Julie Lerner

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 13, 2020

14327816 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/327,816 07/10/2014 Julie A. Lerner PANX01-00009 5347
23990 7590 04/13/2020
DOCKET CLERK
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DALLAS, TX 75380
EXAMINER
KANG, IRENE S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/13/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
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 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and
FRANCES L. IPPOLITO, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–8 and 21–28, which are all the pending
claims. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Julie A. Lerner as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1 and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A method for providing commodity trading over the
Internet comprising the steps of:
providing a trading engine configured to:
receive a plurality of orders, each order associated
with one of a plurality of traders,
generate real-time pricing information for a
commodity based on each offer, counter-offer, and bid
relating to the plurality of orders to increase market
liquidity, and
identify pairs of matching orders from among the
plurality of orders, and automatically execute one or
more of the matching pairs to complete a trade without
requiring manual intervention by a trader;
receiving information relating to at least one of news,
securities prices, or weather impacting the commodity trading;
parsing the information into a calendar of activities in
different market areas and dates;
establishing, via the trading engine, communications
links with one or more banks involved in commodity
transactions and one or more financial institutions;
permitting the traders to have access to one or both of
banking services and financing services over the
communications links and through the trading engine such that
the user can access the one or both of the banking services and
the financing services without leaving the trading engine; and
providing the traders with access to external or internal
service providers related to completing the execution of at least
one of the matching pairs using the communications links,
wherein the trading engine is further configured to:
receive, via the trading engine, confirmation of
credit from the one or both of the banking services and
the financing services, and
upon executing the trade, automatically send a
notification to the one or more banks via the trading
engine.

Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

3
REJECTION
Claims 1–8 and 21–28 are rejected as directed to a judicial exception
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1–8 and 21–28 Rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Examiner’s Findings and Determination
The Examiner determines that the claims recite an abstract idea of
commodity trading and cross matching of a pair of buy/sell orders using the
Internet. Final Act. 2–3. In particular, the Examiner identifies the following
limitations that recite this abstract idea.
The invention includes a trading engine which is configured to
receive orders, generate real-time pricing based on bids and
offers, identify matching orders, receive new (information) that
impacts the trading, parse the news (information) into calendar
of activities, establish links for communication with financing
institutions and banks, and allow the traders to access the
external financing institutions and banks, receive conformation
of credit from bank or financial institutions.

Id. at 3.
The Examiner determines that the claims lack additional elements that
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because computer related
elements such as trading engine, processors, storage medium, and Internet
communications are recited at a high level of generality to perform generic
computer functions of storing, retrieving, processing, and displaying data via
a program that executes the abstract ideas. Id.; Ans. 9. The Examiner also
determines that the specific content of the data or information, even when
limited to a particular context, does not change its character as information
or data and therefore, it remains in the realm of abstract ideas. Ans. 9.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

4
Applicable Legal Principles
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor,
subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

35 U.S.C. § 101. This provisions contains an implicit exception: “Laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice
Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the elements of each claim, individually and
“as an ordered combination,” to determine if additional elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application” by providing an
“inventive concept” to ensure the patent amounts to significantly more than
a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–218 (citation omitted).
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine whether a
claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
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. Id. at 56.
Appellant’s Arguments
Appellant argues that the claims do not recite abstract ideas but
instead are simply based on the performance of financial transactions.
There is no judicial precedent recognizing that “a trading engine
which is configured to receive orders, generate real-time pricing
based on bids and offers, identify matching orders, receive new
(information) that impacts the trading, parse the news
(information) into calendar of activities, establish links for
communication with financing institutions and banks, and allow
the traders to access the external financing institutions and
banks, receive conformation of credit from bank or financial
institutions” is an abstract idea. Stated differently, the Office
Action itself establishes that the claims are not limited to mere
recitation of a judicially-recognized exception, but are instead
simply based upon (or “involve”) “performance of financial
transactions.”

Appeal Br. 12–13 (citing MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(A)).
Appellant argues that the claims recite “additional elements” that go
beyond merely performing financial transactions of commodity trading and
include receiving information relating to news, securities, prices, or weather,
permitting traders to access banking or financial services, and providing
traders with access to external/internal service providers related to executing
at least one of the matching pairs using communications links. Id. at 13.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

6
Step 1: Are the Claims Within a Statutory Category?
The Examiner determines that claims 1–8 recite a process and the
computer-readable storage medium of claims 21–28 recite a manufacture.
Ans. 4. We agree, as does Appellant. See Appeal Br. 11.
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the Claims Recite Judicial Exceptions?
We select claim 1 as representative of claims 1, 2, 6, and 21–28,
which are argued as a group (Appeal Br. 10–27), and address separate
arguments for claims 3–5, 7, and 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claim 1
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites commodity trading.
The Revised Guidance enumerates this concept as certain methods of
organizing human activity––fundamental economic principles or practices
and commercial interactions. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
In claim 1, the first limitations of (1) “providing a trading engine
configured to: receive a plurality of orders . . ., generate real-time pricing
information for a commodity . . ., and identify pairs of matching orders from
among the plurality of orders” and (2) automatically execute one or more of
the matching pairs to complete a trade” recite this abstract concept. Indeed,
the preamble recites a method “for providing commodity trading over the
Internet.” Appeal Br. A1 (Claims App.).
The Specification describes this subject matter as trading physical
commodities and, in particular, “an electronic market place for trading
physical commodities.” Spec. 1:8–9; see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“As the Board determined,
placing an order based on displayed market information is a fundamental
economic practice.”); MPEP §§ 2106.04(a)(2)I.A., 2106.04(a)(2)II.A.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

7
This process allows risk management and hedging. Spec. 4:15–24.
“[A] real-time electronic marketplace for physical soft commodities, such as
coffee, sugar, cotton, cocoa, rice” “capitalizes on web-enabled technology to
provide end-to-end market players with tools to increase profitability and
operating efficiencies” by “streamlin[ing] the hedging and trade execution
process.” Id. at 5:13–20; see also id. at 9:25–10:8, 2:7–10, 3:23–25.
Initiating commodity transactions between a provider and market
participants for hedging and risk management, without more, recites an
abstract idea. Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Hedging is a
fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce
and taught in any introductory finance class.”) (citation omitted).
The next limitations recite steps of “receiving information relating to
at least one of news, securities, prices, or weather impacting the commodity
trading” and “parsing the information into a calendar of activities in different
market areas and dates.” Appeal Br. A1 (Claims App.). Appellant argues:
Providing relevant news to a trader is not a necessary part of
performing the financial transactions for commodity trading,
and parsing the news into a calendar is definitely not a
necessary part of performing the financial transactions for
commodity trading. . . . Instead, those claim limitations relate
to technological improvements to a trading engine for
performing a financial transaction relating to commodities
trading, by enabling the trading engine both to provide useful
information to the trader and to provide that information in a
useful form (a “calendar of activities”).

Appeal Br. 13–14. We are not persuaded that these limitations, recited so
generally, represent technological improvements. Instead, we determine that
these limitations recite other aspects of the abstract idea identified above.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 & n.13.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

8
This information provides traders with the information that they need
to trade commodities profitably. Final Act. 2–3. The sources include real-
time fundamental news, data feeds from Reuters, CNN, and Analyst Report,
and static data feeds from industry-related links, daily and monthly trading
summaries, financial news, and market information traders use to trade
commodities. Spec. 8:5–6, 17:13–27, 18:25–19:19. The information may
include links to the futures market “[b]ecause information about the futures
market is paramount to profitable trading.” Id. at 17:13–14. Other trading
tools provide information about fundamental issues, such as crop damage
from extreme weather and port congestion, and financing. Id. at 14:21–25.
Receiving and displaying such information without interfering with a
trader’s primary activity of placing offers, counter-offers, and bids is part of
the same abstract idea. “Standing alone, the act of providing someone an
additional set of information without disrupting the ongoing provision of an
initial set of information is an abstract idea.” Interval Licensing LLC v.
AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The focus of the claims
here is directed to ‘providing information to a person without interfering
with the person’s primary activity,’ i.e., the result centric construction of the
claimed ‘attention manager.’”); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 n.13
(citing Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at 1344–45); Ans. 9 (the content of the
information does not change its character in the realm of an abstract idea).
Providing a single display of such information collected from various
sources, e.g., on a calendar, also is abstract. Interval Licensing, 896 F.3d at
1345; see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850
F.3d 1332, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding claims to creating a “dynamic
document” using content from multiple electronic records is abstract).
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

9
Parsing and storing data in a calendar recites the abstract idea above
of organizing human activities as calendar activities for commodity trading.
See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding
parsing, comparing, and storing items in an organized manner recite abstract
concepts). The Specification describes this feature as “[a] calendar tool 316
is available that parses real time data feeds to permit informing a user about
upcoming dates and activities in different market areas” and “the resulting
calendar can be downloaded and imported into other personal scheduling
programs such as Outlook and LotusNotes.” Spec. 17:20–24.
The final steps in claim 1 recite “establishing, via the trading engine,
communications links with one or more banks involved in commodity
transactions and one or more financial institutions,” “permitting the traders
to have access to one or both of the banking services and financing services
over the communications links . . .; and providing the traders with access to
external and internal service providers related to completing the execution of
the at least one of the matching pairs using the communications links.” The
trading engine is configured to receive credit confirmation and automatically
send notification to a bank(s) upon executing the trade. Appeal Br. A1–A2.
These steps organize the activity of obtaining financing for the transaction.
Obtaining financing to complete a commodity trade organizes activity
of that fundamental economic concept. A similar claim to sending a credit
application to a remote funding source(s) to obtain a positive credit funding
decision was held to recite an abstract idea in Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber,
674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“the claim ‘explain[s] the basic
concept’ of processing information through a clearinghouse, just as claim 1
in Bilski II ‘explain[ed] the basic concept of hedging.’”).
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

10
These steps involve the fundamental economic practice above. They
provide access to financial institutions to obtain credit and financial services
for commodity trading. Spec. 10:2–8, 17:4–8. The trading engine receives
“confirmation of credit from one or both of the banking services and the
financial services” and notifies a bank after executing the trade. Obtaining
financing for a transaction is a fundamental economic practice. See Credit
Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding that the specification “demonstrates that processing an application
for financing a purchase is ‘a fundamental economic practice long prevalent
in our system of commerce.’”); Final Act. 3.
Essentially, the trading engine functions as a third party intermediary
to mitigate settlement risk in the commodity trade between two parties by
confirming credit from the banking services and financing services used by
the traders to finance the trade before executing the trade. Such methods of
exchanging financial obligations between two parties using a third party
intermediary to mitigate settlement risk is a fundamental economic practice
long prevalent in our system of commerce. Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (citing
Bilski and articles describing the use of a “clearinghouse” as a third party
intermediary to reduce settlement risk as “a building block of the modern
economy” and an abstract idea beyond the scope of § 101).
The Specification describes these aggregated services as addressing
“counter-party risk,” the “most common customer concern.” Spec. 13:21–
27. Acceptable counter-parties are maintained on a master member list and
identified with orders on a trader’s screen in one of two colors depending on
whether they are on a “enabled/credit approved” list. Id. at 14:1–3. Claim 1
does not recite even this level of detail for the aggregated services, however.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

11
The claimed commodity trading method makes the “[m]arket open to
all players who meet credit standards.” Id. at 7:14. Traders access banking
and financing services to obtain credit as part of the fundamental economic
practice of trading commodities. By obtaining financing and determining
creditworthiness of parties, which is another fundamental economic practice,
a commodity transaction is completed with reduced risk. See Final Act. 4.
Merely providing a trader with financial information to facilitate
market trades is an abstract idea. See Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC,
921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“The claims considered in light of the
specification make clear that ‘the focus of the claimed advance over the
prior art’ is providing a trader with additional financial information to
facilitate market trades, an abstract idea.”). To the extent this feature
provides content tailored to a particular trader, that concept is abstract as
well. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d
1363, 1369–70 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that the provision of web pages and
customized information to a user based on information known about the
user’s personal characteristics is a fundamental economic practice).
Dependent claims 3–5, 7, and 8 recite other features of the abstract
idea. Claim 3 recites that data related to executed orders is forwarded to
electronic futures brokerages to permit clearing of the executed orders or
hedging of a system transaction of a physical commodity with futures
contracts. Claim 4 recites banking services of “issuing letters of credit,
confirming letters of credit, payment against documents, wire transfers,
monthly invoices, and futures broker invoices.” Claim 5 recites types of
financial institutions. Claim 7 recites types of service providers, and claim 8
recites services provided by those service providers. Appeal Br. A2–A3.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

12
Based on the foregoing, we determine that the claims recite certain
methods of organizing human activity as a fundamental economic practice
and commercial interaction as discussed above. Appellant does not present
separate argument for claims 2, 6, and 21–28. Therefore, we determine that
those claims also recite the same abstract idea based on our analysis of the
limitations of representative claim 1 and additional features of claims 3–5, 7,
and 8. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54 (Revised Step 2A, Prong Two). Appellant argues that the
combination of different abstract ideas, or different features of the abstract
idea, recited in the claims provides extensive additional limitations to make
the claims patent eligible. Appeal Br. 12.
In particular, Appellant argues that the trading engine itself is not an
abstract idea because it is configured to receive orders, generate real-time
pricing based on bids and offers, identify matching orders, receive news
(information) that impacts trading, parse the news into calendar of activities,
establish links for communication with financing institutions and banks, and
allow traders to access external financing institutions and banks, and receive
confirmation of credit from bank or financial institutions. Id.
Appellant argues that three other limitations beyond performing the
financial transactions of commodities trading are recited as (1) receiving and
parsing recited information, (2) permitting traders to have access to banking
and financing services through the trading engine, and (3) providing traders
with access to external and internal service providers. Id. at 13.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

13
These arguments are not persuasive for several reasons. First, these
limitations recite abstract ideas as discussed above in Step 2A, Prong One.
“It has been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible
concept to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that
renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”
BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290; see id. at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing or
reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”); see
also RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding
and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract.”); Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim
for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”); Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v.
SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (claims that improved
an abstract idea, but not a computer’s performance, were held unpatentable).
Second, the description of these features in the Specification makes
clear that they do not improve computers or other technology. Instead, they
are generic computers and components that perform generic functions to link
the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, but they do not
improve computers or other technology. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55 & n.30; MPEP § 2106.05(f); Final Act. 5 (generic computers do
not impose meaningful limits on the abstract idea and merely implement the
abstract idea with a generic computerized system and generic components).
These features do not implement the abstract idea with a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim. See Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Nor do these elements transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing. Id.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

14
These features provide a business solution that reduces costs rather
than a technical solution to a technical problem. They aggregate services so
traders can access finances, information, and other services without leaving
the system. Spec. 17:4–27. They “streamlin[e] front-to back-office, [so]
operating costs are significantly cut [for] all players in the market.” Id. at
6:1–3. “[B]y aggregating the marketplaces and ancillary services, the
system offers end-to-end transactions at prices substantially lower than
present rates.” Id. at 6:5–7. “Aggregating entire commodity markets with
the common, integral services of all customers creates unrivaled profitability
and cost-efficiency opportunities.” Id. at 13:21–22.
The “trading engine” is described generically as a “Software Trading
engine” software component. Spec. 15:5. It includes real-time posting and
matching algorithms to generate bids and offers. Id. at 19:11–15. Computer
system 100 includes a generic bus 102, main memory 106 (RAM), processor
104, and storage device 110. Id. at 10:14–25. Communication interface 118
provides two-way data communication via network link 120, which connects
to local network 122 and may be an integrated services digital network
(ISDN) card, modem, local area network card, or wireless link that sends
and receives electrical, electromagnetic, or optical signals that carry digital
data streams representing various types of information. Id. at 12:19–27.
A network link 120 performs generic data communication through
one or more networks to other data devices such as local network 122 or to
data equipment of Internet Service Provider 126. Id. at 13:1–10. Computer
system 100 can send messages and receive data, to include program code,
through the network(s), network link 120, and communication interface 118
to include Internet 128, ISP 126, and local network 122. Id. at 13:11–15.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

15
Nor are we persuaded that the Internet adds an additional limitation
even if we give patentable weight to the preamble of claim 1. See Appeal
Br. 12. Mere “invocation of the Internet also adds no inventive concept.”
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“As we
have held, the use of the Internet is not sufficient to save otherwise abstract
claims from ineligibility under § 101.”); BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1348 (“An
abstract idea on ‘an Internet computer network’ or on a generic computer is
still an abstract idea.”). The Specification makes clear the Internet is used in
its generic capacity as a publicly-accessible network. The claimed method
“utilize[e] the Internet’s unique ability to break down the barriers of access
to information, transparency, geography and time . . . to minimize the
current inefficiencies in commodities trading.” Spec. 5:26–6:1.
Automating trades and notifications though a trading engine, recited
as generic computer functions, does not make the claims patent-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.”); Bancorp Servs.,
L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir.
2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations could be performed more
efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of
the claimed subject matter.”); see also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie
Indemnity Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Though the
claims purport to accelerate the process of finding errant files and to reduce
error, we have held that speed and accuracy increases stemming from the
ordinary capabilities of a general-purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter
the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”’).
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

16
We agree with the Examiner that the generic computer components
perform basic functions of storing, retrieving, processing, and displaying
data via a program that executes the abstract ideas. Ans. 9. The content of
information, even limited to a particular context, does not alter its character
as information or make an abstract idea patent-eligible. Id.; Final Act. 5
“[M]erely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (manipulating existing
information to generate additional information is not patent eligible).
Here, claim 1 does not improve computer function, use abstract ideas
on a particular machine that is integral to the claim, or transform or reduce
an article to a different state. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The focus of claim 1 is on certain abstract ideas that use generic computing
components as tools. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Ans. 10–11.
Any improvement relates to operating costs and business efficiencies
that lower transaction prices rather than elements that are rooted in computer
technology and solve a technical problem arising in the realm of computer
networks or provide a specific improvement to the way computers operate.
See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1095; Ans. 10; Appeal Br. 24–27.
The decisions in DDR Holdings and Trading Technologies illustrate
that the claims in this appeal are not patent-eligible. Those cases involved
improvements to computers or network technologies that are lacking in this
appeal and the claimed trading engine. See Appeal Br. 27.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

17
DDR dealt with a computer- and Internet-specific problem of websites
losing visitors to third-party merchants when visitors clicked on a third-party
merchant’s advertisement on a host site. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1248 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The system there generated a
new, composite web page that retained the look and feel of the host website
while displaying product information of a third-party merchant. Id. at 1248–
49. Here, the claimed method processes information without providing an
improved format or structure comparable to the hybrid web page in DDR
Holdings. Such basic data gathering and processing differs from the claims
at issue in DDR Holdings. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 & n.31.
In Trading Technologies, the claimed method of displaying market
information recited more than “‘setting, displaying, and selecting’ data or
information that is visible on the [graphical user interface] device.” Trading
Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
The patents did not “simply claim displaying information on a graphical user
interface.” They required “a specific, structured graphical user interface
paired with a prescribed functionality directly related to the graphical user
interface’s structure.” Id. No similar display is claimed here.
We find more persuasive and applicable the decision in Trading
Technologies International v. IBG. There, the court held:
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 recite a purportedly new
arrangement of generic information that assists traders in
processing information more quickly. . . . We conclude that the
claims are directed to the abstract idea of graphing bids and
offers to assist a trader to make an order.

Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

18
Accordingly, we determine that the claims do not include additional
elements that integrate the abstract ideas recited therein into a practical
application.
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether the claims recite elements, individually or
as an ordered combination, which provide an inventive concept. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18. This second step of the Alice test is satisfied when the claim
limitations involve more than performance of well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities previously known to the industry. Berkheimer v. HP
Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (internal quotations and citation
omitted); see also Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (explaining that the
second step of the Alice analysis considers whether a claim adds a specific
limitation beyond a judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” activity in the field).
As discussed above, the claims recite generic components performing
generic computer functions such as receiving orders and other information,
analyzing and parsing the information, and communicating information.
USPTO Memorandum of April 19, 2018, “Changes in Examination
Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter
Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-berkheimer-
20180419.PDF (“Berkheimer memo”), indicates that the Specification may
describe additional elements in a manner that indicates the elements are
sufficiently well-known that the specification need not describe their
particulars to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Berkheimer memo at 3–4. This is
such a case. See Spec. 10:14–18:6, Figs. 1, 2.
Appeal 2019-005843
Application 14/327,816

19
Individually, the claims recite the abstract ideas identified above as
applied on generic components. Steps of receiving, storing, analyzing, and
displaying data are generic computer operations. See In re Katz Interactive
Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Any
additional elements beyond the abstract ideas are well-understood, routine,
and conventional computer activities recited in claim 1. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56; see MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Nor is there anything unconventional about the “ordered combination”
that is not merely the sum of the parts. See In re TLI Commc’ns Patent Lit.,
823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding “recited physical components
[that] behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary use,” through
“steps that generically spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a telephone
network’ also cannot confer patent eligibility”).
Accordingly, we determine that the claims do not recite any elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the abstract ideas into patent eligible subject matter.
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–8 and 21–28 as directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter under a judicial exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 21–28 101 Eligibility 1–8, 21–28
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED