SAS Institute Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2020

2019002869 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
15/630,462 06/22/2017 Ethem F. Can 1080S100100 4768
62236 7590 09/02/2020
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC (1080)
2601 Weston Parkway
Suite 103
Cary, NC 27513
EXAMINER
SERROU, ABDELALI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2659
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2020 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):
docketing@kdbfirm.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
mfitzsimmons@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ETHEM F. CAN, RICHARD W. CROWELL,
JAMES TETTERTON, JARED PETERSON and SARATENDU SETHI
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462
Technology Center 2600
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–30, which are all claims pending in
the application. See Appeal Br. 15 et seq. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SAS Institute Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The claims are directed to “systems for summarizing data
visualizations (i.e., images of data visualizations), such as a graph image”.
Abst. In particular, Appellant’s disclosed embodiments include:
Various embodiments described herein include a personalized
graph summarizer that can generate relevant and useful
summaries of data visualizations without relying on annotations
or data files that include underlying data or information to be
communicated by the data visualization.
Spec. ¶ 60.
Furthermore, Appellant’s personalized graph summarizer may enable
customized, efficient, and accurate detection of patterns in a
data visualization to provide relevant and useful summaries of
the data visualization, resulting in several technical effects and
advantages. In various embodiments, the personalized graph
summarizer may be implemented via one or more computing
devices, and thereby provide additional and useful functionality
to the one or more computing devices, resulting in more
capable and better functioning computing devices. For example,
the personalized graph summarizer may enable a computing
device to assist the visually impaired with interpreting and
understanding data visualizations. One or more embodiments
can involve computer vision.
Spec. ¶ 61.

2 Our decision relies upon Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
Sept. 28, 2018); Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 28, 2019); Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Dec. 28, 2018); Final Office Action (“Final Act.,”
mailed April 30, 2018); and the original Specification (“Spec.,” filed
June 22, 2017).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

3
Exemplary Claim
Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
Appeal:
11. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
identifying a data visualization comprising a graph image;
determining a set of graph-type correlation scores for the
graph image, the set of graph-type correlation scores to include a
graph-type correlation score for each graph type of a plurality of
graph types, each graph-type correlation score based on a
comparison of at least a portion of the graph image with one or
more graph-type models associated with each graph type of the
plurality of graph types;
evaluating the set of graph-type correlation scores to
identify a graph type of the graph image;
retrieving a set of patterns based on the graph type of the
graph image, each pattern in the set of patterns to include one or
more pattern examples;
determining a set of region of interest correlation scores
for the graph image based on matching the one or more pattern
examples of each pattern in the set of patterns with at least a
portion of the graph image, the set of region of interest
correlation scores to include at least one region of interest
correlation score for each pattern in the set of patterns;
evaluating the set of region of interest correlation scores
to identify one or more candidate regions of interest of the graph
image, each of the one or more candidate regions of interest to
include a portion of the graph image;
retrieving a set of pattern models based on the set of
candidate regions of interest of the graph image, each candidate
region of interest in the set of candidate regions of interest
associated with one pattern model in the set of pattern models,
and each pattern model in the set of pattern models associated
with one pattern in the set of patterns;
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

4
comparing each candidate region of interest in the set of
candidate regions of interest to an associated pattern model in the
set of pattern models to determine a set of pattern model
correlation scores, the set of pattern model correlation scores to
include a pattern model correlation score for each candidate
region of interest of the one or more candidate regions of interest;
identifying one or more detected patterns based on the set
of pattern model correlation scores;
retrieving one or more text templates from a computer-
readable storage medium based on the one or more detected
patterns, the one or more text templates to include at least one
portion of text associated with each detected pattern of the one
or more detected patterns, each text template of the one or more
text templates associated with a priority level;
arranging the one or more text templates in an order based
on the priority level associated with each text template to
generate a textual description of the graph image; and
generating a personalized summary of the graph image
based on the textual description with the one or more text
templates ordered based on the priority level associated with
each text template.
REJECTION
Claims 1–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the
claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a
natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more. Final
Act. 4.
ISSUE
Appellant argues (Appeal Br. 43–50; Reply Br. 2–9) the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-
ineligible subject matter is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

5
Under the USPTO’s Revised Guidance, informed by our governing
case law concerning 35 U.S.C. § 101, is claim 11 patent-ineligible under
§ 101?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
A. 35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent-eligible if it is a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.3
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. Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs.,
Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 70 (2012) (brackets in original) (citing Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 185 (1981)).
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. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014)
(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

3 This threshold analysis of whether a claim is directed to one of the four
statutory categories of invention, i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, is referred to as “Step 1” in the USPTO’s patent-
eligibility analysis under § 101. MPEP § 2106.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

6
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, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191); “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))).
Abstract ideas may include, but are not limited to, fundamental
economic practices, methods of organizing human activities, and
mathematical formulas or relationships. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–21. Under
this guidance, we must therefore ensure at step one that we articulate what
the claims are directed to with enough specificity to ensure the step one
inquiry is meaningful. Id. at 217 (“[W]e tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law.”).
Examples of claims that do not recite mental processes because they
cannot be practically performed in the human mind include: (a) a claim to a
method for calculating an absolute position of a GPS receiver and an
absolute time of reception of satellite signals, where the claimed GPS
receiver calculated pseudoranges that estimated the distance from the GPS
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

7
receiver to a plurality of satellites, SiRF Technology, Inc. v. International
Trade Commission, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331–33 (Fed. Cir. 2010); (b) a claim to
detecting suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing
network packets, SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d
1295, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2019); (c) a claim to a specific data encryption method
for computer communication involving a several-step manipulation of data,
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (distinguishing TQP Development, LLC v. Intuit Inc., 2014 WL
651935 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 19, 2014)) (the specific data encryption method
“could not conceivably be performed in the human mind or with pencil and
paper”). Whereas a claim limitation to a process that “can be performed in
the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper” qualifies as a mental
process, a claim limitation that “could not, as a practical matter, be
performed entirely in a human’s mind” (even if aided with pen and paper)
would not qualify as a mental process.4
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory
does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical
formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“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

4 CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 1375–
76 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft
Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

8
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. (citation omitted) (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is
now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or mathematical
formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving of patent
protection.”).
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 (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. (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 Revised Guidance
The USPTO published revised guidance in the Federal Register
concerning the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (hereinafter “Revised
Guidance”) (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-01-
07/pdf/2018-28282.pdf). All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal
agency management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

9
October 2019 Update at 1 (October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility)
(hereinafter “October 2019 Update”).
Under the Revised 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);5 and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see Manual for Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).6
See Revised Guidance, at 52–53.
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, 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.7
See Revised Guidance, at 56.

5 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 1” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(i)”).
6 Referred to as “Revised Step 2A, Prong 2” in the Revised Guidance
(hereinafter “Step 2A(ii)”).
7 Items (3) and (4) continue to be collectively referred to as “Step 2B” of the
Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo and Alice.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

10
Step 2A(i) – Abstract Idea
Informed by our judicial precedent, the Revised Guidance extracts and
synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain
that the abstract idea exception includes the following groupings of subject
matter, when recited as such in a claim limitation:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity —
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); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Revised Guidance, at 52 (footnotes omitted).
Under the Revised Guidance, if the claim does not recite a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas above), then the claim is patent-
eligible at Step 2A(i). This determination concludes the eligibility analysis,
except in situations identified in the Revised Guidance.8

8 In the rare circumstance in which an examiner believes a claim limitation
that does not fall within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
nonetheless be treated as reciting an abstract idea, the procedure described in
of the Guidance for analyzing the claim should be followed. See Revised
Guidance, Section III.C.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

11
However, if the claim recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea
enumerated above, a law of nature, or a natural phenomenon), the claim
requires further analysis for a practical application of the judicial exception
in Step 2A(ii).
Step 2A(ii) – Practical Application
If a claim recites a judicial exception in Step 2A(i), we determine
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception in Step 2A(ii) by: (a) identifying whether there
are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial
exception(s); and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and
in combination to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application.
The seven identified “practical application” sections of the MPEP,9
cited in the Revised Guidance under Step 2A(ii), are:
(1) MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of
a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical
Field
(2) MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine
(3) MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation
(4) MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations
(5) MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An
Exception

9 See MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Citations to the MPEP herein refer
to revision [R-08.2017]. Sections 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (e) are indicative
of integration into a practical application, while § 2106.05(f), (g), and (h)
relate to limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical
application.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

12
(6) MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity
(7) MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological
Environment
See Revised Guidance, at 55.
If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application as determined under one or more of the MPEP sections cited
above, then the claim is not directed to the judicial exception, and the patent-
eligibility inquiry ends. See Revised Guidance, at 54. If not, then analysis
proceeds to Step 2B.
Step 2B – “Inventive Concept” or “Significantly More”
Under our reviewing courts’ precedent, it is possible that a claim that
does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception under Step 2A(ii) is
nonetheless patent eligible. For example, the claim may recite additional
elements that render the claim patent eligible even though one or more claim
elements may recite a judicial exception.10 The Federal Circuit has held
claims eligible at the second step of the Alice/Mayo test (USPTO Step 2B)
because the additional elements recited in the claims provided “significantly
more” than the recited judicial exception (e.g., because the additional
elements were unconventional in combination).11 Therefore, if a claim has
been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under Revised Step
2A, we must also evaluate the additional elements individually and in

10 See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187.
11 See, e.g., Amdocs, Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300,
1304 (Fed. Cir. 2016); BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349–52 (Fed. Cir. 2016); DDR Holdings v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257–59 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

13
combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive
concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more
than the exception itself).12
Under the Revised Guidance, we must consider in Step 2B whether an
additional element or combination of elements: (1) “Adds a specific
limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood,
routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an
inventive concept may be present;” or (2) “simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative
that an inventive concept may not be present.” See Revised Guidance,
Section III.B.13

12 The patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of fact.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1325
(Fed. Cir. 2016). In particular, “[t]he 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).
13 In accordance with existing Step 2B guidance, an Examiner’s finding that
an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood,
routine, conventional activity must be supported with at least one of the four
specific types of evidence required by the USPTO Berkheimer
Memorandum, as shown above. For more information concerning evaluation
of well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d),
as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum (USPTO
Commissioner for Patents Memorandum dated Apr. 19, 2018, “Changes in
Examination Procedure Pertaining to Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent
Subject Matter Eligibility Decision (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.)” (hereinafter
“Berkheimer Memo”).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

14
In the Step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of
elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the
examiner finds an evidentiary basis, and expressly supports a rejection in
writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the
specification or to a statement made by an applicant during
prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s). . . .
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions
discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-
understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the
well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional
element(s). . . .
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official
notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of
the additional element(s). . . .
See Berkheimer Memo 3–4.
If the Examiner or the Board determines under Step 2B that the
element (or combination of elements) amounts to significantly more than the
exception itself, the claim is eligible, thereby concluding the eligibility
analysis.
However, if a determination is made that the element and combination
of elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, the
claim is ineligible under Step 2B, and the claim should be rejected for lack of
subject matter eligibility.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

15
ANALYSIS
We agree with particular arguments made by Appellant with respect
to claims 1–30 in the rejection, and we highlight and address specific
findings and arguments regarding method claim 11 for emphasis as follows.
Step 1 – Statutory Category
Claim 11 as a method claim, recites one of the enumerated categories
of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, the issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 2A(i): Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception?
The Examiner determined:
[T]he claims simply describe the concept of collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collecting an analysis, which relate to the abstract idea of
human organizing of activities. A human using a pen and paper
can perform the steps of identifying a graph type of a graph
image based on correlation scores; determine a region of
interest based on correlation scores; detecting patterns based
on the set of pattern model correlation scores; retrieving one or
more text templates based on the one or more detected
patterns; arranging the one or more text templates to generate
a textual description of the graph image; and generating a
personalized summary of the graph image, the summary of the
graph image comprising the graph image and the textual
description of the graph image.
Final Act. 5–6.
We conclude claim 11 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either
natural phenomena or laws of nature. We evaluate, de novo, whether
claim 11 recites an abstract idea based upon the Revised Guidance.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

16
First, we look to the Specification to provide context as to what the
claimed invention is directed to. In this case, the Specification discloses that
“Various embodiments are generally directed to systems for summarizing
data visualizations (i.e., images of data visualizations), such as a graph
image, for instance.” Spec. ¶ 57.
Appellant’s Abstract describes the invention as:
Various embodiments are generally directed to systems for
summarizing data visualizations (i.e., images of data
visualizations), such as a graph image, for instance. Some
embodiments are particularly directed to a personalized graph
summarizer that analyzes a data visualization, or image, to
detect pre-defined patterns within the data visualization, and
produces a textual summary of the data visualization based on
the pre-defined patterns detected within the data visualization.
In various embodiments, the personalized graph summarizer
may include features to adapt to the preferences of a user for
generating an automated, personalized computer generated
narrative. For instance, additional pre-defined patterns may be
created for detection and/or the textual summary may be
tailored based on user preferences. In some such instances, one
or more of the user preferences may be automatically
determined by the personalized graph summarizer without
requiring the user to explicitly indicate them. Embodiments
may integrate machine learning and computer vision concepts.
Abstract.
In TABLE I below, we identify in italics the specific claim limitations
in claim 11 that we conclude recite an abstract idea. We additionally
identify in bold the additional (non-abstract) claim limitations that are
practical applications, and underline limitations representing extra or post-
solution activity (bracketed labeling added for clarity):
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

17
TABLE I
Independent Claim 11 Revised Guidance
A computer-implemented
method, comprising:
A process (method) is a statutory
subject matter class. See 35 U.S.C.
§ 101. See 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Whoever
invents or discovers any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture,
or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof, may
obtain a patent therefor, subject to the
conditions and requirements of this
title.”).
[L1] identifying a data
visualization comprising a graph
image;
“[I]dentifying a data visualization
comprising a graph image,” is an
abstract idea, i.e., “an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion” which
could be performed as a mental
process. See Revised Guidance 52.
This step could be carried out by a
human with pen and paper. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even
when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme
Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).

[L2] determining a set of graph-
type correlation scores for the
graph image, the set of graph-
type correlation scores to include
a graph-type correlation score for
each graph type of a plurality of
graph types, each graph-type
correlation score based on a
comparison of at least a portion
“[D]etermining a set of graph-type
correlation scores for the graph
image” is an abstract idea, i.e., “an
observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion” which could be performed as
a mental process or, alternatively, it is
an abstract idea in the form of a
mathematical concept. See Revised
Guidance, at 52.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

18
Independent Claim 11 Revised Guidance
of the graph image with one or
more graph-type models
associated with each graph type
of the plurality of graph types;
[L3] evaluating the set of graph-
type correlation scores to identify
a graph type of the graph image;
“[E]valuating the set of graph-type
correlation scores, is an abstract idea,
i.e., “an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion” which could be
performed as a mental process. See
Revised Guidance, at 52.
This step could be carried out by a
human with pen and paper. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even
when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme
Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
[L4] retrieving a set of patterns
based on the graph type of the
graph image, each pattern in the
set of patterns to include one or
more pattern examples;
Retrieving a set of patterns, i.e., data
gathering, is merely insignificant
extra-solution activity that does not
add significantly more to the abstract
idea to render the claimed invention
patent-eligible. Revised Guidance 55,
n.31; see also MPEP § 2106.05(g);
and see buySAFE, Inc. v. Google,
Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (computer receives and sends
information over a network).
[L5] determining a set of region
of interest correlation scores for
the graph image based on
matching the one or more pattern
examples of each pattern in the
set of patterns with at least a
portion of the graph image, the
“[D]etermining a set of region of
interest correlation scores for the
graph image” is an abstract idea, i.e.,
“an observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion” which could be performed as
a mental process or, alternatively, it is
an abstract idea in the form of a
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

19
Independent Claim 11 Revised Guidance
set of region of interest
correlation scores to include at
least one region of interest
correlation score for each pattern
in the set of patterns;
mathematical concept. See Revised
Guidance, at 52.
[L6] evaluating the set of region
of interest correlation scores to
identify one or more candidate
regions of interest of the graph
image, each of the one or more
candidate regions of interest to
include a portion of the graph
image.
“[E]valuating the set of graph-type
correlation scores,” is an abstract idea,
i.e., “an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion” which could be
performed as a mental process. See
Revised Guidance, at 52.
[L7] retrieving a set of pattern
models based on the set of
candidate regions of interest of
the graph image, each candidate
region of interest in the set of
candidate regions of interest
associated with one pattern
model in the set of pattern
models, and each pattern model
in the set of pattern models
associated with one pattern in
the set of patterns;
Retrieving a set of pattern models,
i.e., data gathering, is merely
insignificant extra-solution activity
that does not add significantly more
to the abstract idea to render the
claimed invention patent-eligible.
Revised Guidance, at 55 n.31; see
also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(computer receives and sends
information over a network)

[L8] comparing each candidate
region of interest in the set of
candidate regions of interest to an
associated pattern model in the
set of pattern models to determine
a set of pattern model correlation
scores, the set of pattern model
correlation scores to include a
pattern model correlation score
for each candidate region of
“[C]omparing each candidate region
of interest in the set of candidate
regions of interest to an associated
pattern model in the set of pattern
models to determine a set of pattern
model correlation scores” is an
abstract idea, i.e., “an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion” which
could be performed as a mental
process or, alternatively, it is an
abstract idea in the form of a
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

20
Independent Claim 11 Revised Guidance
interest of the one or more
candidate regions of interest;
mathematical concept. See Revised
Guidance, at 52.
[L9] identifying one or more
detected patterns based on the set
of pattern model correlation
scores;
“[I]dentifying one or more detected
patterns based on the set of pattern
model correlation scores,” is an
abstract idea, i.e., “an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion” which
could be performed as a mental
process. See Revised Guidance, at 52.
[L10] retrieving one or more text
templates from a computer-
readable storage medium based
on the one or more detected
patterns, the one or more text
templates to include at least one
portion of text associated with
each detected pattern of the one
or more detected patterns, each
text template of the one or more
text templates associated with a
priority level;
Retrieving one or more text
templates from a computer-readable
storage medium, i.e., data gathering,
is insignificant extra-solution activity
that does not add significantly more
to the abstract idea to render the
claimed invention patent-eligible.
Revised Guidance, at 55 n.31; see
also MPEP § 2106.05(g); and see
buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(computer receives and sends
information over a network).
[L11] arranging the one or more
text templates in an order based
on the priority level associated
with each text template to
generate a textual description of
the graph image
See Step 2A(ii) analysis.
[L12] generating a personalized
summary of the graph image
based on the textual description
with the one or more text
templates ordered based on the
priority level associated with each
text template
See Step 2A(ii) analysis.
Appeal Br. 55–56 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

21
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard,14 we conclude
limitations [L1] through [L10] of method claim 11 recite steps that would
ordinarily occur when summarizing data visualizations. See claim 11. For
example, determining a set of graph-type correlation scores for the graph
image, evaluating the scores to identify a graph type of the graph image,
comparing each candidate region of interest to an associated pattern module
to determine a set of pattern model correlation scores are steps that generally
occur when generating a personalized summary of a graph using templates
and correlation scores.
We determine that claim 11, as a whole, recites mental processes that
may also be performed by a person in their mind, or with the aid of pen and
paper. This type of activity, as recited by limitations [L1]–[L3], [L5], [L6],
[L8], and [L9], for example, and aside from any computer-related aspects,
includes longstanding conduct that existed well before the advent of
computers and the Internet, and could be carried out by a human with pen
and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable,

14 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Under this standard,
we interpret claim terms using “the broadest reasonable meaning of the
words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of
ordinary skill in the art, taking into account whatever enlightenment by way
of definitions or otherwise that may be afforded by the written description
contained in the applicant’s specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

22
even when performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the
Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).15
Thus, under Step 2A(i), we agree with the Examiner that method
claim 11 recites abstract ideas and conclude, under our Revised Guidance,
claim 11 recites a judicial exception of summarizing data visualizations, i.e.,
a mental process, and thus is an abstract idea.
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Because the claims are directed to a judicial exception, as we
conclude above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) in
which we determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into
a practical application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are
any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s);
and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination
to determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical
application.

15 Our reviewing court recognizes that “[a]n abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc.,
842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016). That need not and, in this case does
not, “impact the patentability analysis.” Id. at 1241. Further, “[t]he Board’s
slight revision of its abstract idea analysis does not impact the patentability
analysis.” Id. Moreover, merely combining several abstract ideas does not
render the combination any less abstract. RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo
Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math)
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) (determining the pending claims were directed to a combination
of abstract ideas).
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

23
In this phase of analysis, Appellant argues “any abstract concepts
incidentally covered by the claim language are clearly integrated into a
practical application that generates a personalized summary of a graph
image.” Appeal Br. 44.
Appellant argues, similar to McRo,
[T]the claimed subject matter provides an improvement in
computer-related technology by allowing computer
performance of a function not previously performable by a
computer. For example, generating a personalized summary of
a data visualization enables information contained in the data
visualization to be communicated to a visually impaired person
(e.g., complete or partial blindness, low vision, color
blindness). See e.g., Specification, 0061 and 0176. Further, the
summaries of data visualizations can clearly communicate
relevant parts of data visualizations in an efficient and effective
manner, resulting in a computing device and/or system with
exclusive and advantageous capabilities, such as providing
improved computer vision features and improved computer
accessibility functionality for computer users with disabilities.
Appeal Br. 46–47.
When doing a Prong-Two determination, we identify “additional
elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception[],” and we then
evaluate whether the so-identified additional elements “integrate the
exception into a practical application.” Revised Guidance, at 54–55.
Additional elements are “claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are
recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.” Id. at 55 n.24.
Here, the additional elements include limitations [L11] “arranging” and
[L12] “generating” steps that arrange the text templates of the graph image
in an order and generate a personalized summary of the graph image based
on the textual description with the ordered text templates.
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

24
The Examiner finds these two steps are merely a process of gathering
and analyzing information of a specified content, and then displaying the
results, and not as any particular inventive technology for performing those
functions. Ans. 4.
We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. As stated in the Revised
Guidance, “[i]t is critical that examiners consider the claim as a whole when
evaluating whether the judicial exception is meaningfully limited by
integration into a practical application of the exception.” Revised Guidance,
at 54. Although “[s]ome elements may be enough on their own to
meaningfully limit an exception . . . other times it is the combination of
elements that provide the practical application.” Id.
Here, we are persuaded by Appellant’s argument and find the
“arranging” and “generating” limitations provide a personalized graph
summarizer that enables a computer to assist the visually impaired with
interpreting and understanding data visualizations. Spec. ¶ 61. We further
find these limitations that generate a textual summary of a data visualization
and enable information contained in the data visualization to be
communicated to a visually impaired person to be a practical application of
the abstract ideas of claim 11. Spec. ¶ 176. We determine the Examiner has
not considered the effect of the steps recited in claim 11 as a whole.
Therefore, on the record before us, although we find claim 11 recites
an abstract idea, we conclude the claim is not “directed to” an abstract idea
because it integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As such,
“this concludes the eligibility analysis.” Revised Guidance, at 54.
Therefore, in light of the foregoing, we conclude, under the Revised
Guidance, that each of Appellant’s claims 1–30, considered as a whole,
Appeal 2019-002869
Application 15/630,462

25
recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is integrated into a practical
application. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection
of independent claim 11, and independent claims 1 and 21 that recite
commensurate limitations. We also do not sustain the dependent claims 2–
10, 12–20, and 22–30 that depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Under our Revised Guidance, governed by relevant case law,
claims 1–30 are patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and we do not sustain
the rejection.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–30 101
Subject
Matter
Eligibility
1–30
REVERSED