Philip Myron. Ginsberg

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

2018008799 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 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.
14/330,601 07/14/2014 Philip Myron Ginsberg 06-1127-C1 9126
63710 7590 08/04/2020
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
OYEBISI, OJO O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3697
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 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):
lkorovich@cantor.com
mcatarino@cgolaw.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte PHILIP MYRON GINSBERG
____________________

Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,6011
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, MARC S. HOFF and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–17, and 22–32.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appellants’ invention concerns trade in an object of commerce. A
computed tradeable price for the object of commerce is calculated by a
computer in conformance to a standard published to traders. The standard
specifies rules for calculating the tradeable price based on orders received or

1 Appellant states that CFPH, LLC is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 4, 10, and 18–21 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

2
trades executed in the market. Based at least in part on the computed
tradeable price, trades are executed or negotiated for the object of
commerce. Abstract.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising the steps of:

receiving, by at least one computer processor via an electronic
network, a plurality of bids and a plurality of offers from traders in a
market for an object of commerce, each bid and offer including a
price;

determining, by at least one computer processor, that at least
some of the received bids and offers are not fully executed;

in response to determining that at least some of the received
bids and offers are not fully executed, calculating, by at least one
computer processor, a tradable price based on a standard published to
traders in the market for the object of commerce, the standard
specifying rules for calculating a tradeable price based on at least one
of a) received bids and offers and b) trades executed in the market for
the object of commerce;

transmitting, by at least one processor of at least one computer,
to each of a plurality of computers of respective traders in the market
via an electronic communications network, an electronic message
notifying the traders of the calculated tradeable price for the object of
commerce; and

executing or negotiating trades, or receiving negotiating offers,
by at least one computer processor, for at least some of the
unexecuted bids and offers, based at least in part on the calculated
tradeable price, wherein at least some quantity of the object of
commerce is traded at the calculated tradeable price.

Appeal Br. 10 (Claims App.).

Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

3
Claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–17, and 22–32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Non-Final Act. 3.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief,
filed Apr. 3, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) and the Examiner’s Answer mailed July
13, 2018 (“Ans.”) for their respective details.

ISSUES
1. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea?
2. Is the recited abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
3. Do the claims recite additional elements that transform the nature of
the claims into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the 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. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. 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 Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). 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
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

4
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.”).
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, 69 (1972)).
Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); and “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (184 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))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 at 176, 192 (“We view respondents’
claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not
as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the
Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for
that formula in the abstract . . . . is not accorded the protection of our
patent laws,[] and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to
limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.” Id.
at 187 (“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

5
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be
deserving of patent protection.”), and 191 (citing Benson and Flook).
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. “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. (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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). Memorandum, 84
Fed. Reg. 50. Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:

(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity 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)).
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

6
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
are 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.
See generally Memorandum

ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
Appellant argues the claims under appeal as a group. Accordingly we
select claim 1 as representative of all the claims.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations. Aspects of the claimed
abstract idea are indicated in italics. Additional non-abstract limitations are
noted in bold:
1. (previously presented) A method, comprising the steps of:
(a) receiving, by at least one computer processor via an electronic
network, a plurality of bids and a plurality of offers from traders in a
market for an object of commerce, each bid and offer including a price;
(b) determining, by at least one computer processor, that at least
some of the received bids and offers are not fully executed;
in response to determining that at least some of the received bids and
offers are not fully executed, (c) calculating, by at least one computer
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

7
processor, a tradeable price based on a standard published to traders in the
market for the object of commerce, the standard specifying rules for
calculating a tradeable price based on at least one of a) received bids and
offers and b) trades executed in the market for the object of commerce;
(d) transmitting, by at least one processor of at least one computer,
to each of a plurality of computers of respective traders in the market via
an electronic communications network, an electronic message notifying
the traders of the calculated tradeable price for the object of commerce; and
(e) executing or negotiating trades, or receiving negotiating offers, by
at least one computer processor, for at least some of the unexecuted bids and
offers, based at least in part on the calculated tradeable price, wherein at
least some quantity of the object of commerce is traded at the calculated
tradeable price.

These limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
constitute a plurality of steps to receive bids and offers for a tradeable object
of commerce, calculate a tradeable price for the object of commerce even if
some of the received bids and offers are not fully executed, transmit that
tradeable price to traders in the market, and execute trades based on the
tradeable price.
We determine that limitation (a), receiving a plurality of bids and a
plurality of offers, constitutes data-gathering activity. We determine that
limitation (d) constitutes extra-solution activity: transmitting the calculated
tradeable price to traders in the market.
The Memorandum recognizes that certain groupings of subject matter
have been found by the courts to constitute judicially excepted abstract
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

8
ideas: (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of organizing human
activity; and (c) mental processes. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. Examples
of “certain methods of organizing human activity” include “fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52.
We determine, that the claim 1 limitations of (b) determining that at
least some of the received bids and offers are not fully executed; (c)
calculating, by at least one computer processor, a tradeable price based on a
standard published to traders in the market for the object of commerce; and
(e) executing or negotiating trades, or receiving negotiating offers, by at
least one computer processor, for at least some of the unexecuted bids and
offers, based at least in part on the calculated tradeable price, recite an
abstract idea that falls into the subcategory of a fundamental economic
practice, i.e., of determining a tradeable price for an object of commerce,
and executing or negotiating trades of the object of commerce based on the
calculated tradeable price.3 See Final Act. 3.

3 See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to
mediate settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus an
abstract idea) (Describing the concept of risk hedging identified as an
abstract idea in Bilski as “a method of organizing human activity.”); see also
Bilski,561 U.S. at 611–612 (concluding that hedging is a “fundamental
economic practice” and therefore an abstract idea); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at
1280 (concluding that “managing a stable value protected life insurance
policy by performing calculations and manipulating the results” is an
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

9
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has
cited no cases with reference to an abstract idea, or has unlawfully

abstract idea); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378–79 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (Holding that concept of “local processing
of payments for remotely purchased goods” is a “fundamental economic
practice, which Alice made clear is, without more, outside the patent
system.”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (Concluding that claimed concept of “offer-based price
optimization” is an abstract idea “similar to other ‘fundamental economic
concepts’ found to be abstract ideas by the Supreme Court and this court.”);
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(holding that concept of “creating a contractual relationship—a ‘transaction
performance guaranty’” is an abstract idea); In re Comiskey, 554 F.3d 967,
981 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (claims directed to “resolving a legal dispute between
two parties by the decision of a human arbitrator” are ineligible);
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(holding that claim “describ[ing] only the abstract idea of showing an
advertisement before delivering free content” is patent ineligible); In re
Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding methods “directed
to organizing business or legal relationships in the structuring of a sales
force (or marketing company)” to be ineligible); Credit Acceptance Corp. v.
Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“The Board
determined that the claims are directed to the abstract idea of ‘processing an
application for financing a purchase’ . . . We agree.”); Interval Licensing
LLC, v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Concluding
that “[s]tanding 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,” observing that the district court “pointed to
the nontechnical human activity of passing a note to a person who is in the
middle of a meeting or conversation as further illustrating the basic,
longstanding practice that is the focus of the [patent ineligible] claimed
invention.”); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d
1376, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding the concept of “voting, verifying the
vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation,” a “fundamental activity” that
humans have performed for hundreds of years, to be an abstract idea); and In
re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “[a]pplicants’
claims, directed to rules for conducting a wagering game” are abstract).
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

10
oversimplified the claim in saying that the claim recites “negotiating and
executing trades.” Appeal Br. 7. As stated supra, we agree with the
Examiner’s determination that the claimed invention recites a judicial
exception, i.e., an abstract idea, when it recites the determination of a
tradeable price for an object in commerce, and the execution and negotiation
of trades of that object of commerce based on that tradeable price. We agree
with the Examiner that just as the mediation of settlement risk was
determined to be a fundamental economic practice in Alice, and just as the
formulation and trading of risk management contracts was deemed to
constitute a fundamental economic practice in Alice, so too do we deem the
calculation of a tradeable price for an object in commerce, and the execution
and negotiation of trades for that object, to similarly constitute a
fundamental economic practice.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a fundamental
economic practice, one of the categories of abstract ideas recognized in the
Memorandum. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. We thus conclude that the
claims recite an abstract idea.

INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea of determining a tradeable price for an object of commerce, and
negotiating and executing trades concerning that object, into a practical
application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 51. We consider whether there
are any additional elements beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in
combination, “integrate the [abstract ideas] into a practical application, using
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

11
one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Id. at 54–55.
The Memorandum provides exemplary considerations that are
indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception (i.e.,
the abstract idea recited in the claim) into a practical application:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 55; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–
(h).
As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a computer having at least one processor, an electronic network (or
electronic communications network), a market, and an object of commerce.
“Computer” is disclosed to be “appropriately programmed general purpose
computers, special purpose computers and computing devices.” Spec. 9–10.
A processor is described as “one or more microprocessors, one or more
microcontrollers, [or] one or more digital signal processors.” Spec. 10.
Further examples of “processors” are listed: “microprocessors, central
processing units (CPUs), computing devices, microcontrollers, digital signal
processors, or like devices or any combination thereof.” Id. We determine
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

12
that Appellant does not disclose “computer” or “processor” as being a non-
generic element.
With respect to the term “electronic network” or “electronic
communications network,” Appellant discloses that “the computer may
communicate with the devices directly or indirectly, via any wired or
wireless medium (e.g. the Internet, LAN, WAN or Ethernet, Token Ring, a
telephone line, a cable line, a radio channel, an optical communications line,
commercial on-line service providers, bulletin board systems, [or] a satellite
communications link.” Spec. 12. “Communications channels may be secure,
encrypted, or clear.” Spec. 18. We find that Appellant has not disclosed an
electronic network or electronic communications network as a non-generic
element.
Appellant does not provide a definition for the term “market” in the
Specification. We thus construe the claim term “market” in a known, generic
manner, to a physical or virtual “place” where potential buyers and sellers of
objects of commerce may communicate in order to trade in such objects.
With respect to the claim term “object of commerce,” Appellant gives
examples of items that may be bought or sold: “goods or services, such as
financial instruments, commodities, or any other object of commerce.” Spec.
17. Appellant does not define an “object of commerce” as something other
than a generic element.
Turning to the Memorandum’s considerations for integration of
an abstract idea into a practical application, Appellant makes no
argument that the claimed invention improves the functioning of a
computer; provides an improvement to another technology or
technical field; applies the claimed abstract idea with, or by use of, a
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

13
particular machine; or transforms or reduces a particular article to a
different state or thing.
Appellant contends that the claims “include numerous meaningful
limitations that are ignored by” the characterization of the claims as reciting
an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 7. As Appellant fails to identify specifically any
such “meaningful limitations,” we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
contention.
Appellant cites BASCOM in support but does not explain what non-
conventional and non-generic arrangement of conventional pieces is present
in the claimed invention.4 Appeal Br. 8. We agree with the Examiner that
whereas BASCOM concerned a specific asserted improvement, and a
technological solution to a technological problem, the instant invention is
merely the adaptation of an economic problem, i.e. determining an
appropriate tradeable price for an object of commerce, to implementation on
a computer. Ans. 5.
Appellant next argues, citing Trading Technologies, that a trading
system implemented on a general purpose computer (should be found to be)
patent eligible.5 Appeal Br. 8. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because the court’s holding was not simply that trading systems
implemented on a computer are patent-eligible. Rather, the court found that
the claimed system used “a software-implemented programmatic net” that
improved “the accuracy of trader transactions.” The claimed subject matter

4 BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (hereinafter “BASCOM”).
5 Trading Technologies Int’l Inc. v. CQG Inc., 675 Fed.Appx. 1001 (Fed.
Cir. 2016), (nonprecedential) (hereinafter “Trading Technologies”).
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

14
is “directed to a specific improvement in the way computers operate,”[] for
the claimed graphical user interface method imparts a specific functionality
to a trading system ‘directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a
problem in the software arts.’” Trading Technologies, 675 Fed.Appx. at
1006. The claims under appeal are directed to the solution of a problem in
the economic arts, adapted to performance on a generically disclosed
computer.
Appellant argues that a claim not rejected under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 or
103 should necessarily be patent eligible. Appeal Br. 8. We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument. The question of patent eligibility under
35 U.S.C. § 101 is separate and distinct from the determination of
patentability over prior art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
We conclude that the claims do not recite additional elements that
integrate the recited abstract idea of analyzing a closure code to identify
common order defects into a practical application under the considerations
laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Last, we consider whether claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–17, and 22–32 express
an inventive concept, i.e., whether any additional claim elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether
the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in
the field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

15
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 56.
“The question of whether a claim element or combination of elements
is well-understood, routine, and conventional to a skilled artisan in the
relevant field is a question of fact.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360,
1368 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a computer having at least one processor, an electronic network (or
electronic communications network), a market, and an object of commerce.
As discussed supra, we find that Appellants’ Specification does not define
these terms in other than generic fashion. We determine, then, that
Appellants’ disclosure of “computer,” “processor,” “electronic
communications network,” “market,” and “object of commerce” are
similarly well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Regarding the use of the recited generic computer components
identified – i.e., “processor,” “computer,” “electronic network” — the
Supreme Court has held that “the mere recitation of a generic computer
cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible
invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. Our reviewing court provides additional
guidance: See FairWarning IP v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he use of generic computer elements like a
microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.”); see also OIP Techs, 788
F.3d at 1363 (Claims reciting, inter alia, sending messages over a network,
gathering statistics, using a computerized system to automatically determine
an estimated outcome, and presenting offers to potential customers found to
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

16
merely recite “‘well-understood, routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by
requiring conventional computer activities or routine data-gathering steps.”).
We determine from Appellants’ cursory disclosure of these elements that the
claimed computer, processor, and electronic network should be considered
generic computer components. As such, they cannot transform the recited
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Appellants have presented no argument contesting the Examiner’s
characterization of any additional claim element as well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Appellants have not contended that the Examiner lacked
factual support for any finding that a claim element is well-understood,
routine, and conventional. As a result, we determine that none of the claim
elements, additional to those limitations we determined to constitute a
mental process, recite a limitation or combination of limitations that are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of trade in
objects of commerce.

SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY - CONCLUSION
We conclude that the claims recite a fundamental economic process,
one of the categories of invention found by the courts to constitute an
abstract idea.
We further conclude that the claims do not integrate the identified
abstract idea into a practical application.
We further conclude that the claimed invention does not recite
additional claim elements that transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
Appeal 2018-008799
Application 14/330,601

17
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1–3, 5–9, 11–17, and 22–32.

DECISION
1. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
2. The recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application.
3. The claims do not recite additional elements that transform the
nature of the claims into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 22-
32under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.

CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–9, 11–
17, 22–32
101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–9,
11–17, 22–
32

Overall
Outcome

1–3, 5–9,
11–17, 22–
32

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