Rackham, Guy Jonathan James.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 6, 2020

2019003802 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 6, 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.
12/325,288 12/01/2008 Guy Jonathan James Rackham END920070276US1 1194
103765 7590 07/06/2020
IBM Corp-Rochester Drafting Center
1701 North Street Building 256-3
Department SHCB
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
CHONG CRUZ, NADJA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2020 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):
rocdrctr@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GUY JONATHAN JAMES RACKHAM
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288
Technology Center 3600

Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JESSICA C. KAISER, 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 1–10, 12, and 14–20.2 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 International
Business Machines, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 11 and 13 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a method and
system for generating a business architecture by decomposing an asset based
model of the business to a threshold level of decomposition.3 Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed lettering added for discussion
purposes, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method implemented on a computer of developing an
architecture for a business, comprising:
[a] decomposing an asset based model of the business to a
threshold level of decomposition of business components, the
asset based model being comprised of said business components
formed by partitioning the assets of the business into non-
overlapping and collectively complete parts, each business
component being defined by an asset type of the business and a
mechanism for commercializing said asset type to produce a
value for the business,
[b] wherein the assets that are partitioned include
employee types,
[c] wherein the mechanism for commercializing an
employee type asset is an employee role;
[d] defining said threshold level of decomposition in said
partitioning as a level where each decomposed asset type and
corresponding commercialization mechanism at the threshold
level and levels above the threshold level has one and only one
parent, and at least two decomposed assets and corresponding

3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed December 1,
2008 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 31,
2018; (3) the Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.”) mailed July 25, 2018; (4) the
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed October 31, 2018; (5) the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.”) mailed February 22, 2019; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply
Br.”) filed April 15, 2019.
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

3
commercialization mechanisms at the threshold level have at
least one child in common,
[e] wherein the threshold level of decomposition is defined
such that an employee role at the threshold level is defined so as
not to include potential roles that are performable by other
components with employee type assets;
[f] associating each asset type and corresponding
commercialization mechanism at the threshold of decomposition
with an elemental design element from an industry component
business model (CBM) map within which the business competes;
[g] providing, with a computer system, a display of the
industry CBM map; and
[h] providing a capability of selecting business
components from the industry CBM map and creating a CBM
map of the selected components adapted to the business.
REJECTION
Claims 1–10, 12, and 14–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 2–7.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
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 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. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS
Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

4
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Alice and Mayo.
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 recites. 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.”).
If the claim recites an abstract idea, we turn to the second step of the
Alice and Mayo framework, in which “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 (quotation marks and citation 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. (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 Office published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Guidance”). Recently, the USPTO published an
update to that guidance. October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update,
84 Fed. Reg. 55,942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (hereinafter “Guidance Update”).
Under the Guidance and the Guidance Update, in determining whether a
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

5
claim falls within an excluded category, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) Step 2A — Prong One: 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) Step 2A — Prong Two: additional elements that integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP4
§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54–55 (“Revised Step 2A”). 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 (Step 2B):
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See id. at 56 (“Step 2B: If the Claim Is Directed to a Judicial Exception,
Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept.”).
ANALYSIS
Patent Eligibility
We analyze the claims and the Examiner’s rejection in view of the
Guidance and the Guidance Update, and we adopt the nomenclature for the
steps used in the Guidance. Appellant’s arguments refer to limitations

4 All Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) citations herein are
to MPEP, Rev. 08.2017, January 2018.
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

6
recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 21–38. We, thus, select independent
claim 1 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Step 1
As an initial matter, the claims must recite at least one of four
recognized statutory categories, namely, machine, process, article of
manufacture, or composition of matter. MPEP § 2106(I); see 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. Independent claim 1 recites a method, and claims 12 and 18 recite a
computer implemented system. Thus, the pending claims recite recognized
statutory categories under § 101, i.e., processes and machines, and we turn to
the two-step Alice/Mayo analysis applied in accordance with the Guidance.

Step 2A, Prong One in the Guidance
Next, we determine whether claim 1, being directed to a statutory
class of invention, nonetheless recites a judicial exception. Guidance 51.
The Examiner determines that exemplary claim 1 recites a judicial
exception: an abstract idea. Ans. 4. In particular, the Examiner determines
the claim recites a process for “developing an architecture/map for an asset
based model of a business” (Final Act. 2; Adv. Act. 2), or, more specifically,
“how to decompose an asset based model of a business components into
asset types that include[] employee types and [a] mechanism for
commercialization that includes an employee role, associating the asset
types and their corresponding commercial mechanism with an elemental
design element” (Ans. 6–7). Correspondingly, and consistent with the
Guidance, the Examiner determines that such limitations are certain methods
of organizing human activity. Id. The Examiner also determines that the
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

7
claim recites “collect[ing] information (assets), then analyz[ing] the
collected information (assets into business components, employee types,
mechanisms for commercialization, associating with elemental design,
defining threshold levels) and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis (an industry component business model CBM map).” Final Act. 5;
Adv. Act. 2. According to the Guidance Update, when recited at a high
level of generality, collecting, analyzing, and displaying information “recite
a mental process when [the claim] contain[s] limitations that can practically
be performed in the human mind.” Guidance Update 7. As such, the claim
recites “multiple abstract ideas, which may fall in the same or different
groupings” of abstract ideas, namely, a certain method of organizing human
activity and a mental process. Id. at 2.
Appellant argues that, instead, the claim is “specifically drawn to a
practical visual interface for users generated by a new and specific set of
rules” (Appeal Br. 25), “provid[ing] a new visual interface (‘providing . . . a
display of the industry CBM map’) and a unique user
interaction/manipulation capability through that interface (‘providing a
capability of selecting business components from the industry CBM map
and creating a CBM map of the selected components adapted to the
business’)” (id. at 22–23 (emphases omitted)). Appellant further argues the
claim is “directed to patent eligible subject matter because there is no court
precedent identifying the claimed concepts as abstract ideas.” Id. at 22
(citations omitted); Reply Br. 5. And, in a related argument, Appellant
argues the Examiner “merely identifies specific limitations and declares
them as an abstract idea without providing any precedent or substantive
determination as to how they came to that conclusion.” Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

8
We agree with the Examiner that the claim recites a certain method of
organizing human activity as well as collecting, analyzing, and displaying
information, i.e., a mental process. The Specification describes that the
invention is drawn to a business problem and corresponding business
solution — namely “developing an asset based business architecture”
(Spec. 8:23–24), i.e., a certain technique to generate a business plan. The
Specification initially states that there are “shortfalls in current approaches
to business architecture” (id. at 2:12–13) and, further,
business design often ends up as a disparate collection of models,
each attuned to a specific feature but without any assurance that
a change in market conditions will not make many of them
obsolete and without a coordinating framework to bring them
together into an integrated whole that has reasonable prospects
for enough stability over time that the business can concentrate
its resources on serving the market place profitably
(id. at 8:1–9). The corresponding solution to that problem is to use a
particular “business design technique” (id. at 10:21–26) or “business design
methodology” (id. at 14:5–6) — namely, a component business model
(“CBM”) “design structure for logical organization of the enterprise [that]
contains components that are reusable within and even across industries” (id.
at 31:29–32:6). The Specification states that the “component business map
itself represents a distillation of the activities of the enterprise to form a
logical mapping from the enterprise.” Id. at 26:18–21. That is, the
Specification suggests that the CBM map is a logical structure that organizes
information, as shown by Appellant’s Figure 5B, reproduced below.

Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

9

Indeed, Figure 5B shows a “Retail Banking” CBM map as a table that
organizes business information. See id. at 51:1–3; see Fig. 5A.
The business design technique or methodology, i.e., the creation and
use of CBM maps, includes steps for “identifying a general collection of
asset types” that can be commercialized; such assets include “employees,
production capacity, buildings and facilities, intellectual property.” Id. at
14:7–19. Further, “[b]y applying a structured decomposition of the
commercial assets and their uses down to the threshold of decomposition
where the elemental items of design are exposed, a collection of mutually
independent business control elements can be defined” and “can be
associated with different business design blueprints” so that “aspects of
business control systems [can] be re-used in the equivalent deployment of
business architecture.” Id. at 59:5–16. That is, business assets in a current
business are identified and then reused in a different business plan. For
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

10
example, the Specification describes re-allocating staff in order to execute a
business unit plan. Id. at 52:25–53:2, Figs. 5C–5D.
The majority of the limitations recited in claim 1 reflect the business
design technique or methodology described by the Specification. Limitation
[a] describes identifying business assets and components that can be
commercialized by “decomposing an asset based model of the business to a
threshold level of decomposition.” Limitation [b] details that business asset
types include employees and limitation [c] details that employees are
commercialized based on their roles. Limitations [d] and [e] further detail
the threshold level of decomposition. Then, in limitation [f], the
decomposed assets and asset commercialization are “associat[ed]” with “an
industry component business model (CBM) map.” Aside from being
implemented on “a computer system,” which we discuss at a later step in our
analysis, limitation [g] describes the presentation of the created industry
CBM map. Taken together, limitations [a]–[g] recite a process of collecting
and identifying valuable business component and asset information, e.g.,
employees, and then analyzing that identified business information to
organize the business information into a particular logical organizational
structure, i.e., a CBM map. Those limitations describe the type of
information that is being collected and analyzed but do not detail the
particulars of how that information is analyzed. For example, the claim
recites “decomposing an asset” to a “threshold level of decomposition” but
only describes what the threshold level of decomposition is, rather than how
decomposition is performed. That is, the claim broadly recites the result,
rather than how the result is achieved. As such, the broadly claimed, high-
level decomposition analysis and related CBM map association can be
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

11
practically performed in the human mind, and, so, recites a mental process.
Guidance Update 7. Furthermore, the analysis of business components to
organize business relationships and to structure a business may also be
characterized as a certain method of organizing human activity. See
Guidance 52, n.13 (citing In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed Cir.
2009)).
Limitation [h], recites, in pertinent part, selecting the business
components that were organized into the industry CBM map in order to
create a different CBM map using those selected business components.
Accordingly, limitation [h] recites a process of selecting business
information to create a new business design or business plan. Such
processes focus on structuring a business and, as such, are certain methods
of organizing human activity, as the Examiner determines. Ans. 6; see
Guidance 52, n.13 (citing Ferguson, 558 F.3d at 1364).
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
determining the claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity
and at least one mental process. Appellant asserts that claim 1 is “drawn to a
practical visual interface for users generated by a new and specific set of
rules” that the user can interact with. Appeal Br. 25; see Appeal Br. 22–23.
But, as discussed above, rather than being directed to some new computer
interface, both the claim and the Specification describe the invention in
terms of an improved manner of making organizational business decisions.
Further, to the extent that the claim recites some “visual interface” that users
can interact with, the claimed “visual interface” at most displays business
information in a particular logical structure — a CBM map — and allows
users to select that business information. But, a “purportedly new
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

12
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 CBM map provided by a computer is more like a Venn diagram, or some
other visualization of information, provided by a computer, to aid a user in
viewing the selected components.
We disagree with Appellant that the Examiner “merely identifies
specific limitations and declares them as an abstract idea without providing
any . . . substantive determination as to how [the Examiner] came to that
conclusion.” Reply Br. 2–3. The Examiner has fairly categorized the claim
as a certain method of organizing human activity by explaining that the
limitations recite a business model that groups and analyzes business assets
using a logical structure to organize information. See Ans. 6–7; see Adv.
Act. 2; see Final Act. 5, 7–8. To the extent Appellant argues that the
Examiner’s description of the claimed invention is not detailed enough (see
Reply Br. 3), the level of abstraction at which the Examiner describes the
invention does not change the accuracy of the Examiner’s determination.
See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of
abstraction.”). Even if the Examiner’s description of the claimed invention
is at a high-level, as discussed above, the Examiner’s determination is
supported by the Specification and the claim.
Accordingly, as the Examiner determines, the claim recites a certain
method of organizing human activity and a mental process.

Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

13
Step 2A, Prong Two in the Guidance
Next, we determine whether the claim is directed to the abstract
concept itself or whether the claim is instead directed to some technological
implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e.,
integrated into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
(discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 (1981)).
The Examiner determines that the “judicial exception” recited in the
claim “is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
element of the claim[,] such as a computer/computer system,” is used “as a
tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally links the use of a judicial
exception to a particular technological environment.” Ans. 7.
Appellant argues the claim recites an improved user interface, similar
to the claims in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L., v. LG Electronics, Inc.,
880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 25–28. Appellant’s reliance on
Core Wireless is misplaced.
In determining that the claims in Core Wireless were directed to an
improved user interface, our reviewing court relied on the “specification
confirm[ing] that [the] claims disclose an improved user interface for
electronic devices, particularly those with small screens.” Core Wireless,
880 F.3d at 1363. Unlike Core Wireless, the Specification here confirms
that the invention reflects business improvements, e.g., analyzing and
organizing the constituent components of a business, as discussed above.
For example, the Specification describes the business-organizational
invention with analogies to building design, stating, e.g.,
[b]y applying a structured decomposition of the
commercial assets and their uses down to the threshold of
decomposition where the elemental items of design are exposed,
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

14
a collection of mutually independent business control elements
can be defined, that as with types of room, can be associated with
different business design blueprints. Just as the elemental design
of a type of room, such as a kitchen (and indeed aspects of its
physical realization) can be redeployed in different buildings, so
can aspects of business control systems be re-used in the
equivalent deployment of business architecture.
Spec. 59:5–16; see Spec. 56:26–57:7.
Furthermore, unlike the claim here, the claims in Core Wireless
recited a number of features specific to user interface improvements: “a
particular manner by which the summary window,” i.e., a user interface
element, “must be accessed;” “restrain[ing] the type of data that can be
displayed in the summary window;” and “requir[ing] that the device
applications exist in a particular state.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1362–63.
The claim here has no such limitations describing specific improvements or
features for a user interface. Instead, the claim merely recites using a
computer to display information and using a computer to select that
information, i.e., “providing, with a computer system, a display of the
industry CBM map” and “providing a capability of selecting business
components from the industry CBM map,” without any specific detail
regarding how the display or selection of components are provided by the
computer. As such, the claim “merely includes instructions to implement an
abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform
an abstract idea,” which does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Guidance 55.
Even further, contrary to Appellant’s argument that, when the claim is
evaluated as a whole, the claimed CBM map is a “particular tool for
presentation” and computer interaction (Appeal Br. 22–23, 32; Reply Br. 4–
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

15
5), the claim does not define a CBM map as some type of user interface
particular to a computer. Instead, the claim recites placing analyzed
business information into a CBM map; the CBM map, as discussed above, is
a logical structure for organizing information, not a user interface. As such,
even if the CBM map or the creation of the CBM map were an
improvement, the improvement is to the abstract idea, rather than to
computing or some other technology. Neither the computer’s display nor
interaction with the computer have been improved.
None of the other indicia of integration in the Guidance are present in
the claim. Guidance 55; see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e). For example, the
claim does not recite a particular machine and, instead, generically recites a
“method implemented on a computer.” Therefore, we determine that the
claim is not directed to a specific asserted technological improvement or
otherwise integrated into a practical application. Consequently, we conclude
the claim is “directed to” a judicial exception. Guidance 54.

Step 2B
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72–73).
The Examiner determines the claim “does . . . not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception.” Ans. 8.
Appellant argues “Claim 1 identifies a particular tool for presentation
and therefore recites ‘significantly more.’” Appeal Br. 31 (emphasis
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

16
omitted). Appellant further argues “Claim 1 recites an interactive user
interface, an interface which creates a business CBM map (the visual) in
dependence on user selection of specific components of an industry CBM
map (another visual).” Id. at 31; see Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant also argues
“claim 1 requires ‘new techniques for analyzing.’” Appeal Br. 33. Still
further, Appellant argues the Examiner “excludes almost 100% of claim
language from any Step 2B analysis whatsoever.” Id. at 34 (emphasis
omitted). Even further, Appellant argues the Examiner “has furnished zero
evidence of why any recitations of claim 1 except for ‘computer system’ are
well-known, routine, and conventional.” Id. at 36 (emphasis omitted).
We are not persuaded. The majority of Appellant’s arguments rely on
the abstract idea, discussed above, to provide the “significantly more” of the
Step 2B analysis. However, “the abstract idea itself . . . cannot supply the
inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly more’ than that
ineligible concept.” ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759,
774 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d
1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). As discussed above, creating a business plan
by analyzing business information through use of logical structures to
organize that business information, i.e., CBM maps, is part a certain method
of organizing human activity. As such, Appellant’s arguments that the claim
includes “new techniques for analyzing” information and “a particular tool
for presentation,” i.e., CBM maps (Appeal Br. 31, 33), improperly rely on
the abstract idea to provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
In the same vein, Appellant’s argument that the Examiner “excludes
almost 100% of claim language from any Step 2B analysis” (Appeal Br. 34–
35 (emphasis omitted)) is unpersuasive of Examiner error because the
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

17
Examiner determines that the vast majority of the claim language recites the
abstract idea (see Final Act. 3), which does not supply the “significantly
more” in the Step 2B analysis.
Further, Appellant’s argument the Examiner “has furnished zero
evidence of why any recitations of claim 1 except for ‘computer system’ are
well-known, routine, and conventional” (Appeal Br. 36 (emphasis omitted)),
again, improperly relies on the abstract idea to provide significantly more
than the abstract idea itself. Even if the 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, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A]
claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.” (emphasis in
original)). As such, the Examiner is not required to provide evidence that
the limitations reciting the abstract idea are well-known, routine, and
conventional in the Step 2B analysis. Guidance 56. The Examiner has
correctly found, relying on the Specification, that the abstract idea is
implemented using a generic computer performing routine computing
functions. Ans. 11–12 (citing Spec. ¶ 44); Final Act. 9–10 (citing Spec.
¶ 42).
Additionally, Appellant argues the claim presents “zero concern of
preempting a basic tool of scientific and technological work.” Appeal
Br. 38. Although “preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter,
the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”
Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
2015). Where claims recite only patent-ineligible subject matter, as they do
here, “preemption concerns are fully addressed and made moot.” Id.
Appeal 2019-003802
Application 12/325,288

18
We, thus, conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because any additional elements recited in the claim, considered individually
and as an ordered combination, do not provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the claim
recites patent-eligible subject matter. Further, Appellant has not proffered
sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us that any of the limitations in
remaining claims 2–10, 12, and 14–20 provide a meaningful limitation that
transforms those claims into a patent-eligible application. See Appeal
Br. 21–39. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1–10, 12, and 14–
20 under U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–10, 12,
14–20
101 Eligibility 1–10, 12,
14–20

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