SMITH, Jason

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020004436 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/786,244 10/22/2015 Jason Smith IRM P300US2-UTL 6964
104082 7590 07/01/2021
Mitchell Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
1595 Galbraith Ave. SE
Watermark Center
Grand Rapids, MI 49546
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
svanholstyn@mitchelliplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JASON SMITH
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN C. KERINS, MICHELLE R. OSINSKI, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OSINSKI, 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 1‒13 and 15–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.2,3 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

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 Jason Smith.
Appeal Br. 1.
2 Claim 14 is cancelled. Response (Nov. 16, 2018), 5.
3 A double patenting objection to claim 36 as being a substantial duplicate of
claim 32 (Final Act. 2) has been withdrawn (Ans. 7).
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 32, 33, and 36 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced
below with paragraph indentations added.
l. A method for facilitating asset acquisition, asset management
and asset maintenance whereby customers can purchase from
multiple vendors comprising:
providing to vendor and customer users access to
consortium management software;
providing and maintaining in said consortium
management software relational data base tables which are
linked together, including a vendor/customer database table,
whereby vendor users and customer users can enter their
identifying and personal data, and a searchable product catalogue
database table;
providing in said searchable product catalogue database
for receipt from vendor users, product, product pricing and
product maintenance data;
providing an inventory database table and a customer asset
management database table;
providing customer users access to said searchable product
catalogue database, whereby a customer searches the catalogue
data base and purchases from any vendor user product selected
from said product catalogue database;
providing for association of any said user’s identifying
data with information in any database table, which information
is pertinent only to said identified user;
linking the purchasing customer’s identifying information
from the customer/vendor database table, and the product,
product pricing and product maintenance data for the selected
product or products, to one or both of said inventory database
table and/or said customer asset management data base table,
such that the customer can retrieve, use and manipulate the
product, product pricing and product maintenance data in
connection with the management of the assets purchased.
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

3
OPINION
Legal Principles
The patent laws provide that “[w]hoever 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.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. However,
“this provision contains an important implicit exception: Laws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.” Alice Corp. v.
CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
Mayo Collaborative Services established a framework to distinguish
patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas
from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. Alice,
573 U.S. at 217 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)). First, we determine whether the claims are directed
to a patent-ineligible concept. Id. If so, we next consider the claim elements
individually and as an ordered combination to determine whether additional
elements transform the claims into a patent-eligible application. Id. This
search for an inventive concept seeks an element or combination of elements
“sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more
than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Id. at 217–18.
Recently, the PTO published guidance for evaluating subject matter
eligibility. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (USPTO Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Under Step One,
a determination is made whether the claims are in a statutory category of
patentable subject matter, i.e., do they recite a process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, identified in 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

4
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50, 53–54; see Alice, 573 U.S. at 216;
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 70.
Next, at Revised Step 2A, Prong One, an evaluation is made whether
a claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., an abstract idea as set forth in
Section I of the Revised Guidance, a law of nature, or a natural
phenomenon. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine if a
claim recites an abstract idea, specific limitations that recite an abstract idea
must be identified (individually or in combination), and a determination
made whether the limitation(s) fall(s) within one or more of the subject
matter groupings in Section I of the Revised Guidance. Id. (A. Revised
Step 2A). The three groupings are (1) mathematical concepts, relationships,
formulas, or calculations, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity,
including fundamental economic principles and practices, commercial
interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships, or interactions, and
(3) mental processes and concepts formed in the human mind. Id. at 52.
If a claim recites a judicial exception, Prong Two of Revised Step 2A
requires a determination to be made whether the claim as a whole integrates
the judicial exception into a practical application. Id. “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. at 53. If a judicial
exception is integrated, the claim is patent eligible. See id. at 54–55.
If a claim does not “integrate” a recited judicial exception, the claim is
directed to the judicial exception and further analysis is required under Step
2B to determine whether the claim contains additional elements, considered
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

5
individually or in combination, that provide an inventive concept, such that
the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception
itself. Id. at 56.
Independent Claims 1, 32, 33, and 36
Appellant does not separately argue each of the independent claims.
Appeal Br. 13–14. We select independent claim 1 as the representative
claim. Independent claims 32, 33, and 36 stand or fall with independent
claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Step One: Does Claim 1 Fall within a Statutory Category of § 101?
We examine whether claim 1 recites one of the enumerated statutory
classes of subject matter, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter, eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim 1 refers to “[a] method for facilitating asset acquisition,” which
recites one of the statutory classes (i.e., a process) under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We next look to whether claim 1 recites 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.
The Examiner finds that claim 1 recites “a method of organizing
human activity (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the
form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities
or behaviors; business relations)” and “it falls within the ‘[o]rganizing
human activity’ grouping of abstract ideas.” Final Act. 4 (emphasis
omitted).
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

6
Claim 1 recites “providing to vendor and customer users access to
consortium management software.” For example, “vendors and users may
pay a fee to . . . enter into a license agreement with the consortium manager
in order to participate in the purchasing consortium and have online access
to the consortium management software.” Spec. ¶ 10. Providing access to
the software is the necessary first step in the method of organizing sales
activities that is enabled by such software by allowing input and output of
data. Claim 1 further recites “providing and maintaining . . . a
vendor/customer database table” which includes “identifying and personal
data.” The Specification refers to a “[l]ist of . . . personal data for
consortium vendors and customers.” Id. ¶ 12. The provision and
maintenance of such a user database table is directed to storing
vendor/customer information, which is necessary input data for the claimed
method of organizing sales activities that is enabled by such software.
Claim 1 further recites “providing and maintaining . . . a searchable product
catalogue database table.” The Specification refers to “[p]roduct, product
pricing, product maintenance and other critical information in regards to all
items that were entered by vendors.” Id. Again, the provision and
maintenance of such a product catalogue database is directed to storing
product information, which is necessary input data for the claimed method
of organizing sales activities that is enabled by such software. Claim 1
further recites “providing an inventory database table and a customer asset
management database table.” The Specification states that the inventory
database table “[r]ecords by user number and manufacturer’s part number all
the items a user has put into a user’s inventory” and the asset management
database table “[r]ecords by user number and manufacturer’s part number all
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

7
the items a user has put into a user’s asset management database” and
“[w]hen a user enters the fact that an asset is in use, [] this table tracks
depreciation and warranty expiration information.” Id. Again, the provision
and maintenance of an inventory table and asset management table is
directed to storing product information, which is necessary input data for the
claimed method of organizing sales activities that is enabled by such
software.
Claim 1 further recites “providing customer users access to [the] . . .
product catalogue database, whereby a customer searches the catalogue data
base and purchases from any vendor user product selected from [the]
product catalogue database.” This step relates to having the inputted product
data be accessible to customer users and be able to be retrieved from storage
in order to enable the claimed method of organizing sales activities. Claim 1
further recites “providing for association of any said user’s identifying data
with information in any database table, which information is pertinent only
to said identified user.” This step relates to having the inputted vendor and
customer data being able to be associated with other inputted data in order to
enable the claimed method of organizing sales activities. Claim 1 further
recites “linking the purchasing customer’s identifying information from the
customer/vendor database table, and the product, product pricing and
product maintenance data for the selected product or products, to one or both
of said inventory database table and/or said customer asset management data
base table, such that the customer can retrieve, use and manipulate the
product, product pricing and product maintenance data in connection with
the management of the assets purchased.” This step relates to the linking or
association of inputted data in the customer/vendor database table to
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

8
inputted data in the product catalogue table database, inventory table
database, and/or asset management table database in order to allow customer
users to manage purchased products from the product catalogue table
database. In other words, the step relates to retrieving stored data that is
associated with other stored data in order to enable the claimed method of
organizing sales activities.
Each of the above-described steps relate to storing vendor/customer
information, product information, and asset management information,
associating the various items of information with other items of information,
and enabling the retrieval of any information and any of its associated
information. Such data organization is akin to collecting data, analyzing the
data (e.g., associating and/or linking certain data), and displaying results
(e.g., the requested data and any linked or associated data). The Federal
Circuit has consistently held that the concepts of collecting data, analyzing
data, and displaying results of the collection and analysis are abstract ideas.
See, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting information, analyzing information, and
presenting the results of collecting and analyzing information, without more,
as matters within the realm of abstract ideas); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Capital One Fin. Corp, 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (identifying
the abstract idea of collecting, displaying, and manipulating data); In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 613 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he
claims . . . are simply directed to the abstract idea of classifying and storing
digital images in an organized manner. . . . [W]e have applied the ‘abstract
idea’ exception to encompass inventions pertaining to methods of organizing
human activity.”); In re Jobin, 811 Fed. Appx. 633 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

9
(“Despite its expansive language and its recitation of servers and databases,
[the claim at issue] is, at bottom directed to the collection, organization,
grouping, and storage of data . . . . As the Board correctly concluded, this
claim is directed to a method of organizing human activity—a hallmark of
claims directed to abstract ideas.”).
Considered as a whole, these steps discussed above, under their
broadest reasonable interpretation, relate to the purchase of vendor products
and services by customers and asset management of such purchased
products and services by storing, associating, and retrieving information in
the form of vendor/customer data and product data. These steps fall under
the organization of commercial interactions and/or sales activities, which in
turn fall within the abstract idea exception subgrouping of certain methods
of organizing human activity. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus,
each of the steps discussed above recites a certain method of organizing
human activity, which is a judicial exception.
Appellant argues that although “the Examiner has followed the
guidelines procedurally, his conclusions are not consistent with the law of
abstract ideas upon which the guidelines are based.” Appeal Br. 7. More
particularly, Appellant argues that “[a] comparison of [Appellant’s] claims
to those found in the ‘abstract idea’ case law reveals that the claims at bar
are not ‘abstract ideas.’” Id. at 14 (boldface omitted). That is, Appellant
alleges that “[i]n contrast[] to the[] simple ‘one step’ routine functions [of
prior case law claims found to encompass abstract ideas] which are not
novel and are easily performed by computers, the methods and consortium
software claimed at bar involve sophisticated linking of data and steps
performed involving multiple data tables and multiple links.” Id. at 14–15.
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

10
Even considering Appellant’s method involves “multiple data tables
and multiple links” and “sophisticated linking of data” (Appeal Br. 14–15),
such recitation of data tables and linking of data contained within the data
tables solely relates to the storage, organization, and display (e.g., retrieval)
of data, which has consistently been held by the Federal Circuit to constitute
an abstract idea as noted above. Consequently, we determine that claim 1,
like the claims at issue in the above-noted case law relate to collecting,
displaying, and manipulating data. We subsequently determine claim 1
recites such collection, display, and manipulation of data as steps of
organizing commercial interactions and/or sales activities, which steps are
certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised
Guidance, and thus, an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Does Claim 1 Recite Additional Elements that
Integrate the Judicial Exception into a Practical Application?
Following the Revised Guidance, having found that claim 1 recites a
judicial exception, we next determine whether the claim recites “additional
elements that integrate the exception into a practical application” See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c),
(e)–(h)).
Claim 1 recites the provision and maintenance of “consortium
management software” including “relational data base tables which are
linked together.” Appeal Br. (Claims App.). More specifically, claim 1
recites
linking the purchasing customer’s identifying information from
the customer/vendor database table, and the product, product
pricing and product maintenance data for the selected product or
products, to one or both of said inventory database table and/or
said customer asset management data base table, such that the
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

11
customer can retrieve, use and manipulate the product, product
pricing and product maintenance data in connection with the
management of the assets purchased.
Id. All of these limitations relate to what the Examiner has identified as the
abstract idea itself. Final Act. 4. Moreover, the Examiner takes the position
that, even to the extent that the claim’s recitation of software and its
functionality would involve a computer processing unit “[(]CPU[)] to
perform the providing and linking steps, the CPU in all steps is recited at a
high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a
generic computer function of providing and linking steps) such that it
amounts [to] no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components.” Id. We agree with the Examiner that, to the
extent claim 1 encompasses any additional components, they would be
generic computer components that, when considered both individually and
in combination, do not implement the judicial exception with, or use the
judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim.
Appellant also has not established adequately that any additional
elements recited in claim 1 reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field.
Appellant asserts that “[u]pon asset acquisition, the data necessary to
manage and maintain the asset acquired is automatically made available to
the purchaser at any time,” and “[t]he customer does not have to enter such
data into separate customer owned asset management software.” Appeal
Br. 4 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 7 (emphasis omitted) (indicating
that the entry of data into separate customer owned asset management
software “is the case with purchases made using prior art software,” whereas
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

12
the claimed invention “facilitates asset acquisition, [and] also automatically
makes available the data necessary to manage and maintain the asset
acquired”).
To the extent Appellant’s argument is an assertion that the invention
improves upon technology, we are not persuaded that any purported
improvement in technology is reflected in the claims by the claims covering
a particular way to achieve the desired outcome (i.e., lack of data entry into
user owned software). Moreover, although we can appreciate that customers
would likely view having a consortium store data relating to management of
a purchased asset and allow customers access to such stored data, as
compared to the customer having to maintain its own data relating to
management of a purchased asset, we are not persuaded that such an
improvement is a technological one. Rather, such an improvement appears
to be an improvement in business practice for which generic computer
components are used in their ordinary capacity. “[I]mprovement in the
abstract idea itself . . . is not an improvement in technology.” MPEP
§2106.05(a)(II) (citing Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093–94
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“the court determined that the claimed user interface
simply provided a trader with more information to facilities market trades,
which improved the business process of market trading[,] but did not
improve computers or technology”). Similarly here, improvements in the
ease of storage and access to relevant data by customers through use of
consortium management software rather than customer software, may
improve the business practice of asset management from the perspective of
customers, but does not improve computers or technology.
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

13
We also find no indication in the Specification that the claimed
invention or any additional elements effect a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, nor do we find anything in the
Specification that indicates that the claimed invention or any additional
elements do more than merely link the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment to carry out the abstract idea. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
We have also considered Appellant’s argument that “[t]he Examiner’s
overly broad statements make any computer software unpatentable no matter
how sophisticated or unique it is in its application,” which “is contrary to the
Federal Circuit, which holds that either software per se, or its underlying
algorithm, can be patentable.” Appeal Br. 7 (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v.
Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir 2014), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), Enfish LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Appellant continues that
“[t]he patentability of software and the methods and systems it supports
should be judged by whether it precludes others from using a ‘basic tool of
scientific and technological work.’” Id. at 8.
Appellant’s argument suggests that its claims do not preempt the basic
tools of scientific and technological work, and this weighs in favor of patent
eligibility. Merely because claims do not preempt all forms of the
abstraction does not make them any less abstract. See OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[T]hat the
claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be limited to price
optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them any less
abstract.”). Moreover, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

14
patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the
dispositive test for patent eligibility. 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).
As to the cited Federal Circuit case law supporting that software or its
underlying algorithm can be patentable (Appeal Br. 7–8), we do not find it
persuasive of error by the Examiner and instead find the instant claims to be
distinguishable from the claims in those cases. In DDR, the claims describe
automatically generating a hybrid web page that permits users visiting a host
website to view and purchase products from a third-party merchant, whose
ads are displayed with hyperlinks on the host website, without leaving the
host website and entering that merchant's website. DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.
The Federal Circuit found the claims to be directed to patentable subject
matter because they “specify how interactions with the Internet are
manipulated to yield a desired result--a result that overrides the routine and
conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a
hyperlink.” Id. at 1258. Thus, the solution set forth in the DDR claims “is
necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer networks.” Id. at 1257. On the
other hand, as described above, Appellant does not explain adequately how
claim 1 recites a technological improvement tied to a technical problem in
the art of data management, as opposed to a business process improvement
for customers.
Similarly, in McRO, the claims relate to data processing involving
automating an animation method. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1307–08, 1314. The
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

15
Federal Circuit found the claims patent eligible because the claims, when
considered as a whole, were directed to a technological improvement over
existing, manual 3-D animation techniques and used limited rules “in a
process specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result”
Id. at 1316. Again, we are not persuaded that Appellant has shown
adequately how the claimed method here is used to achieve an improved
technological result. Finally, in Enfish, the court found that “the self-
referential table recited in the claims on appeal is a specific type of data
structure designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data
in memory.” Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. The court found they were “not
faced with a situation where general-purpose computer components are
added post-hoc to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical
equation,” but “[r]ather, the claims are directed to a specific implementation
of a solution to a problem in the software arts.” Id. Again, as explained
above, the claim here is not focused on a specific means or method that
improves technology, but is directed to a resulting improvement in business
practice that is the abstract idea itself and merely utilizes generic computer
technology.
In short, any additional elements that may be present in claim 1:
(1) are not applied with any particular machine; (2) do not improve the
functioning of a computer or other technology; (3) do not effect a
transformation of a particular article to a different state; and (4) are not
applied in any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See
MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Any additional elements merely relate to
the use of a CPU as a tool to implement the judicial exception recited in
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

16
claim 1. See id. § 2106.05(f) (“Use of a computer or other machinery in its
ordinary capacity for . . . tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or
simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the
fact to an abstract idea . . . does not provide significantly more.”). Thus, to
the extent that there are additional elements, they do not add meaningful
limits to the judicial exception recited in claim 1. Consequently, the claimed
invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a “practical application.”
Thus, claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, which is a judicial exception to
patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2B: Does Claim 1 Recite an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any elements, individually
or as an ordered combination, that transform the abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application, e.g., by providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S.
at 217–18. The Revised Guidance similarly states, under Step 2B,
“examiners should . . . evaluate the additional elements individually and in
combination . . . to determine whether they provide an inventive concept
(i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the
exception itself).” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines that claim 1 “does not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception” and “[a]s discussed above with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a
CPU to perform providing and linking steps amounts to no more than mere
instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.”
Final Act. 5.
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

17
As discussed above, to the extent claim 1 includes additional
elements, any such additional elements include only conventional computer
components. Any such additional elements, when considered individually
and as an ordered combination, are well-understood, routine, conventional
activity in the field and are not specified beyond a high level of generality.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. For the reasons discussed above,
we find no element or combination of elements recited in claim 1 that
contains any “inventive concept” or adds anything “significantly more” to
transform the abstract concept into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573
U.S. at 221.
For these reasons, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1, 32, 33, and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent Claims 2–13, 15–31, 34, and 35
With respect to the dependent claims, the Examiner finds that:
[t]he dependent claims do not add limitations that
meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The dependent claims do
not impart patent eligibility to the abstract idea of the
independent claim. The dependent claims rather further narrow
the abstract idea and the narrower scope does not change the
outcome of the two part Mayo test. Narrowing the scope of the
claims is not enough to impart eligibility as it is still interpreted
as an abstract idea, a narrower abstract idea. Therefore none of
the dependent claims alone or as an ordered combination add
limitations that qualify as significantly more than the abstract
idea.
Final Act. 5.
Appellant asserts that “[t]he dependent claims add further limitations,
features and creativity to the independent claims.” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant then proceeds to restate the limitations of each of the dependent
claims. Id. at 15–19. Based on this restatement of the limitations of each of
Appeal 2020-004436
Application 14/786,244

18
the dependent claims, Appellant asserts that “[t]hus, the dependent claims
add further limitations which distinguish the claims in this application from
the simple ‘one step’ routine function claims which are found in the ‘abstract
idea’ case law.” Id. at 19.
Appellant does not present arguments with sufficient particularity to
persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims. In
particular, merely by restating the language of the dependent claims,
Appellant does not explain adequately how the limitations of the dependent
claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or recite an
inventive concept, rather than merely refine, narrow, and/or provide further
details regarding the abstract idea as found by the Examiner.
For these reasons, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2–13, 15–31, 34, and 35.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Ba
sis
Affirmed Reversed
1‒13, 15–36 101 Eligibility 1‒13, 15–36

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