SugarCRM Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 9, 2020

14479300 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 9, 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.
14/479,300 09/06/2014 Majed Itani 1301-048U 1098
29973 7590 04/09/2020
Shutts & Bowen LLP
ATTN: STEVEN M. GREENBERG, ESQ.
525 Okeechobee Blvd
Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
EXAMINER
KARMIS, ALISSA D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/09/2020 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@crgolaw.com
patents@shutts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAJED ITANI and ZAC SPRACKETT
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300
Technology Center 3600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–18, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as SugarCRM, Inc.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to customer relationship
management (CRM), and more particularly, to “sales forecasting in a CRM
system.” Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, CRM systems are used
to “manage business contacts, clients, contract wins and sales leads.” Id.
¶ 2. Claims 1, 7, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows:
1. A method for forecast predictability and accountability in
a customer relationship management (CRM) system, the method
comprising:
retrieving into memory of a computer from a database of
a CRM system, different CRM records, the records indicating
closed-won business opportunities and different characteristics
of the closed-won business opportunities;
identifying in each of the records, one of the different
characteristics for each one of the closed-won business
opportunities;
grouping in the memory the closed-won opportunities
into different groups according to common identified
characteristic;
computing total revenues for each grouping of the closed-
won opportunities in each of the groups;
determining from the total revenues of each grouping, an
identified one of the different characteristics associated with a
greatest amount of total revenues compared to groupings of
others of the identified characteristics;
receiving in the CRM system a request to add a new
record for a new business opportunity; and,
assigning a higher priority in the CRM system to the new
business opportunity in the new record on condition that the
new business opportunity has the determined characteristic but
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

3
assigning a lower priority to the new business opportunity on
condition that the new business opportunity lacks the
determined characteristic.
Appeal Br. 32–33 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 9–15; Ans. 3–6.
Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated
by Riazzi et al. (US 2012/0232955 A1, published Sept. 13, 2012) (“Riazzi”).
Final Act. 15–25; Ans. 3–6.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellant could have
made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). On the record before us, Appellant has persuaded us of
error regarding the anticipation rejection. As to the subject matter
ineligibility rejection, however, Appellant has not persuaded us of error. To
the extent consistent with our discussion below, we adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from which the appeal is taken
and in the Examiner’s Answer, and we provide the following for
highlighting and emphasis.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner determined that claim 1 is directed to “grouping
business opportunities” according to advantageous characteristics, which the
Examiner determined is a mental process, and therefore an abstract idea.
Final Act. 12–13; Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank lnt’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014)
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

4
(describing two-step framework “for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts”). Further, the Examiner
found that claim 1 does not recite additional limitations beyond generic
computing devices, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than
the abstract idea. Final Act. 13–14. Accordingly, the Examiner concluded
that the claims constitute ineligible subject matter.
Appellant argues that claim 1 is not an abstract idea because it recites
“a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired
outcome defined by the claimed invention.” Appeal Br. 13; Reply Br. 2–4.
Appellant further argues that computer elements recited in claim 1 were not
well-understood, routine, or conventional. Reply Br. 4–6.
After the Briefs were filed and Answer mailed in this case, the
USPTO published “Revised Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”
synthesizing case law and providing agency instruction on the application of
§ 101. See USPTO, 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the
Guidance, we must look to whether a 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)
(“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)) (“Step 2A, Prong
Two”).
See 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

5
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and 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.
See id. 56 (collectively “Step 2B”).
We begin our review with Step 2A, Prong One of the Guidance, as
applied to Appellant’s claim 1.2
As the Examiner determined, and the preamble of claim 1 recites,
claim 1 is directed to a “method for forecast predictability and accountability
in a [CRM] system.” The method is performed by a combination of
“grouping” and calculations. Specifically, the claim recites “retrieving
. . . records” into memory, “identifying . . . characteristics” of these records,
“grouping” the records according to such characteristics, “determining”
advantageous characteristics (namely, characteristics associated with
greatest revenue), and “assigning” new records higher “priority” in the
system based on the foregoing advantageous “characteristics.” The
foregoing steps all constitute the mental process of evaluating and grouping

2 The Guidance refers to “Step One” as determining whether the claimed
subject matter falls within the four statutory categories identified by
35 U.S.C. § 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
This step is not at issue in this case.
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

6
items according to like characteristics, which is one of the categories of
subject matter deemed abstract under the Guidance.
Alternatively, the foregoing steps constitute managing relationships or
sales, which comprise one of the certain methods of organizing human
activity deemed abstract under the Guidance. Claim 1 also recites
“computing total revenues,” which constitutes a fundamental economic
practice or mental steps. Moreover, data receipt and processing do not make
the claim any less abstract. See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated collecting
information, including when limited to particular content (which does not
change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.”).
Thus, upon review of claim 1, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination that the foregoing steps individually, and in combination,
recite one or more of the categories deemed abstract under the Guidance.
We next proceed to Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance. Under this
step, if the claim “as a whole” integrates the abstract idea into a “practical
application,” it is patent eligible. Appellant argues that claim 1 recites
“more than merely data mining and correlation,” and recites a “particular
solution to a problem.” Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 3–6; see also DDR
Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Appellant, however, does not explain, and we do not discern, any
improvement in technology from the claimed invention or any other
integration of the invention into a practical application. Compare DDR, 773
F.3d at 1258 (“[T]he claims at issue here 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
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

7
of a hyperlink.”) (Emphasis added); see also Bascom Global Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“harness[ing a] technical feature of network technology in a filtering
system” to customize content filtering). The claims in DDR, for example,
were “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” see, e.g.,
DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257, but Appellant’s claim 1 recites identifying and
grouping CRM records based on their characteristics. Improving the
functioning of a computer can reflect integration of an idea into a “practical
application.” Guidance Section III; see also DDR, 773 F.3d 1245; Bascom,
827 F.3d 1341. Appellant does not argue, however, and the record does not
indicate, that claim 1 recites any improvement of computer functioning.
Appellant also does not direct us to any evidence that claim 1 recites
any unconventional rules, transforms or reduces an element to a different
state or thing, or otherwise integrates the idea into a practical application.
Rather, claim 1 recites grouping records according to advantageous
business-development characteristics. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims Appendix).
Reciting a result-oriented solution that lacks any details as to how the
computer performed the modifications is the equivalent of the words “apply
it.” Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332,
1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830
F.3d 1350, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cautioning against claims “so result
focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified
problem”)); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (mere data gathering does not make a claim
patent-eligible). The data processing-related elements in claim 1 (computing
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

8
total revenues for each grouping) do not add meaningfully to the recited
mental steps or method of organizing human activity. See supra.
Finally, under Step 2B of the Guidance, we must look to whether the
claims include any “additional limitation that is not well-understood, routine
[or] conventional.” The “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); see also Mortg. Grader, Inc. v.
First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(holding that patent eligibility inquiry may contain underlying issues of
fact).
Claim 1 recites grouping CRM records according to revenue-
producing characteristics to improve “forecast predictability and
accountability.” See supra. According to the Specification, the steps of
claim 1 are performed using “general purpose” computing devices and
program instructions. Spec. ¶¶ 27–28. We agree with the Examiner’s
finding that simply using standard, generic computer elements to implement
the foregoing grouping of records is well understood, routine, and
conventional, and is not a meaningful limitation that amounts to significantly
more than an abstract idea. Final Act. 13–15; Ans. 5–6. Further, although
Appellant asserts that claim 1 includes unconventional elements, Appellant
provides no evidence or persuasive argument to rebut any of the Examiner’s
foregoing findings. Id. For example, Appellant does not address the
Examiner’s finding that the Specification describes only generic, standard
computing elements implementing the steps in claim 1.
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

9
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that claim
1 merely uses computer elements in the implementation of an abstract idea,
which does not equate to providing a technical solution to a technical
problem. Id. at 10.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error. We sustain
the rejection of claim 1 as constituting patent-ineligible subject matter.
Appellant does not argue the subject matter ineligibility rejection of the
remaining claims separately from claim 1. Accordingly, we also sustain the
rejection of those claims.
Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Riazzi discloses
receiving a request to add a “new record for a new business opportunity” and
“assigning a higher priority” to this new business opportunity having “the
determined characteristic,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 21–22.
Specifically, Appellant argues Riazzi only discloses “capturing information
related to new contacts in order to send those new contacts marketing
materials” and, more generally, a “model for determining the correct contact
information of a target lead.” Id. Appellant argues these disclosures are not
the same as the foregoing disputed limitation of claim 1. We agree.
Riazzi is directed to a “target lead-generation system” that uses “real-
time predictive and behavioral analytics and website traffic data.” Riazzi
Abstract; ¶¶ 8, 16. The embodiments described in Riazzi enable firms to
“correct inaccurate firmographic details and eliminate the false records,” to
“pinpoint accuracy of the right contact” in a record,” to “augment the
traditional contact data attributes, such as name, title, phone, email, [etc.],”
to search for companies that “intersect between the client-defined criteria set
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

10
and companies previously researched,” and to identify “‘cluster patterns,’ or
firmographic descriptions of companies which the user’s customers and/or
prospects are found to be in highest concentration.” Riazzi ¶¶ 8, 10, 24, 26,
29, 76, 108. In short, Riazzi discloses contact information and marketing
contacts, not the revenue-based grouping of CRM records as recited in the
disputed limitation of claim 1.
The Examiner extrapolates from the disclosures of Riazzi to find that
“Riazzi describes allowing a user to customize the criteria or lens through
which to analyze and view CRM sales and marketing data,” and “match
winning market segment profiles associated with various characteristics
including revenue.” Ans. 6–7 (citing Riazzi ¶¶ 23, 29, 32, 103, 108–112,
114). We, however, do not discern this disclosure from the cited paragraphs
of Riazzi, and the Examiner does not explain how a person of ordinary skill
would understand Riazzi as disclosing the disputed limitation.3
Accordingly, we are persuaded of error regarding the anticipation
rejection of claim 1. For the same reason, we are persuaded of error
regarding independent claims 7 and 13, which recite the same disputed
limitations as claim 1. We are also persuaded of error regarding the
remaining claims, all of which are dependent. We, therefore, do not sustain
the anticipation rejection of claims 1–18.

3 We note that no obviousness rejection is before us.
Appeal 2019-001295
Application 14/479,300

11
SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 101 Eligibility 1–18
1–18 102 Riazzi 1–18
Overall
Outcome
1–18
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED