” here is simply a generic computer.” Trading
Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384–85 (citations omitted). Similarly here, the claims
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

18

are not focused on an interface, but on providing information to users in a
way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving
computers or technology and the tool for presentation is a generic computer.
We are not persuaded that “Appellant’s claims are clearly
distinguishable from those of Electric Power Group.” Reply Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). Appellant cites to Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1353.
As we determine supra under Step 2-Prong 1, claim 18 recites receiving,
analyzing, storing, and displaying data. Appellant contends that “the claim
recites how the outcome is achieved and is focused on a detailed and specific
solution to an identified problem in the prior state of the art.” Reply Br. 9.
But the claims are specific only in the sense they are specified using words.
All steps are generic and conventional computer operations devoid of
technological implementation details.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Examiner has
improperly over-generalized the claims.” Reply Br. 10. A thorough
analysis at both overall and specific levels is provided supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Examiner has
failed to fully consider each dependent claim.” Reply Br. 11 (emphasis
omitted). Appellant repeats the Examiner’s findings as to the dependent
claims at page 12 of the Reply Brief. Thus, Appellant acknowledges that the
Examiner stated that he considered all claims. A separate written analysis
for each claim is not required under compact prosecution because issues may
be summarized where appropriate. Appellant does not argue the differences
in the dependent claims with any particularity.
Appeal 2018-008305
Application 14/090,650

19

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–10, 12–19, 23–27, and 29–34 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is
proper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6–10, 12–19, 23–27, and 29–34 is
affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 6–10, 12–19,
23–27, 29–34
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 6–10, 12–19,
23–27, 29–34

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

AFFIRMED