Julie A. Lerner

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 25, 2019

14725605 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 25, 2019)

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.
14/725,605 05/29/2015 Julie A. Lerner PANX01-00010 8643
23990 7590 10/25/2019
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
ROBINSON, KITO R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/25/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
munckwilson@gmail.com
patents@munckwilson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JULIE A. LERNER

____________

Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–24. 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 Julie A.
Lerner. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s “invention relates to trading physicals commodities and
more particularly to an electronic market place for trading physicals
commodities.” (Spec. 1, ll. 9–10.)
Claims 1, 15, and 23 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A computerized method of trading physical commodities,
the method comprising:
storing, in a memory of a computing system, a first order
received by the computing system from a user computing device,
wherein the stored first order includes an order threshold of at
least one differential between proposed contracts relating to a
physical commodity;
monitoring, by the computing system, information for at
least one other order relating to the physical commodity;
determining, by the computing system, whether the order
threshold of the at least one differential has been met based on
the information; and
executing, by the computing system, the stored first order
and the at least one other order relating to the physical
commodity automatically when the at least one differential
between the stored first order and the at least one other order is
determined to meet the order threshold.

REJECTION
Claims 1–24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.

ANALYSIS
“Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

3
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and
requirements of this title.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. Section 101, however,
“‘contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.’” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Assoc. for Molecular
Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
Alice applies a two-step framework, earlier set out in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217.
Under the two-step framework, it must first be determined if “the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept.” Id. at 218. If the
claims are determined to be directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an
abstract idea, then the second step of the framework is applied to determine
if “the elements of the claim . . . contain[] an ‘inventive concept’ sufficient
to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application.”
Id. at 221 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73, 79).
With regard to step one of the Alice framework, we apply a “directed
to” two prong test to: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, and 2) if the claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether
the claim “appl[ies], rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “2019 Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

4
Here, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is “directed to the abstract
idea of trading physical commodities by executing stored orders
automatically when order thresholds are met, i.e., abstract idea + ‘apply it’
instead of a recited ‘technology-based solution’.” (Answer 12–13.) The
Examiner also determines that “[t]rading physical commodities is according
to the court a ‘method of organizing human behavior’ that is similar to other
concepts that have been identified as abstract.” (Final Action 6.)
Appellant disagrees and argues that “Claim 1 is directed at least in
part to a user interface addressing a computer-based problem relating to
physical commodities trading.” (Appeal Br. 13.)
Under step one of the Alice framework, we “look at the ‘focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a
whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The ‘directed to’ inquiry . . . cannot simply ask whether the
claims involve a patent-ineligible concept, because essentially
every routinely patent-eligible claim involving physical products
and actions involves a law of nature and/or natural phenomenon
. . . . Rather, the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to
claims, considered in light of the specification, based on whether
‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’ Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In
other words, the first step of the Alice framework “asks whether the focus of
the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant
technology] or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

5
which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36; see also
2019 Guidance at 54–55.
The Specification provides evidence as to what the claimed invention
is directed. In this case, the Specification discloses that the “invention
relates to trading physicals commodities and more particularly to an
electronic market place for trading physicals commodities.” (Spec. 1, ll. 9–
10.) Claim 1 provides further evidence. Claim 1 recites a “method of
trading physical commodities . . . comprising: storing . . . a first order
received . . . , wherein the stored first order includes an order threshold of at
least one differential between proposed contracts,” “monitoring . . .
information for at least one other order,” “determining . . . whether the
threshold . . . has been met,” “and executing . . . the stored first order and the
at least one other order . . . when the at least one differential . . . is
determined to meet the order threshold.”
This evidence shows that claim 1 is directed to trading physical
commodities. This is in accord with the Examiner’s determination. (See
Answer 12–13.) The Federal Circuit has found claims to similar subject
matter to be directed to abstract ideas. See, e.g., Content Extraction and
Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[T]he claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the
abstract idea of 1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the
collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.”), Alice,
573 U.S. at 224 (“[C]reat[ing] electronic records, track[ing] multiple
transactions, and issu[ing] simultaneous instructions,” have been identified
by the courts as within the realm of abstract ideas.)
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

6
The steps recited in claim 1 are performed by storing received
information, monitoring information, making a determination based on the
information, and executing a task based on the determination. Claim 1
performs these steps using a generic “computing system.” (See Spec. 10,
l. 21 – 12, l. 2.) The claim limitations do not recite technological
implementation details for any of the steps. Indeed, beyond the recitation of
a generic “computing system” (including a generic “memory of [the]
computing system”), claim 1 does not recite any computer-related
components. Nor does claim 1 recite “a particular way of programming or
designing the software . . . , but instead merely claim[s] the resulting
[method].” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1241 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 1 merely recites functional results to be achieved by any
means. Additionally, Appellant’s Specification makes clear that computing
systems were well known. (See, e.g., Spec. 10, l. 21 – 11, l. 7.) In short,
claim 1 does not recite a specific asserted improvement to computer
technology.
In view of the above, we determine that claim 1 is directed to trading
physical commodities, i.e., “commercial or legal interactions (including
agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising,
marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations.” (See 2019
Guidance at 52.) And further in view of the above, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of certain methods of
organizing human activity. (See Final Action 6; see also 2019 Guidance
at 52.)
Moreover, we do not see how the recitation of a “computing system,”
even in conjunction with the recited functions, “ensure[s] ‘that the [claim] is
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

7
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77.)
Nonetheless, Appellant seeks to analogize claim 1 to the claims in the
non-precedential decision Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG,
Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017) [hereinafter “CQG”]. (Appeal Br.
15–16.) Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 1 “requires entry of the
order threshold of at least one differential by the user,” and, thus, claim 1
“require[s] a specific, structured . . . user interface paired with a
prescribed functionality directly related to the . . . user interface’s
structure that is addressed to and resolves a specifically identified
problem in the prior state of the art,” as did the claims in [CQG],
and meets the subject matter eligibility standards of Alice Step 1.

(Id. at 16 (footnote omitted).)
We disagree. Claim 1 in CQG recites, in part,
displaying the bid and ask display regions in relation to fixed
price levels positioned along the common static price axis such
that when the inside market changes, the price levels along the
common static price axis do not move and at least one of the first
and second indictors moves in the bid or ask display regions
relative to the common static price axis.

CQG, 675 F. App’x at 1003. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district
court’s determination that “[t]he claims require a specific, structured
graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality directly
related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to and
resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.” Id.
at 1004. The Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that “the
challenged patents solve problems of prior graphical user interface devices
. . . in the context of computerized trading[] relating to speed, accuracy and
usability.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). “The [district] court found that
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

8
these patents are directed to improvements in existing graphical user
interface devices.” Id.; see also Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (The court determined
that “[t]he asserted claims in this case are directed to an improved user
interface for computing devices,” that the claim “limitations disclose a
specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather
than using conventional user interface methods,” and that “[t]he disclosed
invention improves the efficiency of using the electronic device.” The court
determined that the claims were not directed to an abstract idea.)
Here, Appellant does not persuasively argue why the entry of
particular data, i.e., “the order threshold of at least one differential by the
user” (Appeal Br. 16), solves a problem of prior graphical user interface
devices or improves a graphical user interface device. Nor does Appellant
point to anything in the Specification disclosing how the claimed invention
solves a problem relating to, or improves upon, a graphical user interface
device.
Appellant also argues that “[b]y automatically executing the stored
first order and the at least one other order when the at least one differential
between them is determined to meet the order threshold, memory resources
previously allocated to the stored first order may be freed for other uses.”
(Id. at 17.) However, Appellant does not point to any evidence in the record
to support this attorney argument. Therefore, we do not find this argument
persuasive.
Appellant also argues “that ‘executing ... the stored first order and the
at least one other order relating to the physical commodity automatically’
further increases operating efficiency to the trading engine servers by
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

9
eliminating human obstacles to executing a trade.” (Id.) We do not find this
argument persuasive. The claimed invention uses a computer system to
automate the trading of physical commodities. However, the use of a
computer to perform tasks more quickly or more accurately is not sufficient
to render a claim eligible. See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying on a computer to perform
routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a
claim patent eligible.”), Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[C]laiming the improved
speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer
[does not] provide a sufficient inventive concept.”).
Appellant also seeks to analogize claim 1 to the claims in McRO, Inc.
v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (See
Appeal Br. 18–19.) Appellant argues that “[b]y specifying storage of,
monitoring for, and automatic trade execution based upon the recited ‘order
threshold of at least one differential between proposed contracts relating to a
physical commodity,’ Claim 1 recites a comparable level of specificity as
the claim considered in McRO.” (Appeal Br. 18.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. “The claimed improvement
[in McRO] was to how the physical display operated (to produce better
quality images), unlike (what is present here) a claimed improvement in
[trading commodities] with no improved display mechanism.” SAP Am.,
Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In other
words, in McRO, data was used to improve the technology, i.e., the display
mechanism. Here, “the innovative aspect of the claimed invention is an
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

10
entrepreneurial rather than a technological one.” See Ultramercial, Inc. v.
Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 722 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
We also do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that
Claim 1 recites “how” the goal of data transmission is effected,
both in terms of a particular process (storing an order, monitoring
other order(s), determining when another order matches the order
threshold of at least one differential, and automatically executing
the stored and other order when the match is determined) and a
specific criteria (the order threshold of at least one differential
between proposed contracts relating to a physical commodity).

(Appeal Br. 19.)
Claim 1 does not recite how the information storing step is performed.
Claim 1 simply recites “storing, in a memory of a computing system” certain
information. In other words, claim 1 recites storing in a memory by any
means. Claim 1 is similarly deficient in reciting how the monitoring,
determining, and executing steps are performed. See, e.g., BSG Tech LLC v.
BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[A]n improvement
to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement
in the database’s functionality.”).
For the same reason, we do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument
that claim 1 “recites a novel data storage element.” (Appeal Br. 19.) To the
contrary, claim 1 merely recites a generic “memory of a computing system.”
Thus, under prong one of the two prong test in the 2019 Guidance,
claim 1 recites an abstract idea; and, under prong two, additional elements in
claim 1 do not “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.”
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

11
(See 2019 Guidance at 54.) As such, under step one of the Alice framework,
claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, and we move on to step two.
Step two of the Alice framework has been described “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, 573 U.S. at 217–
18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Appellant argues that claim 1 recites something more than just an
abstract idea because “[i]n this application, geographic and time-zone
separation of seller and buyer is an obstacle to effecting trades” and “[t]he
claimed invention introduced flexibility addressing these obstacles.”
(Appeal Br. 20.) Appellant also argues that “Claim 1 recites an order [sic]
combination of steps that addresses the technologic problems caused by
geographic and time-zone separation of traders.” (Id.)
We do not find these arguments persuasive. The claimed invention is,
at most, an improvement to the performance of the abstract idea, in this case,
to trading physical commodities, i.e., an improvement to certain methods of
organizing human activity. (See 2019 Guidance at 52.) But “[n]o matter
how much of an advance in the . . . field the claims recite, the advance lies
entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation
in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible
for patenting.” SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d at 1163.
Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed by the
generic “computing system” are purely conventional. (See e.g. Spec. 10,
l. 21 – 12, l. 2.) Storing received information, monitoring information,
making a determination based on the information, and executing a task
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

12
based on the determination are well-understood, routine, and conventional
functions previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d
at 1356 (The claims “do not include any requirement for performing the
claimed functions of gathering, analyzing, and displaying in real time by use
of anything but entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims
therefore do not state an arguably inventive concept . . . .”); see also 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.”).
Considered as an ordered combination, the generic computing system
of Appellant’s claimed invention adds nothing that is not already present
when the limitations are considered separately. (See e.g., Spec., Fig. 1.) For
example, claim 1 does not, as discussed above, purport to improve the
functioning of the computing system itself. Nor does it effect an
improvement in any other technology or technical field. Instead, claim 1
amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply the
abstract idea using a generic computing system performing routine computer
functions. That is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
In view of the above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1.
Appellant also argues that “Claims 7 and 15 each recite that the
trading engine server is configured to “tag each order, including the stored
first order and that at least one other order, with a unique identifier,
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

13
wherein the unique identifier is used to track actions of correspondence
related to the orders.” (Appeal Br. 23.) Appellant further argues that
[a]s disclosed in the specification, the unique identifiers for the
stored first order and the at least one other order are
improvements to the computer technology used to implement the
trading engine server that “dramatically increase[s] operating
efficiency” thereof . . . :
This label is a unique identifier that remains
associated with the transaction until the two parties
have completed the trade’s final liquidation. Any
action, alteration, correspondence, etc. that the
trader or his assigned freight forwarder or
accountant enacts (assuming permission to do so) is
identified by the same confirmation label.
Therefore, although trader 1 and trader 2 have the
same file (virtual file folder) name on their
proprietary database, the notes, calculations,
correspondence etc. that are attached to it are unique
to each party and confidential from one another.
This tagging system, implemented through
technology, such as that provided by TIBCO, is the
most significant and most visible mechanism in
which traders will dramatically increase operating
efficiency and reduce transaction costs. [(Spec. 27,
ll. 1–10.)]
Notably, the TIBCO tagging system mentioned above is a
precursor to some contemporary uses of the blockchain
algorithm for similar purposes. For these reasons, Claim 7 and
Claim 15 and its dependent claims are directed to improvements
to computer technology and recite patent-eligible subject matter,
regardless of whether considered under Step 2A or Step 2B.

(Appeal Br. 23.)
As an initial matter, neither dependent claim 7 nor independent
claim 15 recites a “trading engine server,” as argued by Appellant.
Additionally, the passage from the Specification relied on by Appellant
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

14
refers to the alleged improvement to computer technology being a result, in
part, of “trader 1 and trader 2 hav[ing] the same file (virtual file folder) name
on the proprietary database.” (See Spec. 27, ll. 5–7.) But neither claim 7
nor claim 15 recites a proprietary database. Indeed, neither claim even
recites a database. Nor does either claim recite “the TIBCO tagging
system.” (See Appeal Br. 23; see also Claims 1, 7, and 15.) Thus,
Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims,
and we do not find them persuasive.
Claim 15 is otherwise similar to claim 1 and for similar reasons we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 under § 101.
Appellant also argues that independent claim 23
recites “a graphical user interface for placing a first order, the
graphical user interface including order fields for entry of an
order threshold for the first order of at least one differential
between proposed contracts relating to a physical commodity,”
while the user interface is only implicitly recited in Claim 1.
Claim 23 therefore further recites a graphical user interface
improving the functionality of the trading system and, as held in
[CQG], is further directed to patent-eligible subject matter under
either Step 2A or Step 2B.

(Appeal Br. 24.)
Claim 23 recites, in relevant part, a
computer-readable storage medium containing a set of
instructions that, when executed by one or more processors,
cause a computing system to:
cause display, on a user computing device, a graphical user
interface for placing a first order, the graphical user interface
including order fields for entry of an order threshold for the first
order of at least one differential between proposed contracts
relating to a physical commodity.

In short, claim 23 recites a generic graphical user interface to input data.
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

15
In the claimed method in CQG, “bid and asked prices are displayed
dynamically along the static display, and the system pairs orders with the
static display of prices and prevents order entry at a changed price.” CQG,
675 F. App’x at 1003. The court determined that “[t]he claims require a
specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed
functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is
addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state
of the art” of graphical user interface devices. Id. at 1004.
Appellant does not explain how the claimed invention, e.g., “pairs
orders with the static display of prices and prevents order entry at a changed
price.” See id. at 1003. Nor does Appellant persuasively argue how the
claimed invention “resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior
state of the art” of graphical user interface devices. See id. at 1004.
Moreover, in Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) [hereinafter “IBG”], where “[t]he
method steps require ‘displaying’ a plurality of bid and offer indicators
along a ‘scaled axis of prices,’ ‘receiving market information,’ displaying
that information along the axis, and ‘displaying’ information pertaining to a
user’s order,” the Federal Circuit determined that “[t]his essentially
describes receiving information . . . and displaying that information. ‘[W]e
have treated collecting information, including when limited to particular
content (which does not change its character as information) as within the
realm of abstract ideas.’” IBG, 921 F.3d at 1092 (quoting Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1353). The additional fact that a claim “also recites sending an
order by ‘selecting’ and ‘moving’ an order icon” did not change the
“determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.” Id.
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

16
Like claim 23 here, the claims in IBG merely “recite a purportedly
new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing
information more quickly.” Id. at 1093; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“[T]he claims here fail
because arranging information along an axis does not improve the
functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any
technological problem.”). Therefore, we do not find Appellant’s argument
persuasive.
Claim 23 is otherwise similar to claim 1 and for similar reasons we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 23 under § 101.
Finally, Appellant argues that dependent claims 2, 16, and 24 “each
recite that the at least one differential relates to price” and that “the use of a
price differential is a novel and non-obvious feature.” (Appeal Br. 21.)
Appellant makes a similar argument with regard to dependent claims 4
and 17, i.e., “the at least one differential relates to delivery period” (id.
at 22), and with regard to dependent claims 5 and 18, i.e., “the at least one
differential relates to both price and delivery period” (id.). We are not
persuaded of error. Even if the claimed techniques are “[g]roundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant,” that is not enough for patent eligibility. Ass’n
for Molecular Pathology, 569 U.S. at 591. “The ‘novelty’ of any element or
steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in
determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101
categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 188–89 (1981).
Dependent claims 6 and 8–14 are argued with claim 1. They fall with
claim 1. Dependent claims 19–22 are argued with independent claim 15.
Appeal 2018-006395
Application 14/725,605

17
They fall with claim 15. Dependent claim 3 is argued with claim 2. It falls
with claim 2.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is
affirmed.

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

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