PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 29, 2020

15206048 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 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.
15/206,048 07/08/2016 Alyse ANLIKER 014505.012001 5514
155046 7590 10/29/2020
Goodhue, Coleman & Owens, P.C.
12951 University Avenue Suite 201
Clive, IA 50325
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2020 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
docketing@goodhue.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALYSE ANLIKER, CARMEN BROWN,
NOELLE FOX, RANDAL MAIFELD, ROBERT MATHEWS,
BOBBI PERKINS, and CARRIE STOUT
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048
Technology Center 3600

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–14 and 16–21, all the claims pending
in this application.2 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as PRINCIPAL
FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 15 is canceled. Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates generally to allowing “retirement plan
participants nearing retirement [to] diversify their retirement assets by using
a portion of their defined contribution plan account balance and/or
contributions to purchase guaranteed income for life in retirement,” e.g., in
the form of a deferred income annuity. Spec. ¶ 34, Table 2.3
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below with bracketed lettering added:
1. A guaranteed income server system comprising:
[(a)] a computing device comprising at least one
processor;
[(b)] a non-transitory computer readable medium, having
stored thereon, instructions that when executed by the
computing device, cause the computing device to perform
operations within a local or consumer device, the operations
comprising at least:
[(c)] execution of a browser program to deliver pension
plan financial content on the local or consumer device;
[(d)] displaying at least one selectable option of a
financial structure of a financial portfolio, the financial
portfolio including an allocation to at least one investment
option selectable as part of a pension;

3 We refer to: (1) the originally filed Specification filed July 8, 2016
(“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action mailed April 1, 2019 (“Final Act.”);
(3) the Appeal Brief filed November 25, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); (4) the
Examiner’s Answer mailed March 5, 2020 (“Ans.”); and (5) the Reply Brief
filed May 4, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

3
[(e)] coupling to an investment database comprising pre-
modeling investment data, and to a third-party source of
financial models, the financial models based at least in part on
the pre-modeling investment data;
[(f)] calculating and displaying at least one pension glide
path option or scenario comprising a representation of how the
financial portfolio will be managed over time based at least in
part on at least one of the financial models;
[(g)] receiving at least a target date input from a user
through the local or consumer device;
[(h)] calculating and displaying purchase cost options
based on the target date input;
[(i)] receiving at least one purchase selection;
[(j)] storing the received purchase selection in a data
repository; and
[(k)] calculating and displaying at least one pension glide
path of the pension based at least in part on at least one of the
financial models, the target date, and the at least one purchase
selection.
Appeal Br. 26 (IX. Appendix - Claims).

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects the claims as follows:
Claims Statute Basis Final Act.
17 § 112(b) Indefiniteness 2
1–14, 16–21 § 101 Patent eligibility 3

Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

4
OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and the
evidence. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).

I. Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant appeals the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–21
as ineligible subject matter under § 101. Appeal Br. 13–17. Appellant’s
arguments address limitations recited in claim 1 but do not substantively
address any particular limitation recited in any other claim. Id. at 17–25. As
such, we select independent claim 1 as exemplary of all claims rejected
under § 101 in this appeal. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
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 held that § 101 includes implicit
exceptions—laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas—which
are not patent-eligible. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014). In January 2019, the Office issued the 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”),
which addresses the manner in which § 101 case law is to be applied by the
Office. In October 2019, the Office issued an update to explain further the
manner in which the Guidance should be implemented. See October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

5
df (“Guidance Update”). The Board is required to adhere to these guidance
documents as a matter of Office policy. Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. The
Guidance sets forth a four-part analysis for determining whether a claim is
eligible subject matter under § 101; the four parts are labeled here as Step 1,
Step 2A Prong 1, Step 2A Prong 2, and Step 2B. Id. at 53–56.
Guidance Step 1
First, under “Step 1,” we consider whether the claimed subject matter
falls within the four statutory categories set forth in § 101, namely
“[p]rocess, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” Guidance 84
Fed. Reg. 53–54; see 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appellant’s independent claims 1
and 21 recite a server system (i.e., a “machine”) and independent claim 20
recites a computer-implemented method (i.e., a “process”). As such, the
claims are directed to a statutory class of invention within § 101 and we
proceed to the next step.
Guidance Step 2A Prong 1 (Judicial Exceptions)
Second, under “Step 2A Prong 1,” we evaluate “whether the claim
recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 216–17.
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites a judicial exception—
specifically, an abstract idea. Final Act. 3–5. According to the Examiner,
under the Guidance, claim 1 recites “[m]anaging a guaranteed income in a
pension plan[, which] is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in
commerce systems.” Final Act. 5.
Appellant, in turn, does not specifically rebut the Examiner’s
determination that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. Appeal Br. 13–17.
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

6
We agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1 recites an
abstract idea in the form of a fundamental economic practice. Under a
broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1 recites steps focused on
mitigating investment risk by allowing “retirement plan participants nearing
retirement [to] diversify their retirement assets by using a portion of their
defined contribution plan account balance and/or contributions to purchase
guaranteed income for life in retirement.” Spec. ¶ 34. We agree with the
Examiner that mitigating investment risk is a fundamental economic activity
and a long-practiced human activity. Final Act. 5; see Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52 (indicating as abstract “[c]ertain methods of organizing human
activity” such as “fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging [and] . . . mitigating risk)”).
In particular, setting aside additional limitations for discussion in the
next two sections, limitation (c) involves delivering pension plan financial
content. Limitation (d) involves displaying a selectable option of a financial
portfolio including an allocation to at least one investment option selectable
as part of a pension. Limitation (e) involves coupling to an investment
database that includes pre-modeling investment data and to a third-party
source of financial models. Limitation (f) involves calculating and
displaying a pension glide path option based on the financial models.
Limitations (g)–(j) involve receiving at least a target date input from a user,
calculating and displaying purchase cost options based on the target date
input, receiving at least one purchase selection, and storing the received
purchase selection. Limitation (k) involves calculating and displaying at
least one pension glide path of the pension based at least in “part on at least
one of the financial models, the target date, and the at least one purchase
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

7
selection.” Appellant’s Specification indicates that a glide path represents
“how a portfolio is managed over time to become increasingly conservative
as it nears a target date.” Spec. ¶ 81. Receiving user preferences and using
third-party financial models to calculate and display a glide path for an
investment fund such as a retirement portfolio have long been common steps
in mitigating investment risk to maximize investment returns. As a result,
these steps may be categorized as a fundamental economic practice, which,
as set forth in the Guidance, is a certain method of organizing human
activity. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Claim 1 also recites a mental process because it includes steps of
collecting investment-related data, analyzing the data, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis, all of which can be performed entirely
in the human mind, or with the aid of a pen and paper. See Guidance Update
7, 9 (“a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis,’ where the data analysis steps are
recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be
performed in the human mind”4 recites a mental process). Such mental
processes are a category of abstract idea. Id. at 2. As discussed above,
limitations (g) and (i) involve collecting information in the form of a target
date input and a purchase selection. Limitation (e) involves collecting
financial data from an investment database and from a third-party source of
financial models. Limitations (c) and (d) involve displaying financial data in
the form of pension plan financial content and a financial portfolio.
Limitations (f) (h), and (k) analyze and display data. Specifically, limitation

4 n.48 citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alston, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

8
(f) involves calculating and displaying a pension glide path option or
scenario based on one of the financial models. Limitation (k) involves
calculating and displaying at least one pension glide path of the pension
based on at least one of the financial models, the target date, and the at least
one purchase selection. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation,
limitation (k) merely requires calculating a glide path based on third-party
financial data, one user-input target date, and one user purchased fund.
Appellant’s Specification informs that the calculated glide path may be a
relatively simple linear allocation of funds between two investment assets
over a sixteen year period before the target date. Spec. ¶ 63, Table 2. A
person could perform a linear allocation of funds between two investment
assets (e.g., 3% to asset A, 97% to asset B 15 years before the target date,
5% to asset A, 95% to asset B 14 years before the target date, etc.) over a
sixteen year period mentally or with pencil and paper without analyzing a
large amount of data and, therefore, this limitation can be practically
performed in the mind or with pen and paper. Id.
We, therefore, determine that claim 1 recites a mental process because
nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being
performed in the mind or by a human analog. See Guidance Update 8, n. 54.
In summary, claim 1 recites an abstract idea in the form of a “[c]ertain
method of organizing human activity,” including a fundamental economic
practice and a “mental process.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. We note
that whether claim 1 recites plural abstract ideas versus one abstract idea
does not affect the inquiry of whether the claim is directed to patent-eligible
subject matter. As our reviewing court has held, combining several abstract
ideas does not render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

9
v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one
abstract idea . . . to another abstract idea . . . does not render the claim non-
abstract.”); see also FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089,
1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent-ineligible claims were directed to a
combination of abstract ideas).
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites at least one
abstract idea under the Guidance, and we discern no error in that part of the
Examiner’s rejection.
Guidance Step 2A Prong 2 (Practical Application)
Third, having determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we
evaluate whether “the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial
exception into a practical application of the exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54–55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)). “A claim that
integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on,
or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on
the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id.; see Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78 (2012). The Guidance
specifies that this evaluation is conducted by first “[i]dentifying whether
there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s),” and then “evaluating those additional elements individually
and in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
As discussed above, most of the claim limitations in claim 1 recite
abstract ideas. The only limitations in the claim additional to those abstract
limitations are limitations (a), (b), (c), and (j). Limitation (a) recites a
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

10
computing device comprising at least one processor and limitation (b) recites
a non-transitory computer readable medium. Limitation (c) recites a
browser program. Limitation (j) recites storing data in a data repository.
The Examiner determines the claimed additional elements do not integrate
the exception into a practical application because they are generic computer
components “claimed and described at a high level of generality and are
functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no
more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular
technological environment.” Final Act. 6.
Appellant argues that claim 1 integrates the recited judicial exception
into a practical application because “a system which allows a user to see
what the results of a restructuring of their financial portfolio would like by
determining and presenting at least one pension glide path.” Appeal Br. 14.
Therefore, claim 1 is “not merely directed towards computerizing a manual
process, but instead determining and delivering specific information to a
browser program in the form of at least one pension glide path of the
pension.” Id. at 17.
These arguments are unpersuasive. Even assuming the claimed
invention results in the improvement Appellant asserts, i.e., “improv[ing]
digital experience for customers” by providing “an online tool for evaluating
an innovative financial product which calculates and displays glide paths,”
(Appeal Br. 11), that improvement is an improvement to the abstract idea.
Appellant’s argument, thus, improperly relies on the abstract idea to provide
significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Even if the claimed abstract
idea were novel, the novelty of the abstract idea is not enough to save it from
ineligibility. See Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138,
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

11
1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
idea.”).
Appellant further argues “that what is claimed is not merely the
abstract idea of managing a guaranteed income in a pension plan, but rather
a practical application in providing the technology necessary to do so.”
Appeal Br. 15. Appellant notes “that the technology of claim 1 includes a
computing device comprising at least one processor, a non-transitory
computer readable medium and instructions for execution of a browser
program to deliver pension plan financial content.” Id.
The technology of claim 1, however, merely evinces the use of
conventional computer technology to implement an otherwise abstract
process on a computer. Appellant’s Specification describes the claimed
computer components in the most general of terms, without any detail of
how they are structured or otherwise operate. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 74. This use
of generic technology to implement an abstract idea is insufficient to
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)
Appellant next argues that “claim 1 is directed to providing a
technical solution to a technical problem that did not exist in the ‘pre-
Internet world’” because the claim is “not merely directed towards
computerizing a manual process, but instead determining and delivering
specific information to a browser program in the form of at least one pension
glide path of the pension.” Appeal Br. 16–17. We are unpersuaded because
Appellant’s characterization of the problem is not consistent with what is
described in the Specification. The Specification does not demonstrate that
a glide path that represents “how a portfolio is managed over time to become
increasingly conservative as it nears a target date” is a post-internet or
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

12
technology based concept. Spec. ¶ 81. Rather, the problems identified in
the Specification relate to providing an annuity “that can provide a
predictable monthly income, impervious to market and global instability,
that is guaranteed for the life of the participant” and whose purchase is
integrated with “a potential participant’s conventional retirement savings
such as ROTH or non-ROTH 40l(k) or IRA accounts.” Spec. ¶¶ 2–3.
Appellant provides insufficient evidence that claim 1 recites a solution to an
exclusively post-internet problem, let alone that claim 1 is directed to a
technology-based solution.
In short, Appellant’s invention is focused on mitigating investment
risk. Spec. ¶ 34. Thus, the purported improvement provided by claim 1 is
not to technology, but instead to a fundamental economic practice, and
therefore constitutes an improvement to the abstract idea itself.
Improvements in the abstract idea, as we have here, are insufficient to confer
eligibility on an otherwise ineligible claim. SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). That is, rather than improving
computer technology, the claim uses the computer as a tool to implement the
improved abstract idea. Using a computer as a tool to perform an improved
algorithm does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application or otherwise confer patent-eligibility. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55.
Appellant further argues claim 1 solves a technical problem because,
like the claims in Core Wireless,5 “the use of a browser interface places
attendant restrictions on the communication of information” and “claim 1

5 Citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356,
1363 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

13
involves determining particular information and how to present it in a
meaningful way to users, including through the determination of and display
of the pension glide paths.” Reply Br. 16, 17, 19.
We are unpersuaded. Claim 1 recites “execution of a browser
program to deliver pension plan financial content on the local or consumer
device.” Thus, claim 1 broadly recites displaying pension plan financial
content at a high level of generality using a generic browser. Claim 1’s
recitation of displaying pension plan financial content is unlike patent-
eligible claims directed to displaying data in a specific user interface such as
in Core Wireless. In Core Wireless, the Federal Circuit held that claims that
recited an interface were patent eligible because the claims recited specific
limitations of the interface such as: an application summary that can be
reached through a menu, the data being in a list and being selectable to
launch an application, and additional limitations directed to the actual user
interface displayed and how it functions. Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363.
The court found that the claims were directed to an improved user interface
and not the abstract concept of an index as the claim “limitations disclose a
specific manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user, rather
than using conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on
a computer.” Id.
In Appellant’s claim 1, there are no limitations directed to a specific
manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user or to how the
user interacts with the displayed data and, therefore, we find Appellant’s
arguments unpersuasive. As such, claim 1 does not recite a patent-eligible
improvement to computer functionality. See Customedia Techs., 951 F.3d
1359, 1365 (“[T]o be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to computer
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

14
functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to the
functionality of the computer or network platform itself.”).
Further, to the extent that the claim recites some interface that users
can interact with, the claimed “browser program” at most displays pension
plan financial content in a particular logical structure — a pension glide path
— and allows users to view that information. But, a “purportedly new
arrangement of generic information that assists [users] in processing
information more quickly” does not confer patent-eligibility. Trading Techs.
Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied,
140 S. Ct. 954, 206 L. Ed. 2d 119 (2020). Rather than a computer interface,
the pension plan financial content provided by the claimed browser program
is more like a bar graph, or some other visualization of information,
provided by a generic computer, to aid a user in viewing financial data
quickly.
In summary, Appellant fails to identify any way in which an
additional limitation (rather than the abstract idea), whether alone or in
combination, reflects an improvement in any technical field, requires a
particular machine integral to the claim, transforms the article to a different
state, or otherwise applies the judicial exception in some meaningful way
beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment (e.g., authentication). See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–
(h). We, therefore, determine claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application and thus is directed to a judicial exception.
Guidance Step 2B (Inventive Concept)
Finally, having concluded that claim 1 is “directed to” a judicial
exception, we turn to whether the claim provides an “inventive concept,”
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

15
i.e., whether the additional elements, individually and as an ordered
combination, amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception
itself. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. To determine whether the claim
provides an inventive concept, the additional elements are considered—
individually and in combination—to determine whether they (1) add a
specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-
understood, routine, conventional” in the field or (2) simply append well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines that “the additional elements when
considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount
to significantly more that the abstract idea(s).” Final Act. 7. Specifically,
the Examiner notes that “the additional element of using a processor to
perform the abstract idea(s) amounts to no more than mere instructions to
apply the exaction using a generic computer component” and “[m]ere
instruction to apply an exertion [sic] using a generic computer component
cannot provide an inventive concept.” Id.
Appellant argues that claim 1 “amounts to significantly more than the
recited exception under Step 2B” because the claim “recites features
intending to overcome a problem arising in the ‘post-Internet’ world” i.e.,
“how does one offer a complex financial product to a user through a web
browser interface in a manner which allows them to understand and evaluate
it?” Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis omitted).
This argument is not persuasive. Appellant fails to identify any
additional elements in the claim, let alone provide evidence that a specific
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

16
element beyond the judicial exception is not well-understood, routine, or
conventional. Likewise, Appellant provides no evidence from the
Specification that the claimed combination of additional elements is non-
conventional. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements
unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As discussed above, the only “additional elements” in claim 1 beyond
the recited abstract idea are recited in limitations: (a) a computing device
comprising at least one processor; (b) a non-transitory computer readable
medium; (c) a browser program; and (j) a data repository. These elements,
however, are simply used for performing each step of the claimed abstract
process. That is, claim 1, to implement the abstract idea, uses generic
computer components for collecting and analyzing data and for storing and
displaying that data. E.g., Spec. ¶ 74 (“In some embodiments, some
processors can include processors residing in one or more conventional
server platforms 365 . . . the system 350 can also include at least one
computer readable medium. . . . the at least one computer readable medium
can be coupled to at least one data storage device.”). Our reviewing court
has “repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that
are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an
inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea.” Elec. Power, 830
F.3d at 1355 (quotation omitted); see also Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First
Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–25 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“[G]eneric computer components such as an ‘interface,’ ‘network,’ and
‘database’ . . . . do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.”).
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

17
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim 1
does “not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.” Final Act. 7. The recited
hardware adds nothing more than well-understood, routine, conventional
activities, specified at a high level of generality, to the abstract mental
process. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)(ii). We conclude that claim 1 does not
set forth an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the
claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception,
whether the claim elements are considered individually or as an ordered
combination.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that claim 1 recites patent-eligible
subject matter and we sustain the rejection of claims 1–14 and 16–21 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

II. Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
Claim 17 recites in part “wherein the employer profit sharing
contribution and/or matching contribution is directed by a plan sponsor.”
Appeal Br. 29. The Examiner finds “it is unclear how to interpret the ‘/’
between each of the elements (either as an ‘and’ or and [sic] ‘or’ operation).
As such, the claim 17 and any claims which depend therefrom are
indefinite.” Final Act. 2–3.
We agree with Appellant that “and/or,” as used in claim 17, covers
“either (1) an employer profit sharing contribution, or (2) a matching
contribution, or (3) both an employer profit sharing contribution and a
matching contribution.” Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 17.
Appeal 2020-003935
Application 15/206,048

18
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
References/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 16–21 101 Patent eligibility 1–14, 16–21
17 112(b) Indefiniteness 17
Overall
Outcome
1–14, 16–21

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