Stephen Mitchell et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 8, 2021

2020004603 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 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.
12/348,152 01/02/2009 Stephen John Mitchell REFD.P0099US/1001054051 2417
29053 7590 01/08/2021
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2021 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHEN JOHN MITCHELL
and AARON STUDWELL
__________________

Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 19–34, which are all of
the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies Refinitiv US Organization LLC as the real party in interest. See
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 8, and 34 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring continuously a weather information database
for current and updated weather data, the weather data
including daily weather variables and periodic weather forecast
data;
retrieving, on a real-time data server, the weather data
from the weather information database, in response to the
monitoring;
computing at least one preliminary daily weather variable
using the retrieved weather data, the at least one preliminary
daily weather variable including one of a preliminary daily
minimum temperature and a preliminary daily maximum
temperature; the at least one preliminary daily weather variable
being an approximated predicted value and being determined
prior to the weather information database releasing true daily
minimum and maximum temperatures, wherein the true daily
minimum and maximum temperatures are actual minimum and
maximum temperatures;
compiling, by the real-time data server, the weather data
and the at least one preliminary daily weather variable using at
least a real-time data spreadsheet technology;
calculating a natural gas storage forecast trend indicating
a possible change in the natural gas storage in a geographic
region, wherein the calculating the natural gas storage forecast
trend includes:
executing at least one algorithm using the at least
one preliminary daily weather variable to calculate a real-time
natural gas forecast value indicating a change in the natural gas
storage in the geographic region;
comparing the real-time natural gas forecast value
with historical natural gas storage data for the geographic
region; and
determining the natural gas storage forecast trend
based on differences between the real-time natural gas forecast
value and the historical natural gas storage data corresponding
to the real-time natural gas forecast value;
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

3
determining, by the real-time data server, an indication of
completeness of the real-time natural gas forecast, the
indication of completeness including a representation of
completeness of a process of converting from the at least one
preliminary daily weather variable to the true daily minimum
and maximum temperatures retrieved from the weather
information database;
converting, by a communication module, the compiled
weather data, the compiled at least one preliminary daily
weather variable, the indication of completeness, and the
natural gas storage forecast trend into the at least one weather
product; and
transmitting the at least one weather product from the
communication module.

Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims App.).
REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 19–34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, and 19–34
The Examiner analyzes the limitation of independent claims 1, 8, and
34 and determines they recite a fundamental economic practice of weather-
related data and trading strategies long prevalent in commerce systems and a
method of organizing human activity using generic computer components.
Final Act. 4–9; Ans. 3. The Examiner determines that the additional features
in claim 8, such as determining an indication of completeness, only refine
the abstract idea further. Ans. 7–8. The Examiner also determines that the
dependent claims recite limitations that refine the abstract idea further, and
claims 6, 10, 11, 13, 14, and 33 recite extra-solution activity and the same
abstract idea without any technological improvement. See id. at 8–10.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

4
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act states:
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.
35 U.S.C. § 101. This provision contains an 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).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the elements of each claim, individually and
“as an ordered combination,” to determine if additional elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application” as an “inventive
concept” sufficient to ensure the claims in practice amount to significantly
more than a patent on the ineligible concept itself. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). Under the Revised Guidance, to determine whether a
claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
listed in the Revised Guidance (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods
of organizing human activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or
mental processes); and (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)
(9th ed. Rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (“MPEP”)). Id. at 52–55.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim either (3) adds a specific limitation beyond a 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. Id. at 56.
Step 1: Are the Claims Within a Statutory Category?
Claims 1–3 and 6 recite a method. Claims 8–17 and 19–33 recite a
system. Claim 34 recites a computer readable media. These claims recite a
process, a machine, and a manufacture under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Final Act. 3.
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
Appellant argues the claims as a group under Prong One. See Appeal
Br. 6–22. We select claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity––fundamental economic practices long prevalent
in commerce systems. See Final Act. 3–9; Ans. 3. The Revised Guidance
enumerates these fundamental economic practices as mitigating risk and
hedging. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Some limitations of the
claims also recite mathematical calculations and mental processes. See id.
The claimed method relates to trading weather-sensitive commodities.
Spec. ¶ 2. It improves the forecasting of meteorologists who may misread or
miscalculate a weather forecast and who also take more time to review and
interpret weather forecasts. Id. ¶¶ 3–5. The method expedites trading ahead
of market movements by reducing such human error, decision-making, and
processing time thereby to expedite weather forecasts used for trading. Id.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

6
More accurate and timely forecasts facilitate trading ahead of market
movements in response to weather related information thus mitigating the
risk of trading weather-sensitive commodities. Id.; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219
(settlement risk mitigation is a fundamental economic practice); see Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (hedging and protecting against risk are a
fundamental economic practice). Bilski’s claims hedged risk in transactions
for fixed-price commodities by considering historical weather patterns,
historical costs, and weather-related variables. Bilski, 561 U.S. at 599, 614–
15. Some claims recited formulas for historical weather patterns, “weather-
related price risk,” and a “location-specific weather indicator.” Id. at 599,
611; see Interim Guidance for Determining Subject Matter Eligibility for
Process Claims in View of Bilski v. Kappos, 75 Fed. Reg. 43922, 43926–27
(July 27, 2010) (citing claims 1–9 of the Bilski patent); see also Ans. 3.
The Examiner correctly determines that claim 1 recites the above-
identified abstract idea by monitoring a weather information database for
weather data, retrieving the weather data, computing a preliminary daily
weather variable using the retrieved weather data, compiling weather data
and preliminary daily weather variable, using the variable to calculate a
natural gas storage forecast trend, determining a completeness of converting
the preliminary daily weather variable to true daily minimum and maximum
temperatures, and converting weather data, the variable, the completeness
indication, and natural gas forecast trend to a weather product. Final Act. 3–
9; Ans. 3; see Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims App.).
We recognize that “[a]t some level, ‘all inventions . . . embody, use,
reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract
ideas.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

7
Here, claim 1 recites the fundamental economic practice identified
above implemented through steps that can be performed as mental processes
and mathematical calculations at a high level of generality as an abstract
idea. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Monitoring a weather information database, retrieving weather data,
and compiling weather data and a preliminary daily weather variable involve
steps of organizing human activity and mental processes. See Elec. Power
Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But
merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection, analysis,
and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary
mental processes, whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the
information-based category of abstract ideas.”); 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.”); Content Extraction and Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data, recognizing
certain data in the collected data, and storing recognized data recite mental
steps humans perform such as banks reviewing checks, recognizing data in
checks (e.g., amount, account number, account holder), and storing data);
see also Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The
parsing and comparing of [certain] claims . . . are similar to the collecting
and recognizing of Content Extraction . . . and the classifying in an
organized manner of TLI . . . .”). Here, claim 1 recites data processing steps
with no technical details to distinguish them from ordinary mental processes.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

8
Electric Power addressed similar claims and held:
[A] large portion of the lengthy claims is devoted to
enumerating types of information and information sources
available within the power-grid environment. But merely
selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a
process from ordinary mental processes, whose implicit
exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based
category of abstract ideas.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; see also Clarilogic, Inc. v. FormFree
Holdings Corp., 681 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“But a method for
collection, analysis, and generation of information reports, where the claims
are not limited to how the collected information is analyzed or reformed, is
the height of abstraction.”). Here, no technical details are claimed beyond
basic data monitoring, retrieving, and compiling steps recited in the claim.
The Specification describes data collection as implemented on generic
hardware and software. Spec. ¶¶ 22, 24, 25. Real-time data (RTD) server
102 is configured to retrieve and compile weather forecast data and may use
a preconfigured Excel® spreadsheet to retrieve real-time weather data from
weather information database 110 and update the data. Id. This description
confirms the broad, abstract scope of the claim language. See Ericsson Inc.
v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“[T]he specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed
to . . . [but] the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when
identifying the ‘true focus of a claim.’”) (quoting ChargePoint, Inc. v.
SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 766 (Fed. Cir. 2019)); Synopsys, Inc. v.
Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The § 101
inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves.”).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

9
As claimed, the limitations recite mental processes. Electric Power
analyzed similar claims to monitoring an electric power grid by collecting
data from multiple sources in real time and accumulating and updating the
measurements. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–52. The court held the focus
of the claims was collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis and, therefore, the focus of the claims
was on mental processes in the abstract-idea category. Id. at 1353, 1355.
Other limitations recite mathematical calculations such as computing
at least one preliminary daily weather variable including a preliminary daily
minimum or maximum temperature as an approximated predicted value,
executing an algorithm to calculate a real-time natural gas forecast value
indicating a change in natural gas storage in a geographic region, comparing
the real-time natural gas forecast value with a historical natural gas storage
data to determine a natural gas storage forecast trend based on a difference,
determining a completeness indication of the process of converting a
preliminary daily weather variable to the true daily minimum and maximum
temperatures, and converting compiled weather data, compiled preliminary
daily weather variable, completeness indication, and the natural gas storage
forecast trend into at least one weather product. See Appeal Br. 7–8 (Claims
App.); see also Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“In a similar vein, we have
treated analyzing information by steps people go through in their minds, or
by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially mental processes
within the abstract-idea category.”); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co.,
855 F.3d 1322, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Adding one abstract idea (math) to
another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim
non-abstract.”).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

10
Appellant contends that the Revised Guidance requires the USPTO to
identify specific limitations in a claim under examination that an examiner
considers to recite an abstract idea and determine whether the limitations so
identified fall in the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in
the Revised Guidance. Appeal Br. 6–7.
The Examiner analyzed each limitation of claim 1 and determined the
claim recites certain methods of organizing human activity as a fundamental
economic practice but for generic computer components, and the dependent
claims recite features of the abstract idea or extra-solution activities. Final
Act. 3–9; Ans. 3–4, 8–10. The Revised Guidance identifies certain methods
of organizing human activity and fundamental economic practices as an
abstract idea as Appellant admits.2 Appeal Br. 7 (citing Revised Guidance).
Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred in concluding that all claim
limitations of claim 1 recite abstract methods of organizing human activity
and do not recite technological implementation details. Id. Appellant cites
Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples as support for this
argument. Id. at 7–10. However, as Appellant recognizes, Example 42 also
determines that claims 1 and 2 of Example 42 as a whole recite methods of
organizing human activity. Id. at 9–10; Subject Matter Eligibility Examples
at 18–19. Thus, Example 42 does not change our Prong One analysis.
Accordingly, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified
above as do claims 2, 3, 6, 8–17, and 19–34, which are not argued separately
under Prong One. Id. at 8–22; see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

2 The Revised Guidance also advises that the “[f]ailure of USPTO personnel
to follow the guidance, however, is not in itself, a proper basis for either an
appeal or a petition.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

11
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether the claims recite additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We determine the claims lack additional elements that
improve a computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in
conjunction with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the
claim. They do not transform or reduce a particular article to a different
state or thing. They do not apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way
beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; Final Act. 9–10; Ans. 3–12.
Appellant argues that claim 1 of Example 423 supports integration.
Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that, like Example 42, “the Specification
describes receiving data in a first format (e.g., weather data in a forecast
format) and a conversion process for converting that data into a standardized
format (e.g., a weather product) that is suitable for use by traders.” Id.
Appellant argues the Specification describes a solution that “enables real-
time detection of updates to weather data and converts detected changes to
the weather data into weather products that [are] shared with traders to
enable the traders to rapidly make decisions (e.g., initiate trading decisions
before market trends resulting from the weather forecast move markets).”
Id. at 10. Appellant asserts the spreadsheet uses real-time data technology
with cells assigned particular values and functions to monitor a data source
to detect changes or updates available from the data source in real time. Id.

3 Refers to Example 42 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract
Ideas, issued Jan. 7, 2019 (hereinafter SME Examples), and available at:
https://www.uspto.gov/patent/ laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/
subject-matter-eligibility.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

12
The features argued by Appellant are part of the abstract idea. They
cannot serve as “additional elements” that integrate that abstract idea into a
practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24; see Alice,
573 U.S. at 221 (explaining a claim reciting an abstract idea must include
additional features to ensure that it does not monopolize the abstract idea);
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“But, a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”).
Even if we consider these features, they do not improve computers or
technology as recited in claim 1, and Example 42 illustrates why they do not.
Example 42 (claim 1) recites a distributed network that allows remote users
to access and update patient information in real time and different formats.
The system converts and stores data in a standard format, and generates and
transmits messages to users when updated data is stored. SME Examples,
at 17–18. Remote users share information in real time in a standardized
format regardless of the format users input patient information. Id. at 18–19.
Here, claim 1 does not allow remote users to input and share data in a
standard format via automatic updates as users update information. Claim 1
instead collects weather data in real time, performs generic calculations and
computations to generate a “weather product,” and transmits that product.
Claim 1 is similar to claim 2 of Example 42, which is not integrated
into a practical application. SME Examples, at 19. Claim 2 of Example 42
stores information about a patient’s condition in network storage devices and
allows users to access and update the information. Id. It applies the concept
of storing and updating patient information in a computer environment at a
high level of generality using computers as tools. Id. Such implementation
of an abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application. Id.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

13
Here, claim 1 retrieves and compiles weather data, computes a daily
weather variable, calculates a natural gas storage forecast trend, determines
an indication of completeness, and converts the values to a weather product.
Appeal Br. 8 (Claims App.). It stores and updates weather data and uses the
data to perform various calculations at a high level of generality. Id.
No details are recited for the weather product or process of calculating
it. The Specification indicates that weather data are compiled and converted
to a weather product without any technical details. Spec. ¶¶ 6–8, 22, 25, 29.
Communication module 104 may compile weather data and develop weather
products distributed to users in a variety of formats rather than in a standard
format as in Example 42. See id. ¶¶ 22–25; SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“As many cases make clear, even if a
process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.”).
Even if the Specification provided technical details, the claims direct
our analysis. See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1325; Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1149;
see also ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769–70 (“Even if [the] specification had
provided . . . a technical explanation of how to enable communication over a
network for a device interaction . . . the claim language here would not
require those details.”); Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire
Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[T]he complexity of
the implementing software or the level of detail in the specification does not
transform a claim reciting only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible
system or method.”)
The claims and holding in Electric Power are pertinent here.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

14
Like claim 1 here, the method claim in Electric Power monitored and
analyzed data. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–52. It collected data in real
time, automatically detected and analyzed events in real time, updated the
measurements from the data streams in real time, and derived a composite
indicator of power grid reliability based on real time computations of data
measurements and dynamic stability metrics. Id. Yet, “merely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is
abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Id. at 1354.
Here, weather data, daily weather variables, completeness indication,
and natural gas storage forecast trends are converted to a “weather product.”
The Specification indicates weather products may be distributed in a variety
of formats by user input module 106 to allow users to customize the weather
data. Spec. ¶ 22; see Voit Techs, LLC v. Del-Ton, Inc., 757 F. App’x 1000,
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Voit fails to explain how employing different formats . . .
improves compression techniques or the functioning of the computer.”);
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elec. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Without additional limitations, a process that employs
mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate
additional information is not patent eligible.”). Customization of weather
information received by a user is part of the abstract idea identified above.
The “real-time data spreadsheet technology” is a Microsoft Office
Excel® function that allows users to assign a particular cell to retrieve real
time weather data and obtain updates as more data is available. Spec. ¶¶ 24,
25, 30, 31. Thus, the RTD spreadsheet technology collects weather data in
real time and compiles variables as generic data processing. See Ans. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

15
The weather system is described generically. RTD server 102 is a
computer server or a data processing machine configured to retrieve and
compile weather forecast data and send data to communication module 104
at near real-time speed. Spec. ¶ 22. RTD server 102 may poll weather
information database 110 for forecast updates and acquire data “in near real
time” and use an Excel® spreadsheet to do so. Id. ¶¶ 23, 24. Claim 1 does
not recite a polling process. Even so, the claims in Electric Power similarly
monitored, obtained, and updated data in real time as discussed above.
The Specification confirms that the claims replicate the calculations
and mental processes that meteorologists perform to forecast weather.
Once updated weather data or forecast information has been
downloaded, the method of the invention may proceed to
process and compile the weather data and forecast information.
The process and compiling may include executing a plurality of
algorithms configured to sort and/or prioritize the weather data
and forecasts. The process of sorting and prioritizing the
weather data may generally be conducted by a computer, such
that human analysts and meteorologists are not required.
Id. ¶ 66 (emphasis added). Claim 1 does not recite a particular algorithm.
“If a claim is directed essentially to a method of calculating, using a
mathematical formula, even if the solution is for a specific purpose, the . . .
method is nonstatutory.” Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351 (quoting Parker v.
Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 595 (1978)); see SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168 (“Here, in
contrast, the focus of the claims is not a physical-realm improvement but an
improvement in wholly abstract ideas––the selection and mathematical
analysis of information, followed by reporting or display of the results.”);
Clarilogic, 681 F. App’x at 954 (“Peculiar to this case is that the algorithm
engine mentioned in the claim is not claimed, identified, or explained.”).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

16
In Electric Power, continuous monitoring and updating of data in real
time did not improve components, such as measurement devices, or provide
inventive programming. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Merely requiring
the selection and manipulation of information––to provide a ‘humanly
comprehensible’ amount of information useful for users . . . by itself does
not transform the otherwise-abstract processes of information collection and
analysis.”); see Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1311 1315–
16 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (capturing and transferring data between devices via a
“push” or “pull” mode that periodically polls data capture devices to collect,
transfer, and publish data automates a process, but “the need to perform
tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem”).
Furthermore, merely “transmitting the at least one weather product
from the communication module” does not improve computers, networks, or
other technology. See buySAFE v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the information over a
network —with no further specification—is not even arguably inventive.”).
Appellant asserts that converting data into a weather product enables
rapid generation and distribution to users to make decisions. Appeal Br. 12.
Yet, performing a process faster on generic computers does not transform an
abstract idea. SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168 (where the focus of the claims was
mathematical analysis rather than improved computers or networks and used
off-the-shelf technology, the claims merely used computers as tools to carry
out the analysis); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
(U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required
calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not . . .
alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

17
Appellant argues that claim 1 is patent eligible in view of Trading
Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001 (Fed. Cir.
2017) where the claims recited a specific, structured graphical user interface
with prescribed functionality related to the structure of the graphical user
interface to resolve a specific problem in the prior art. Appeal Br. 13.
Here, claim 1 does not recite a graphical user interface, much less one
with a specific structure and functionality as in Trading Technologies. See
Trading Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1004. Claim 1 does not impose any limits
on how the weather product is displayed to a user. See Ans. 6–7.
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claim 8
Appellant argues that claim 8 is eligible at least because it includes
features similar to those recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14–16. We disagree
that the features integrate the abstract idea recited in claim 8 into a practical
application for the reasons discussed above for claim 1.
Appellant also asserts that claim 8 recites additional features such as
an “indication of completeness” that indicates how close as a percentage the
process for converting preliminary weather variables into true weather data
is to being complete and a user input model that allows a user to customize
the delivery of weather products. Id. at 16 (citing Spec. ¶ 41).
As claimed, “the indication of completeness” merely “includ[es] a
representation of completeness of a process of converting from the at least
one preliminary daily weather variable to the true daily minimum and
maximum temperatures retrieved from the weather information database.”
Appeal Br. 9 (Claims App.).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

18
This concept informs users how close a calculated preliminary daily
minimum/maximum temperature is to the “true” daily minimum/maximum
temperature that is published by a weather service for a preceding 24 hours.
Spec. ¶¶ 40, 41. RTD server 102 obtains temperature data from a weather
service periodically and calculates a preliminary daily maximum, minimum,
and average. Id. ¶ 41. The “% complete” field displays how complete or
close this process is to being a “true” or “official” minimum, maximum, or
average temperature. Id. The forecast maximum, minimum, and average
temperatures may be estimated with fair accuracy using preliminary data to
give traders a significant time advantage over competitors in the market who
wait for the actual or “true” temperatures. Id. The “% Complete” indication
reflects the percentage that the preliminary forecast is a “true” forecast given
by an official weather model for a particular forecast day. Id. ¶¶ 41, 45.
The Specification confirms an “indication of completeness” does not
improve computers or software. It indicates how closely a preliminary daily
minimum, maximum, and average temperature calculation is to being a true
temperature value based on actual values reported by a weather service. Id.
¶¶ 40, 41. It cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (automatically determining an estimated outcome using a plurality of
prices means that pricing decisions have more granularity “[b]ut relying on a
computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”); Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1350
(“The method in the #415 patent claims an abstract idea because it describes
a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations and is
not tied to a specific structure or machine.”). No particular machine is used.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

19
Here, an indication of completion optimizes a natural gas forecast by
indicating how close to a true temperature the preliminary daily temperature
values are upon which the natural gas forecast is based. Optimization of
such parameters, without more, does not integrate the judicial exception.
See OIP, 788 F.3d at 1363 (“At best, the claims describe automation of the
fundamental economic concept of offer-based price optimization through the
use of generic-computer functions. Both the prosecution history and the
specification emphasize that the key distinguishing feature of the claims is
the ability to automate or otherwise make more efficient traditional price-
optimization methods.”).
The method automates existing practices to minimize human error and
processing time of meteorologists who calculate and review forecasts thus to
maximize opportunities for traders to make decisions before a market moves
in response to weather related information. Spec. ¶¶ 4–8, 20, 26, 28. It uses
generic software, computers, and servers to execute algorithms so human
analysts and meteorologists are not required. Id. ¶¶ 2–6, 19, 22–26, 66; OIP,
788 F.3d at 1363 (“But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more
quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”).
A user input module allows users to customize weather products they
receive and tailor information without reciting technical details of a device
or machine that is integral to the claim. See Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v.
Amazon.com Inc., 838 F.3d 1266, 1269, 1271 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (delivering
user-selected media content to portable devices is an abstract idea and a
“customized user interface” is not a particular form of customization but
covers the general idea of customizing a user interface as an abstract idea).
A Trader Dashboard is described but is not claimed. See Spec. ¶¶ 43–48.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

20
Automating previous manual processes does not improve computers
or technology. See Cellspin, 927 F.3d at 1316 (“[T]he need to perform tasks
automatically is not a unique technical problem.”); Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, at 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“[T]he fact that the web site returns the pre-designed ad more quickly than a
newspaper could send the user a location-specific advertisement insert does
not confer patent eligibility[.]”); Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280 (“[T]he fact that
the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not . . . alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter”).
Accordingly, we determine claim 8 lacks additional elements that are
sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Independent Claim 34
Appellant argues that claim 34 is patent eligible at least for the
reasons argued for claims 1 and 8. Appeal Br. 18. This argument is not
persuasive for the reasons discussed above for claims 1 and 8. Accordingly,
we determine that claim 34 lacks additional elements that are sufficient to
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent Claim 6
Appellant asserts that claim 6 “allow[s] a user to set up pre-defined
delivery conditions to customize receipt of the at least one weather product
from the communication module through a user input module that is stored
on a non-transitory computer readable medium, such that an individualized
weather forecast is transmitted to the user” to enable a trader to customize
weather products for delivery to ensure received weather products provide
relevant information to the trading activities. Appeal Br. 19.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

21
As discussed above for claim 8, delivering user-defined content does
not improve computers or tie the abstract idea to a particular machine that is
integral to the claim. See Affinity Labs, 838 F.3d at 1269, 1271; id. at 1263
(“The essential advance is not in the process of downloading applications,
but only in the content of this particular application, and that is nothing but a
functionally described display of information [that] does not cross out of the
abstract idea category . . . [with] no further specification of a particular
technology for getting the defined content displayed.”); Data Scape Ltd. v.
Western Digital Corp., 816 F. App’x 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“the concept
of delivering user-selected media content to portable devices is an abstract
idea” and the Asserted Patents do not improve how computers function but
instead use computers for their standard functions of storing, transferring,
and processing data) (citation omitted). As claimed, the steps merely recite
extra-solution activity of the data collection and analysis as an ancillary part
of the abstract idea. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see Ans. 10. Adding
insignificant extra-solution activity to an abstract idea does not integrate it
into a practical application. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.31.
Thus, we find no integration for claim 6.
Dependent Claim 10
Appellant argues that claim 10 clarifies that the real-time data server
of claim 8 uses a real-time data spreadsheet technology to continuously poll
and check weather information database for updated real-time weather data.
Appeal Br. 19. Appellant argues that this technology enables rapid detection
of relevant information changes and quicker transactions, and generation of
information derived from the updated relevant information, to enable traders
to engage in transactions more quickly. Id. at 19–20.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

22
Again, as discussed above for claim 1, the real-time data spreadsheet
technology uses known Microsoft Office Excel® RTD technology to assign
particular cells to retrieve data for the cell. Spec. ¶¶ 24, 25. Appellant does
not purport to have invented or even improved real-time data spreadsheet
technology. The technology provides traders with dynamic weather forecast
information changeable in real-time. Id. ¶ 30. Electric Power addressed
similar claims to collecting and analyzing data in real time by accumulating
and updating data measurements and displaying results of the collection and
analysis with off-the-shelf computer, network, and display technology. Elec.
Power, 830 F.3d at 1351–52, 1355. The claims were not eligible because:
The claims in this case specify what information in the power-
grid field it is desirable to gather, analyze, and display,
including in “real time”; but they do not include any
requirement for performing the claimed functions of gathering,
analyzing, and displaying in real time by use of anything but
entirely conventional, generic technology. The claims therefore
do not state an arguably inventive concept in the realm of
application of the information-based abstract ideas.
Id. at 1356 (emphasis added). The court reached this result even as to the
claim requirement of “displaying concurrent visualization” of two or more
types of information in a time-synchronized display because “nothing in the
patent contains any suggestion that the displays needed for that purpose are
anything but readily available.” Id. at 1355; see Ans. 10.
Thus, we find no integration for claim 10.
Dependent Claim 11
Appellant argues that disseminating real-time weather data to a trader
in real-time as recited in claim 11 provides a practical application similar to
Example 42 of the SME Examples. Appeal Br. 20.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

23
Example 42 (claim 1) recites a network that allows remote users to
access and update patient information in real time using different formats.
The system converts and stores data in a standard format, and generates and
transmits messages to users when updated data is stored. SME Examples,
at 17–18. Remote users share information in real time in a standard format
regardless of the format users input patient information. Id. at 18–19. Here,
claim 11 disseminates real-time weather data to traders in real-time. Appeal
Br. 10 (Claims App.). Without more, merely providing real-time data to end
users recites extra-solution activity that does not improve computers or other
technology as Electric Power held. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1353–55.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 2 of Example 42, which is not integrated
into a practical application. SME Examples, at 19. Claim 2 of Example 42
stores and updates patient information in a computer environment at a high
level of generality using computers as tools. Id. Such implementation of an
abstract idea on a generic computer is not a practical application. Id.
Thus, we find no integration of claim 11.
Dependent Claim 13
Appellant asserts that claim 13 recites “a real-time data spreadsheet
configured to provide a dynamic weather forecast changeable in real-time”
and this feature provides an integration as indicated by Example 42. We do
not agree for the reasons discussed for Appellant’s claims 1 and 11, in light
of decisions like Electric Power. Unlike Trading Technology, claim 13 does
not recite a graphical user interface much less one with specific structure and
function as in Trading Technology. Trading Tech., 675 F. App’x at 1004.
The Specification describes a Trader Dashboard, but no features are claimed.
Thus, we find no integration of claim 13.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

24
Dependent Claim 14
Appellant argues that claim 14 clarifies the real-time data spreadsheet
comprises a graphical user interface with plural real-time temperature, line,
and bar charts configured to indicate weather forecast information for a
plurality of cities and regions, and thus requires distribution of data in real-
time in a standardized format like Example 42 and Trading Technology to
enable traders to execute transactions more efficiently. Appeal Br. 21–22.
Example 42 (claim 1) is distinguishable for reasons discussed above.
In addition claim 14 displays data that results from the data collection and
analysis of the abstract idea. Such display in real-time is part of the abstract
idea and extra-solution activity. In Electric Power, “displaying concurrent
visualization” of multiple types of information, even a time-synchronized
display, was not patent eligible when performed by off-the-shelf computer,
network, and display technology. Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; see also
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(“Recitation . . . of the collection, organization, and display of two sets of
information on a generic display device is abstract absent a ‘specific
improvement to the way computers [or other technologies] operate.’”);
Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384–85 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (claims to providing information to traders in a way that helps them
process information more quickly, e.g., as P&L values along an axis, did not
improve computers or technology); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG, LLC,
921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (an allegedly new arrangement of
generic information to assist traders in processing the information more
quickly did not improve computers or solve a technological problem).
Thus, we find no integration for claim 14.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

25
Dependent Claim 33
Appellant argues that the claimed “auto execution module configured
to execute a commodity purchase or sale once predefined parameters tied to
the technical indicators are met” improves a graphical user interface with
improved trade transaction speed before market movements. Appeal Br. 22.
The Specification indicates that this feature is known as “algorithmic
trading,” where a module is set at user predefined parameters to buy or sell
once an indicated bullish/bearish signal is achieved. Spec. ¶ 48. A user may
predefine how many contracts are to be bought or sold when certain events
occur, and the events may be tied directly to bullish or bearish signals. Id.
Essentially, this feature automates trading using preset parameters that
traders establish and otherwise would enter manually. However, the “mere
automation of manual processes using generic computers” without more
“does not constitute patentable improvement in computer technology.”
Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384 (citation omitted); see Credit Acceptance
Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (same).
Without reciting more in the claim, applying rules to transactional
data to determine tasks to be completed recites an abstract idea that, when
implemented on generic computers and software components, does not
improve computers or tie the idea to a particular machine that is integral to
the claim. See Accenture, 728 F.3d at 1343–45; see also FairWarning IP,
LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1094 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (analyzing
data according to rules did not make the claims eligible).
Thus, we find no integration for claim 33.
Accordingly, we determine that the claims lack additional elements
that are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

26
Step 2B: Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether the claims recite additional elements,
individually, or as an ordered combination, that provide an inventive
concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when claim
limitations involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities known in industry. Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; see Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers
if a claim adds a specific limitation beyond the recited judicial exception that
also is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
The Examiner finds that the additional elements are generic computer
components that perform basic functions or extra-solution activity that may
link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment but do not
supply an inventive concept. Final Act. 10–11; Ans. 12–13.
Individually, the claims recite the abstract idea identified above as
implemented on generic computer components and functions used as tools.
See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract
idea using conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not
been transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”);
Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280 (“The district court correctly held that without
the computer limitations nothing remains in the claims but the abstract idea
of managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing
calculations and manipulating the results.”); see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 226
(“Nearly every computer will include a ‘communications controller’ and
‘data storage unit’ capable of performing the basic calculation, storage, and
transmission functions required by the method claims.”).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

27
As an ordered combination, the limitations recite no more than they
do when considered individually. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (citing Mayo,
566 U.S. at 79); see BSG, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“As a matter of law, narrowing
or reformulating an abstract idea does not add ‘significantly more’ to it.”);
Versata Dev. Grp., Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (claims that improve an abstract idea without improving computers
are not patent eligible).
Groundbreaking, innovative, or brilliant steps are insufficient. See
Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591
(2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter how much of an
advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the
realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the non-
abstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for
patenting.”); Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc., 931 F.3d 1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (“[M]erely reciting an abstract idea by itself in a claim––even if the
idea is novel and non-obvious––is not enough to save it from ineligibility.”).
Nothing in the claims, understood in light of the specification,
requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional
computer, network, and display technology for gathering,
sending, and presenting the desired information. That is so
even as to the claim requirement of “displaying concurrent
visualization” of two or more types of information, ’710 patent,
col. 31, line 37, even if understood to require time-
synchronized display: nothing in the patent contains any
suggestion that the displays needed for that purpose are
anything but readily available. We have repeatedly held that
such invocations of computers and networks that are not even
arguably inventive are “insufficient to pass the test of an
inventive concept in the application” of an abstract idea.
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355; see Ans. 4–5.
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

28
As discussed under Prong Two above, the Specification describes the
weather information database, real-time data server, and RTD spreadsheet as
known technologies employed to perform conventional activities of storing
and retrieving data without technical details to indicate an inventive concept.
See Spec. ¶¶ 22–29, Fig. 1. RTD server 102 retrieves and compiles data of
weather forecasts. Id. ¶ 22. Communication module 104 compiles weather
data to develop a weather product and distribute it in a variety of formats.
Id. An Excel® spreadsheet retrieves real-time weather forecast data from the
weather information database 110. Id. ¶ 24. RTD server 102 may poll the
weather information database 110 for current and updated weather data. Id.
¶ 25. The high level description of these elements indicates they are well-
known and perform well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (using a computer to create accounts, obtain data,
adjust account balances, and issue automated instructions recites electronic
recordkeeping and well-understood, routine, conventional activities known
in the industry); Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356 (gathering, analyzing,
and displaying data in “real time” using conventional, generic technology is
not an inventive concept); Intellectual Ventures, 792 F.3d at 1370 (claims to
dynamic presentation of data in “real time” customized to a viewer through
an “interactive interface” recites a generic computer element that manages
web site content such as a generic web server with attendant software that is
tasked with providing data to, and communicating with, a user’s computer);
In re Downing, 754 F. App’x 988, 993–94 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (reciting the use
of generic computer components like a computer platform with conventional
Excel® spreadsheets did not transform abstract claims into patent-eligible
subject matter).
Appeal 2020-004603
Application 12/348,152

29
Accordingly, we determine that the claims lack an inventive concept
sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter
and we therefore sustain the rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 8–17, 19–34.4
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§  
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 8–17,
19–34
101 Eligibility 1–3, 6, 8–17,
19–34

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

4 Appellant does not argue the claims separately under Step 2B. Therefore,
we consider claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).