Nadgir, Devaprasad K. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 21, 2020

13111635 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 21, 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.
13/111,635 05/19/2011 Devaprasad K. Nadgir IN920110043US1 5901
58139 7590 09/21/2020
IBM CORP. (WSM)
c/o WINSTEAD P.C.
P.O. BOX 131851
DALLAS, TX 75313
EXAMINER
TORGRIMSON, TYLER J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2165
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/21/2020 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):
patdocket@winstead.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte DEVAPRASAD K. NADGIR and
VIJAY C. TELUKAPALLI
________________

Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635
Technology Center 2100
________________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JON M. JURGOVAN, and KARA
L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 8–21, which constitute all of the pending claims.1
Appeal Br. 4–24. These claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter
without significantly more. Final Action mailed March 30, 2018 (“Final
Act.”), 3–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation. Appeal Brief filed July 13,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”), 1.
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s Specification describes the present invention as follows:
A method, system and computer program product for
graphically displaying lifecycle information of a governed object
in a service registry in combination with the policies associated
with the lifecycle states. Properties (e.g., object type, current
lifecycle state) are retrieved for a governed object. Additionally,
lifecycle definitions for the current lifecycle state and one or
more potential future lifecycle states associated with the
governed object are retrieved. Furthermore, policy definitions
that apply to the object type, the current lifecycle state and one
or more potential future lifecycle states are retrieved. A table is
then built that correlates the retrieved lifecycle definitions with
the retrieved policy definitions. A graphical representation is
generated detailing the current lifecycle state, transitions to the
one or more potential future lifecycle states and the policy
definitions that apply to each transition for the governed object
based on the built table.
Abstract.
Appellant further explains on appeal,
the claimed invention improves the processing efficiency of
computing systems utilizing the service-oriented architecture by
building a table that correlates the lifecycle definitions for the
current lifecycle state and one or more potential lifecycle states
with the policy definitions. As a result, a graphical
representation may be generated that details the lifecycle states,
including the next possible transitions and the policies that apply
at each transition.
Appeal Br. 6.
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

3
Independent claim 8 illustrates the subject matter of the appealed
claims.2 We reproduce claim 8 with paragraph numbering added for clarity
and emphasis added to the claim language that recites an abstract idea:
8. A computer program product embodied in a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium for graphically displaying
lifecycle information of a governed object in combination with
policies associated with lifecycle states, the computer program
product comprising the programming instructions for:
[(a)] retrieving properties of said governed object from
an object model of a configuration profile of a service registry
container and from a governed objects module of said service
registry container, wherein said properties comprise an object
type and a current lifecycle state, wherein said object model
stores information relating to properties of objects, wherein said
governed objects module stores properties of objects in said
service registry container that are governed;
[(b)] retrieving lifecycle definitions from a lifecycle
definitions module of said configuration profile of said service
registry container for said current lifecycle state and one or more
potential future lifecycle states associated with said governed
object, wherein said lifecycle definitions module stores various
states an object can transition through its life;
[(c)] retrieving policy definitions from a policy
definitions module of said configuration profile of said service
registry container that apply to said object type, said current
lifecycle state and said one or more potential future lifecycle
states, wherein said policy definitions module stores policies or
rules that are applied to objects;

2 Appellant argues various claims together as a group. Appeal Br. 4–11. We
select independent claim 1 as representative of those claims that are not
argued separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“When multiple claims
subject to the same ground of rejection are argued as a group or subgroup by
appellant, the Board may select a single claim from the group or subgroup
and may decide the appeal as to the ground of rejection with respect to the
group or subgroup on the basis of the selected claim alone.”).
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

4
[(d)] building a table correlating said lifecycle
definitions for said current lifecycle state and said one or more
potential future lifecycle states with said policy definitions
thereby determining relationships between lifecycle transitions
and policy definitions; and
[(e)] generating, by utilizing a governance lifecycle view
adapter of said service registry container, a graphical
representation detailing said current lifecycle state, transitions to
said one or more potential future lifecycle states and said policy
definitions that apply to each transition for said governed object
using said table, wherein said graphical representation is
accessible by a client application of an end user via an
application programming interface.

THE EXAMINER’S DETERMINATIONS
The Examiner determines that claim 8 “describe[s] the concept of
retrieving information of a specific content, analyzing the retrieved
information, and displaying the result of the analysis, which corresponds to
concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts.” Final Act. 4 (citing
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The Examiner further determines that “[claim 8] does not include
additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than
the judicial exception because the additional elements[,] when considered
both individually and as an ordered combination[,] do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea.” Final Act. 5. According to the
Examiner, the additional limitations of “a non-transitory computer readable
storage medium,” “a client application,” and “assorted ‘module[s]’” “are
recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

5
computer functions routinely used in computer applications.” Id. (alteration
in original).
Appellant presents various arguments, which we address in the
Analysis section, below. In so doing, the Board conducts a limited de novo
review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified
by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. SECTION 101
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–77). In
accordance with that framework, we first determine what concept the claim
is “directed to.” See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims
before us are drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use
of a third party to mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561
U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the
basic concept of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

6
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
B. USPTO SECTION 101 GUIDANCE
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

7
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019
Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the
availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel
are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019
Guidance Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites
the following:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (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)).
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

8
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

ANALYSIS
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance, we first look to
whether the claim recites any judicial exceptions, including certain
groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes). 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–54.
Limitation (d) recites “building a table correlating said lifecycle
definitions for said current lifecycle state and said one or more potential
future lifecycle states with said policy definitions thereby determining
relationships between lifecycle transitions and policy definitions.” Building
a correlation table, as claimed, can be performed by a human creating a table
of observed correlations between lifecycle states. As such, limitation (d)
recites an evaluation or judgment that can be performed in the human mind,
possibly with the aid of pencil and paper.
The 2019 Guidance expressly recognizes mental processes, such as
evaluations and judgments that can be performed in the human mind, as
constituting patent-ineligible abstract ideas. 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52. The “mental processes” judicial exception also includes concepts that
can be performed by a human with a pen and paper as well as those that can
be performed entirely in the mind. See October 2019 PEG Update at 9
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

9
(“A claim that encompasses a human performing the step(s) mentally with
the aid of a pen and paper recites a mental process”) (emphasis omitted).
For these reasons, limitation (d) recites a judicial exception to patent-
eligible subject matter (an abstract idea) under step 2A, prong 1, of the
2019 Guidance.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether claim 8 recites additional elements that individually or in
combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The 2019 Guidance provides
exemplary considerations that are indicative of an additional element or
combination of elements integrating the judicial exception into a practical
application, such as an additional element reflecting an improvement in the
functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or
technical field. Id. at 55; MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner’s reliance on Electric Power
Group is misplaced because, “[t]he claimed invention is not simply directed
to retrieving information of a specific content, analyzing the retrieved
information and displaying a result of the analysis.” Appeal Br. 4.
According to Appellant, “the claimed invention[, instead,] is directed to
utilizing fewer computing resources to identify the next possible lifecycle
state for the service or logical objects[,] as well as the policies that would
apply to such transitions by the end user. Id. In support of this assertion,
Appellant reproduces the entire language of claim 8. Id. at 4–5.
Appellant’s assertion is unpersuasive because the recitation of the
entire claim language does not constitute an argument on the merits, much
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

10
less provide persuasive evidence that the invention entails using fewer
computing resources. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (“[a] statement [that]
merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument
for separate patentability of the claim.”).
Appellant additionally argues, “[t]he claimed invention is directed to
building a table correlating the lifecycle definitions for the current lifecycle
state and the one or more potential future lifecycle states with the policy
definitions[,] thereby determining relationships between lifecycle transitions
and policy definitions.” Appeal Br. 5. This argument is unpersuasive
because, as explained in section 2A, prong 1, above, the step of correlating
the lifecycle states with policy definitions constitutes the underlying abstract
idea, itself. See BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“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.”); 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.”)
(emphasis omitted); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract
application realm.”).
Appellant further argues, “the claimed invention is not simply directed
to retrieving information of a specific content, analyzing the retrieved
information[,] and displaying a result of the analysis” because
the claimed invention is directed to generating a graphical
representation detailing the current lifecycle state, transitions to
the one or more potential future lifecycle states and the policy
definitions that apply to each transition for the governed object
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

11
based on the built table as opposed to merely displaying retrieved
information. For example, the graphical representation details
the relationships between the lifecycle transitions and policy
definitions by correlating the lifecycle definitions for the current
lifecycle state and the one or more future lifecycle states with the
policy definitions. This is not information that is simply
retrieved.
Appeal Br. 5–6.
This argument is unpersuasive because it does not respond to the
Examiner’s basis of rejection. The Examiner did not take the position that
claim 8 merely recites displaying retrieved information. See generally Final
Act. Rather, the Examiner takes the position that claim 8 recites retrieving
data, analyzing the data by performing the recited correlations, and
displaying the result of the analysis. Final Act. 4–5 (citing Electric Power
Group for the proposition that merely “collecting information, analyzing it,
and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” to be patent
ineligible).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 8 merely entails collecting
information (see the retrieving steps of limitations (a) through (c)), analyzing
the information (limitation (d)), and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis (see the graphical-representation generating step of
limitation (e)). Furthermore, Appellant’s argument essentially
acknowledges claim 8 entails collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis. Appeal Br. 5–6.
Moreover, limitation (e)’s final step of generating a graphical
representation does not add significantly more to the abstract idea of
building a correlation table because the step of generating graphical
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

12
representations of the lifecycle states, transitions, and policy definitions
merely constitutes insignificant post-solution activity:
An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not
integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to
output a report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a
claim to a computer programmed to analyze and manipulate
information about credit card transactions in order to detect
whether the transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Appellant argues,
the current representation of lifecycle states in State Adaptive
Choreography Language (SACL) and policies are in a disjoint
and disconnected manner thereby making it difficult for the end
user to predict the next possible lifecycle states as well as the
policies that apply to each next possible transition. By not being
able to predict the next possible states as well as the policies that
apply to each next possible transition, such service oriented
environments suffer from inefficiencies in which the policies or
rules that apply to the service objects or logical objects from
service documents in future lifecycle states may not be easily
identified by the end user. As a result, the end user would waste
time and computing resources in attempting to identify the next
possible lifecycle state for these service or logical objects[,] as
well as the policies that would apply to such transitions.
The claimed invention addresses such a technical problem
with a technical solution by providing the means for graphically
displaying lifecycle information of a governed object in a service
registry in combination with the policies associated with the
lifecycle states thereby allowing the end user to identify the next
possible lifecycle state for these service or logical objects as well
as the policies that would apply to such transitions. . . . As a
result, less time is wasted and fewer computing resources are
utilized in attempting to identify the next possible lifecycle state
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

13
for these service or logical objects[,] as well as the policies that
would apply to such transitions by the end user.
Appeal Br. 9–10 (citing Spec. 11:9–18); see also Appeal Br. 11–19 (where
Appellant similarly argues, the claimed invention is directed to an
improvement in computer capabilities).
These arguments are unpersuasive because improving the ease with
which a user can identify state information visually does not constitute an
improvement in computer capabilities or a technical solution to a technical
problem. Rather, this improvement entails using a computer to enable a user
to work more efficiently. Our reviewing court held that where an “invention
makes the trader faster and more efficient, not the computer . . . [, it] is not a
technical solution to a technical problem.” Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC,
921 F.3d 1084, 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2019); see also id. at 1093 (claims are
abstract where “they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assists traders in processing information more quickly”).
Appellant again reproduces the entirety of claim 8, this time
emphasizing language of limitations (a) through (c) that recites retrieving the
various data used in the table-building step of limitation (d). Appeal Br. 19–
20. Appellant asserts that this claim language provides evidence that the
claim integrates the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Id.
at 19.
This argument is unpersuasive because the data-retrieving steps of
limitations (a) through (c) merely constitute insignificant pre-solution
activity.
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for
use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining information
about credit card transactions, which is recited as part of a
claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the gathered
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

14
information by a series of steps in order to detect whether the
transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Appellant also argues that “[f]or the Board to conclude that
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter
would run counter to [Congress’s intent] that any new and useful process,
machine, manufacture or compositions of matter under the sun that is made
by man is the proper subject matter of a patent.” Appeal Br. 24 (citing
MPEP § 2106). This argument is unpersuasive because it ignores the
limitations that the judiciary has placed on the scope of patent-eligible
subject matter.
For these reasons, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 8 is
directed to an improvement in the function of a computer or to any other
technology or technical field. MPEP § 2106.05(a). Nor does Appellant
persuasively demonstrate that claim 8 is directed to a particular machine or
transformation, or that claim 8 adds any other meaningful limitations for the
purposes of the analysis under Section 101. MPEP §§ 2106.05(b), (c), (e).
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us that claim 8 integrates the
recited abstract ideas into a practical application within the meaning of the
2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Step 2B
Under step 2B of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze whether
claim 8 adds any specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that,
either alone or as an ordered combination, amount to more than “well-
understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field. 84 Fed. Reg. at 56;
MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

15
Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to perform a factual
determination as to whether the claim limitations of Appellant’s claimed
invention is routine, conventional and well-understood, as required by our
reviewing court. Appeal Br. 7 (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369,
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Appellant subsequently reiterates,
The Examiner has failed to perform a factual determination as to
whether the additional elements recited in independent claims 8
and 15, such as the object model, the governed objects module,
the lifecycle definitions module, the policy definitions module,
etc. . . . [were] routine, conventional[,] and well-understood that
were previously engaged in by those in the field of the present
invention.
Reply Brief filed Dec. 11, 2018 (“Reply Br.”), 5 (citing Berkheimer).
This argument is unpersuasive for reasons beyond the fact that
Appellant fails to provide persuasive evidence for why any of the claims’
additional elements are allegedly other than well-understood, routine, and
conventional. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br. Specifically, Appellant
effectively acknowledges that the use of object models, as well as object and
policy definitions, was routine. See Spec. 1–3 (wherein the Background
Section of the Specification discussing the existing state of Service Oriented
Architecture); see also Appeal Br. 7–10 (wherein Appellant acknowledges
that service oriented architecture was known and that Appellant’s invention
entails retrieving and correlating the data from known memories or data
storage “modules” so that the information can be represented in a graphical
display that aids an end user in identifying future lifecycle states).
Appellant also argues that the non-conventional nature of the
additional elements is evidenced by the fact that “the Examiner has not cited
to any prior art reference that discusses the concept of building a table that
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

16
correlates the lifecycle definitions for the current lifecycle state and one or
more potential lifecycle states with the policy definitions.” Appeal Br. 22;
see also id. at 7 (where Appellant repeats this argument).
This argument is unpersuasive because “[t]he ‘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.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–
89. A novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is,
nonetheless, patent ineligible. Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also Flook,
437 U.S. at 594–95 (holding claims to “a new and presumably better method
for calculating alarm limit values,” of undisputed usefulness, to be directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter); see also Ass’n for Molecular Pathology
v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013) (“Groundbreaking,
innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101
inquiry.”).
Furthermore, Appellant’s Specification does not indicate that
consideration of these conventional elements as an ordered combination
adds any significance beyond the additional elements, as considered
individually. Rather, Appellant’s Specification indicates that the invention
is directed to an abstract idea that is made more efficient with generic
computer components—generating “a graphical representation . . . that
illustrates the current lifecycle state, next lifecycle states, possible
transitions[,] and constraints represented as policy assertions on the
transitions.” Spec. 6.
For these reasons, we determine that claim 8 does not recite additional
elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination, amount to
Appeal 2019-001485
Application 13/111,635

17
significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning of the
2019 Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP § 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to a judicial exception to patent-eligible
subject matter. We, likewise, sustain the 101 rejection of claims 9–21, either
because Appellant does not argue these claims separately or for the reasons
set forth above. Appeal Br. 24.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
8–21 101 Eligibility 8–21