Maga, Matteo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

11347136 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/347,136 02/03/2006 Matteo Maga 10022/740 4859
28164 7590 01/23/2020
BGL/Accenture - Chicago
BRINKS GILSON & LIONE
P O BOX 10395
CHICAGO, IL 60610
EXAMINER
BEHNCKE, CHRISTINE M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 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 MATTEO MAGA, PAOLO CANALE, and
ASTRID BOHE

____________

Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136
Technology Center 3600

____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, 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 1–6, 42–45, and 47–54. 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 Accenture
Global Services Limited. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to “managing churn among the
customers of a business.” (Spec., Abstract.) In particular, “[t]he system and
method provide for an analysis of the causes of customer churn and
identifies customers who are most likely to churn in the future.” (Id.)
Claims 1, 42, and 48 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative. It recites:
1. A data mining system comprising;
a memory device having stored thereon a data mart
comprising current customer data and historical customer data
received from a plurality of different data sources, the current
and historical customer data comprising multiple month
aggregated usage, revenue, contact and product information
respectively associated with each of a plurality of different
respective customers;
a processor in communication with the memory device;
a data manipulation module executable by the processor
to:
selectively and dynamically extract portions of the
historical customer data stored in the data mart for each of
the plurality of customers in accordance with technical
constraints determined with the data manipulation module
based on a definition of customer churn selectable from a
set of definitions of customer churn;
calculate a plurality of derived variable values from
the extracted portions of the historical customer data, the
derived variables determined in accordance with the
selected definition of customer churn,
identify variables repeatedly included in the
extracted portion of the historical customer data of each of
the customers having a continuous smooth domain of
variability,
average, for each of the customers, the variables
repeatedly included in the historical customer data of each
of the customers to generate corresponding average
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

3
variables of each respective customer as first derived
variable values in association with the selected definition
of customer churn,
store the first derived variable values in the data
mart;
create with the corresponding averaged variables of
each respective customer and the current customer data a
respective customer distribution of the customers,
classify a respective customer according to a
position of the respective customer in the respective
customer distribution;
calculate second derived variable values for each of
the customers as respective classifications according to the
position of the respective customer in the respective
customer distribution and store the second derived
variable in the data mart, wherein the respective
classifications of the customers from a plurality of
different respective customer distributions are indicative
of customer characteristics of each one of the respective
customers according to the selected definition of churn;
and
select an input data set to create customer analytical
records associated with the selected definition of customer
churn, the customer analytical records for use with a data
mining tool to maximize discovery of patterns of customer
behavior with the data mining tool in accordance with the
selected definition of customer churn, wherein:
the input data set includes the first and second
derived variable values; and
the selection of the input data set is based on
an analysis of historical customer data stored in the
data mart;
the data mining tool executable by the processor to
perform a multi-dimensional clustering analysis data mining
function using at least the first and second derived variable
values included in the input data set and the historical data to
discover clusters of customers sharing common characteristics or
attributes in accordance with the selected definition of customer
churn; and
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

4
an end user access module executable by the processor to
perform analytical processing of the clusters of customers by
enabling dynamic manipulation and contrasting of historical
data, current data and the first and second derived variable values
to generate, on a display device in communication with the
processor, a graphical representation identifying the clusters of
customers, resulting from the clustering analysis, with propensity
to churn, the end user access module also executable by the
processor to generate a customer retention target list, the
graphical representation indicative of patterns and associations
between customers in the clusters based on the derived variables,
and the customer retention target list provided to an automated
system for implementation of a customer retention program.

REJECTION
Claims 1–6, 42–45, and 47–54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

ANALYSIS
Appellant does not separately argue claims 49–54. We select claim 1
as representative. Claims 49–54 will stand or fall with claim 1. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
“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. 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)).
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

5
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”).
Here, the Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to “calculating
derived variable values from historical customer data, to discover customers
sharing common characteristics or attributes in accordance with the selected
definition of customer churn.” (Final Action 7 (emphasis omitted).)
Appellant argues the “the claims in this case are directed to specific
systems and method for accomplishing a result of maximizing discovery of
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

6
patterns of customer behavior with a data mining tool in accordance with the
selected definition of customer churn – not to the result itself.” (Reply Br. 4
(emphasis omitted).)
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
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 “managing churn among the customers of a business.” (Spec., Abstract.)
Claim 1 provides further evidence. Claim 1 recites “a memory device,” “a
processor in communication with the memory device to . . . extract portions
of the historical customer data stored in the data mart,” “calculate a plurality
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

7
of derived variable values,” “identify variables,” “average . . . variables,”
“store the first derived variables,” “create . . . averaged variables,” “classify
a respective customer,” “calculate second derived variable values,” “select
an input data set . . . associated with the selected definition of customer
churn . . . for use with a data mining tool,” “the data mining tool executable
by the processor to perform a multi-dimensional clustering analysis, “and an
end user access module executable by the processor to perform analytical
processing of the clusters of customers . . . [and] generate, on a display
device . . . , a graphical representation identifying the clusters of customers,
. . . [and] a customer retention list.”
In short, claim 1 recites a generic processor in communication with a
generic memory device to obtain data, calculate values, identify data,
average values, store data, create data, classify data, calculate additional
data, obtain additional data associated with a selected definition, perform a
clustering analysis on data, perform analysis of the clusters, and present
results on a generic display device. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 29, 33, 34, Fig. 2.)
The claim limitations do not recite technological implementation
details for any of the steps. Nor does claim 1 recite “a particular way of
programming or designing the software . . . , but instead merely claim[s] the
resulting systems.” 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. In short, claim 1 does not recite a specific asserted improvement to
computer technology.
In view of the above evidence, we determine that claim 1 is directed
to a system for identifying customers sharing common characteristics or
attributes, e.g., customers with a propensity to churn, i.e., “advertising,
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

8
marketing or sales activities or behaviors.” (See 2019 Guidance at 52.)
Independent claims 42 and 48 contain similar language. (Claim 42 recites
“[a] method of identifying customers,” and claim 48 recites “[a] computer-
readable non-transitory storage medium comprising a plurality of
instructions . . . to generate a customer retention target list.”) Thus, like
claim 1, claims 42 and 48 are directed to “advertising, marketing or sales
activities or behaviors.” (See id.) Therefore, the claims are directed to the
abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. (See id.)
This is in accord with the Examiner’s determination. (See Final Action 7.)
Although we and the Examiner describe, at different levels of
abstraction, to what the claims are directed, it is recognized that “[a]n
abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”
Apple, Inc., 842 F.3d at 1240. That need not and, in this case, does not
“impact the patentability analysis.” See id. at 1241.
Moreover, we do not see how the recitation of a generic processor, a
generic memory device, and a generic display device, even in conjunction
with the recited functions, “ensure[s] ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea].’” See Alice, 573 U.S.
at 221 (brackets in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77.)
Appellant, however, argues that the claims
describe technical solutions to technical problems faced when
trying to consider, compare, and cross reference a vast number
of different customer attributes and variables. The technical
solution described in the claims is far from an abstract idea as it
relates to solving the technical problem of effective multi-
dimensional clustering analysis by developing an objective
repeatable clustering analysis to analyze large numbers of
customer attributes of individual customers and identify
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

9
significant customer groupings of different customers based on
derived variable values.

(Appeal Br. 20; see also Supp. Br. 3.2) Appellant further argues:
The claims also recite additional aspects of the technical
solution to the technical problem of maximizing the discovery
power of the data mining tool. For example paragraph [0034] of
Appellant’s specification provides:
“In order to maximize the discovery power of the
data mining tool, variables known to be significant
to identifying and predicting churn are provided to
the data mining module 116. The data manipulation
module 114 pulls the necessary data from the data
mart 110, calculates derived variables and formats
others to create data files for feeding data into the
data mining module 116. The effectiveness of the
data mining operation is highly dependent on the
quality of the data provided to the data mining tool.
Accordingly, as will be described in more detail
below, great care must be taken in the selection of
the variables supplied to the data mining tool. The
data manipulation module 114 is also responsible
for receiving the output from the data mining
module and loading the results back into the data
mart 110.”
This technical solution is far from an abstract idea as it
relates to data structure manipulation in the form of structuring
customer data using derived variable values to provide clustering
analysis.

(Appeal Br. 21; see also id. at 25 (arguing that paragraph 34 of the
Specification also details “improvement in computer functionality.”)
We do not find these arguments persuasive. The
subject [of the claims] is nothing but a series of mathematical
calculations based on selected information and the presentation

2 “Supp Br.” refers to the Supplemental Brief Appellant filed on
January 6, 2020.
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

10
of the results of those calculations . . . . No 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.

SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appellant further argues “that the technical solution described in the
claims closely aligns with Enfish.” (Reply Br. 2.) Specifically, Appellant
argues that
similar to Enfish, operation of the data mining tool is improved
due to the creation and use of the first and second derived
variables which are stored in customer analytical records
(CARS), where such CARS that include the first and second
derived variables specifically improve the processing
capabilities of the computer to discover attributes that would
otherwise be undiscoverable.

(Id.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. The claims in Enfish were
“specifically directed to a self-referential table for a computer database.”
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. That is, “the plain focus of the claims [was] on an
improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks
for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity.” Id. at 1336. Here,
the processor, memory device, and display device are used in their ordinary
capacity. Appellant’s argument, in sum, is that use of the derived variables
produces a better result. But an improvement to the resulting information is
not equivalent to an improvement in computer functionality. 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.”).
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

11
Appellant also seeks to analogize the claims to those in DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). (Appeal
Br. 21–22.) Specifically, Appellant argues that “[t]he claims also recite
additional aspects of the technical solution related to the technical problem
of maximizing the discovery power of the data mining tool.” (Id. at 21
(citing Spec. ¶ 34).) However, as noted above, paragraph 34 discloses that
“[i]n order to maximize the discovery power of the data mining tool,
variables known to be significant to identifying and predicting churn are
provided to the data mining module 116.” In other words, Appellant’s
argument is that an important aspect to maximizing the discovery power of
the data mining tool is the use of better data. For the reasons discussed
above, we do not find the argument persuasive. See BSG Tech LLC, 899
F.3d at 1288. In contrast, the claims in DDR Holdings “specify how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result –– a
result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events
ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d
at 1258 (emphasis added). Appellant does not persuasively argue why a
system that provides variables known to be significant to the data mining
module is analogous to a system for “overrid[ing] the routine and
conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
hyperlink.” See id.
Appellant also seeks to analogize the claims to the claims in McRO,
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
(Reply Br. 5.) Appellant argues that “the present case[] describes rules that
are used by the data mining tool computer to render derived variables into a
specific format, which are used to set graphical representations indicative of
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

12
patterns and associations between customers in clusters.” (Id.) 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 [identification of
clusters of customers with propensity to churn] with no improved display
mechanism.” SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d at 1167.
Appellant also argues that the claims are “narrowly tailored” and that
“the claimed invention does not preempt others from performing activities
toward clustering and generation of data variables.” (Appeal Br. 44.) We
do not find this argument persuasive. Preemption is not a separate test.
“Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to disclose patent ineligible
subject matter under the Mayo framework, as they are in this case,
preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In other words, “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
[but] the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent
eligibility.” Id.
With regard to dependent claim 3, Appellant argues that it describes
technical details because it “describes that the data mart is configured to
receive multiple raw customer data sets over time,” and “that the use of a
slope of a trend line as first derived variable values, which are included in a
data set used to create a customer analytical record does not ‘merely limit
the abstract idea to a particular environment.’” (Appeal Br. 36–37.)
The Examiner answers that the
additional elements are not significantly more than the abstract
idea because the claims are not seen to recite an improvement to
another technology or technical field, an improvement to the
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

13
functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations
beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a
particular technological environment.

(Answer 7.) Additionally, the “Examiner notes that discovering patterns of
customer behavior does not arise solely in computing applications.
Appellant presents no evidence that this is a technical problem. The
problem does not arise from computer structures, but rather from the data
itself.” (Id. at 9.) Claim 3 merely recites additional details for performing
the abstract idea. We are not persuaded of error.
For the same reasons, we do not find persuasive of error Appellant’s
argument that “claims 2-6, which depend from claim 1[,] further describe the
technical details of how the derived variables are calculated and/or creation
of the customer analytical records.” (Appeal Br. 36.)
Appellant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 43–45 and 47
(Appeal Br. 40) are also unpersuasive. Like dependent claim 3, these claims
merely recite additional details for performing the abstract idea. The
“subject [of the claims] is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations
based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those
calculations.” SAP Am., Inc., 898 F.3d at 1163.
Moreover, we find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing. Nor do we find anything of record that attributes an
improvement in computer technology or functionality to the claimed
invention or that otherwise indicates that the claimed invention “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 2019
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

14
Guidance at 54–55.) As such, under step one of the Alice framework, the
claims are directed to an abstract idea, and we move 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 the features of the claims are not conventional
or routine and add significantly more. (See Appeal Br. 35–42.) Specifically,
Appellant argues that “the claims in this application are directed to novel,
non-obvious technical solutions.” (Id. at 36.) We do not find this argument
persuasive. 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).
Taking the claim elements separately, the functions performed in
claim 1 by the generic processor, generic memory device, and generic
display device, are purely conventional. (See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 29, 33, 34,
Fig. 2.) Obtaining data, calculating values, identifying data, averaging
values, storing data, creating data, classifying data, calculating additional
data, obtaining additional data, analyzing data (performing a clustering
analysis and analyzing the clusters), and presenting results are well-
understood, routine, and conventional functions previously known to the
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

15
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
components of Appellant’s claimed invention add nothing that is not already
present when the limitations are considered separately. (See e.g., Spec.,
Fig. 2.) For example, claim 1 does not, as discussed above, purport to
improve the functioning of the computing components themselves. 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 generic computing components performing
routine computer functions. (See Answer 7.) That is not enough to
transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573
U.S. at 225–26.
Appellant argues that independent
claim 42 describes a number of different features which provide
significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In a first
example, claim 42 describes selectively extracting, with a
processor, a first set of raw customer data from a data mart in
accordance with technical constraints determined with the
processor based on a definition of customer churn selectable
from a set of definitions of customer churn, the raw customer
Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

16
data being a portion of current data and historical data
comprising multiple month aggregated usage, revenue, contact
and product information respectively associated with a plurality
of customers, wherein each customer has at least one of a
plurality of customer characteristics. Such activities are not
included in the list of well-understood, routine and conventional
functions . . . .

(Appeal Br. 37.)
We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 42 recite a generic
processor performing purely conventional functions, e.g., extracting data,
formatting data, calculating values, storing data, analyzing data, and
displaying data. Like claim 1 discussed above, the claim limitations do not
recite technological implementation details for any of the steps or a
particular way of programming. See Apple, Inc., 842 F.3d at 1241.
Claim 42 merely recites functional results to be achieved by any means. It
does not recite a specific asserted improvement to computer technology.
Appellant makes similar arguments for independent claim 48 (Appeal
Br. 40–41), and for similar reasons we find the arguments unpersuasive.
“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 the ineligible concept.”
BSG Tech LLC, 899 F.3d at 1290. In other words, “under the Mayo/Alice
framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural
phenomenon or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery
for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.” Genetic Techs.
Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C., 818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

Appeal 2018-003433
Application 11/347,136

17
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–6, 42–45, and 47–54 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.

Specifically:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–6, 42–
45, 47–54
101 eligibility 1–6, 42–45,
47–54

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