THE BOEING COMPANY

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 19, 2021

2021001780 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 19, 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.
15/629,854 06/22/2017 Oleksandr Basanets 17-0431-US-
NP (800-211US)
1030
107112 7590 10/19/2021
The Small Patent Law Group LLC
1423 Strassner Dr.
Suite 100
Brentwood, MO 63144
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/19/2021 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):
docket@splglaw.com
patentadmin@boeing.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte OLEKSANDR BASANETS
____________

Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Oleksandr Basanets (Appellant2) seeks review under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1–20, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed October 14, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 11,
2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed November 12, 2020),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 24, 2020).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The
Boeing Company (Appeal Br. 6).

Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

2

The Appellant invented a way of adaptively scheduling flights based
on prior delays and other such disruptions. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 12, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
12. An adaptive scheduling method that is configured to
adaptively schedule flights for an aircraft, the adaptive
scheduling method comprising:
[1] storing historical data
regarding one or both of the aircraft and one or more
locations to and from which the aircraft travels in a flight
history data store;
[2] communicatively coupling a delay determination control
unit with the flight history data store;
[3] predicting,
by the delay determination control unit,
one or more delays for the aircraft
based on an analysis of the historical data,
wherein the predicting comprises generating, by
the delay determination control unit, delay data for
the aircraft indicative of the one or more delays;
[4] communicatively coupling a robustness determination
control unit with the delay determination control unit;
[5] generating,
by the robustness determination control unit,
at least one robustness index based on the delay data;
and
[6] using the at least one robustness index to adaptively
schedule the flights for the aircraft.

Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

3

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Romero US 2016/0092846 A1 Mar. 31, 2016
Liao US 2016/0203722 A1 July 14, 2016
Hao, How Airlines Set Scheduled Block Times, Tenth USA/Europe Air
Traffic Management Research and Development Seminar, (ATM2013).

Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a
supporting written description within the original disclosure.
Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Romero and Liao.
Claims 7, 17, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Romero, Liao, and Hao.

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of written description matter turn primarily on whether the
Specification supports the full scope of the claims.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the claim limitations.

Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

4

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The robustness relates to a capability of the scheduled duties
and/or legs to satisfy particular limits set for the duties and/or legs.
Spec. para. 34.
02. By determining the robustness for the scheduled duties and/or
legs, the robustness determination control unit is able to adapt the
duties and/or the legs (for example, adaptively scheduling or re-
scheduling) to ensure that the duties and/or the legs are efficiently
assigned while at the same time satisfying the particular pre-set
limits. Spec. para. 34.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Romero
03.Romero is directed to preparing schedules of tasks for personnel
based on a likelihood that the schedules of tasks will not exceed a
personal limit of a person assigned to the itinerary and/or based on
priority ranking for the tasks. Romero para. 2.
04. Romero describes assigning various operations to an itinerary
includes determining Gumbel distributions for time variances of
the various operations based on time variances during past
instances of the various operations. The time variances are
variances from scheduled times for the various operations. The
method also includes selecting a reliability factor. The method
also includes determining time variances for the various
operations, based on the determined Gumbel distributions and
selected reliability factors for the various operations. The method
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

5

also includes identifying a combination of operations from among
the various operations wherein a sum of scheduled times for the
combination of operations and the determined time variances for
the combination of operations do not exceed a personal time limit
of personnel. The method also includes assigning the identified
combination of operations to an itinerary. Romero para. 3.
Liao
05.Liao is directed to integration of schedule planning optimization
and robustness evaluation for an airline. Liao para. 3.
06. Liao describes airline traffic network planning and an evaluation
of the robustness of plans being optimized thereby. The system
includes an optimization module to optimize an input or baseline
airline schedule and a robustness analysis module to evaluate a
robustness of the optimized airline schedule. The optimization
module and the robustness analysis module may be configured in
a "closed-loop" feedback system that reflects a decision life cycle
of an airline network planning process. Liao para. 4.
07. Liao describes an airline operation disturbance as any event,
occurrence, or scenario that impacts the actual execution of the
schedule to cause a deviation from the schedule. The airline
operation disturbance may occur on a day of or day before (i.e.,
proximate, near, or on) the operation of a flight. Some examples
of airline operation disturbances include, but are not limited to,
weather related delays, passenger connection delays, flight crew
related delays, airport related delays, aircraft related delays, and
other factors. Liao para. 19.
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

6

08. Liao describes a robustness analysis module operable to
determine and use the root cause(s) of airline operation
disturbances. The robustness evaluation is conducted by
simulation-based method or process, with the identified
disturbance root cause(s) injected into the simulation. In some
aspects, the identified disturbance root cause(s) may represent
some real disturbance experienced by the airline network on some
historical day(s) of operation that corresponds to the reference
schedule where the root causes are extracted. Robustness of an
airline schedule refers to how fragile a schedule is (or is not) to an
airline operation disturbance. The more robust a schedule, the
more capacity the schedule has to absorb airline operation
disturbances without deviating from the planned airline schedule.
Liao paras. 20–21.
09. Liao describes a set of robustness key performance indices (KPIs)
are generated from the robustness evaluation. Liao para. 23.
10. Liao describes an optimization module and robustness analysis
module configured in a closed-loop feedback arrangement where
an output of optimization module is an input to robustness
analysis module. Furthermore, an output of the robustness
analysis module may be fed back into the optimization module in
an instance the result of the robustness evaluation does not satisfy
or at least meet (i.e., equal) a desired, specified threshold value for
the KPIs. The output of robustness analysis module provides
feedback to optimization module and the optimization process
thereof may be re-determined or recalculated using optimization
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

7

module parameters updated to generate a new optimized schedule
that will hopefully achieve satisfactory KPI values when it is
evaluated by robustness analysis module in the closed-loop
system. Liao para. 24.

ANALYSIS
Claim Construction
Initially, we construe the terms “robustness index” and “adaptively
schedule.”
According to the Specification, robustness relates to a capability of
the scheduled duties and/or legs to satisfy particular limits set for the duties
and/or legs. Thus, a robustness index is some data element that somehow
relates to a capability of the scheduled duties and/or legs to satisfy particular
limits set for the duties and/or legs. There is no further limitation on the
nature or degree of relation or capability, how the capability is measured, or
even if it is measured rather than characterized, the nature or degree of
satisfaction, or how satisfaction is established.
According to the Specification, adaptation is of the duties and/or the
legs to ensure that the duties and/or the legs are efficiently assigned. Thus,
adaptively schedule means to efficiently generate or modify duties or legs
assignments in a schedule.

Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

8

Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 12, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the
claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

9

abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
53. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 12 recites storing data, coupling computer hardware, predicting data
by generating data, coupling more computer hardware, generating data, and
scheduling data. Coupling computer hardware is generic computer
operation. Predicting and scheduling data are analyzing data. Thus, claim
12 recites storing, analyzing, and generating data. None of the limitations
recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but
instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 12 does not recite the judicial exceptions
of either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

10

include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 12 recites the concept of
managing commercial flight schedules. Specifically, claim 12 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to schedule
flights using a delay data based index. The advice to schedule flights using a
delay data based index involves scheduling flights, which is an airline
management act, and predicting delays for the aircraft, which is an act
ordinarily performed in the stream of airline commerce. For example, claim
12 recites “schedule the flights,” which is an activity that would take place
whenever one is managing commercial air flights. Similarly, claim 1 recites
“predict[ing] . . . delays for the aircraft,” which is also characteristic of
managing commercial air flights.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to adaptively
scheduling flights based on prior delays and other such disruptions. Final
Act. 5. The preamble to claim 12 recites that it is an adaptive scheduling

4 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
5 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
6 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

11

method that is configured to adaptively schedule flights for an aircraft. The
steps in claim 12 result in managing commercial flight schedules by
scheduling flights using a delay data based index absent any technological
mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1, 3, 5, and 6 recite generic
and conventional storing, analyzing, and generating of air flight data, which
advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. Limitations 2
and 4 recite generic computer element couplings. The limitations thus recite
advice for scheduling flights using a delay data based index. To advocate
scheduling flights using a delay data based index is conceptual advice for
results desired and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
adaptively scheduling flights based on prior delays and other such
disruptions. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 12 recites
managing commercial flight schedules. This is consistent with the
Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial
flight schedules is a form of managing commercial flight interactions. The
concept of managing commercial flight schedules by scheduling flights
using a delay data based index is one idea for such scheduling. The steps
recited in claim 12 are part of how this might conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. In re Bongiorno, 857 Fed. Appx.
637 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (non-precedential) (planning and executing a vacation
or travel itinerary).
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

12

Alternatively, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of storing, analyzing, and
generating data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir.
2016). Claim 12, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data storage, analysis, and
generation and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer
technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837
F.3d 1299, 1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because
they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”).
As such, claim 12 recites storing, analyzing, and generating data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 12 recites
managing commercial flight schedules by scheduling flights using a delay
data based index, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain
methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance,
and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 12 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

13

some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.7
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply
laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “
‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1, 2, 4, and 5 recite basic
conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data.
Steps 3 and 6 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of
results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than
conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is
interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically
enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically
achieves those results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 12 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial flight schedules by scheduling flights using a delay
data based index as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

14

conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Claim 12 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 19+ pages of Specification do not bulge
with description, but only spell out different generic equipment8 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing commercial flight schedules by scheduling flights using a delay
data based index under different scenarios. They do not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim
12 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to
apply managing commercial flight schedules by scheduling flights using a
delay data based index using some unspecified, generic computer. Under
our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial

8 The Specification describes any processor-based or microprocessor-based
system including systems using microcontrollers, reduced instruction set
computers (RISC), application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), logic
circuits, and any other circuit or processor including hardware, software, or a
combination thereof capable of executing the functions described herein.
Spec. para. 38.
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

15

exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the exception.
We conclude that claim 12 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial flight schedules by advising one to schedule flights
using a delay data based index, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 12 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

16

“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for storing, analyzing, and generating data amounts to electronic
data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All
of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer
activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec.
Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See
also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303,
1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms
‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “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
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

17

and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 12 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data storage-analysis-generation
is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting,
offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment
recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 12 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 12 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

18

has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations, we further determine that the claims do
not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this, we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing commercial flight schedules by advising one
to schedule flights using a delay data based index, without significantly
more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 5–6 and Answer 3–13 and
reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Claim 1 specifically recites the robustness determination control
unit is configured to generate at least one robustness index based
on the delay data. The GPS receiver is analogous to the
robustness determination control unit, the absolute position of
the GPS receiver and absolute time of satellite signals are
analogous to the robustness index. Meanwhile, the algorithms
associated with determining the robustness index clearly show
the complexity of the technological functionality such that a
human would not be able to generate a robustness index based
on delay data.
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

19

Reply Br. 2. First, as the Examiner points out, the claims do not recite a
GPS receiver. Ans. 4. Even were the claims to recite using a GPS receiver,
though, this would not be sufficient without more because a GPS receiver is
a generic piece of computer equipment.
Because the claims are directed to an abstract idea, the claims
must include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-
eligible. No such inventive concept is present here. Instead, the
claims “add” only generic computer components such as an
“interface,” “network,” and “database.” These generic computer
components do not satisfy the inventive concept requirement.
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324–
1325 (2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “Example 21
[claim 2] presents solving a problem with a claimed solution that is
necessarily rooted in computer technology. Again, Appellant’s
Specification shows that to generate a robustness index based on delay data,
the technical solution must be rooted in computer technology.” Reply Br. 2–
3. As the USPTO guidance states, the claimed invention addresses the
Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive
information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by
transmitting the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the
stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the
connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the
Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online. Guidelines
Example 21, 101 Examples, 1 to 36. None of the instant claims do anything
like this. More to the point, as the Examiner determines,
Appellant’s claims are in no way related to providing
technological solutions to a technological problem. Instead,
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

20

Appellant’s claims simply gather data and analyze that data, only
using the additional elements at a high level of generality and the
additional elements are merely invoked as tools to implement the
abstract ideas. Appellant’s Specification describes general-
purpose processing elements to implement the claimed invention
Ans. 5. The claimed solution is not necessarily rooted in technology.
Rather, it is implemented in event scheduling, but does so with automation,
placing it in a computer context. This is insufficient to confer eligibility.
“The Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely
limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing
technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract.”
Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1259 (Fed.
Cir. 2016).
As to claim 2, Appellant does not rebut Examiner’s response. Ans. 3.
As to claim 8, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
“because the duty block time robustness index is calculated utilizing a
complex algorithm that cannot be accomplished by a human while also
providing a practical result, claim 8 is eligible.” Reply Br. 4. Claim 8
recites “the at least one robustness index comprises a duty block time
robustness index.” Notably, not only does this not recite how such an index
is computed, it does not even recite performing any execution. At best,
parent claim 1 recites generating an index, without reciting how such
generation occurs. Simply providing such an index is within the scope of
the claim. To the extent Appellant argues that the algorithms in the
Specification must be taken into claim construction, Appellant has chosen to
exclude any such algorithm in the claim, evidencing a broadening of the
scope.
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

21

Yu further points to portions of the specification to support the
contention that the asserted advance in the claims is the particular
configuration of lenses and image sensors. But “[e]ven a
specification full of technical details about a physical invention
may nonetheless conclude with claims that claim nothing more
than the broad law or abstract idea underlying the claims.” Such
is the case here.
Yu v. Apple Inc., 1 F.4th 1040, 1044 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).
As to claims 9–12, Appellant does not rebut Examiner’s response.
Ans. 7–12. Appellant does not separately argue any other claims.

Claims 1–20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a supporting
written description within the original disclosure
The Examiner determines “the Specification does not explain how the
scheduling is actually performed or provide any working examples.” Final
Act. 7. We agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not shown that the
Specification describes how to do so within the full scope of the claims, but
has only shown one case. Ans. 13–15. Even granting Appellant’s
contention that
claim 1 is not requiring the scheduling of flights be performed,
claim 1 is only requiring the use of a robustness index in order to
schedule the flights. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites
"wherein the at least one robustness index is used to adaptively
schedule the flights for the aircraft".
Appeal Br. 32, it does not follow that “[t]aking any information from a
robustness index to schedule a flight would satisfy the requirement.” The
action step is “us[ing]” rather than “taking.” Indeed, removing the “to
adaptively schedule the flights for the aircraft” from the scope of “us[ing]”
only broadens the scope of “us[ing]” and enlarging the scope of what is not
shown as being possessed.
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

22

Claims 1–6, 8–16, 18, and 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Romero and Liao
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action at pages 7–17 and Answer at
pages 16–24 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply
Brief.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that:
Applicant’s specification clearly shows that a robustness index
must be generated based on delay data, and is used to adaptively
schedule flight where the example algorithms show how such
generation and adaptive scheduling occurs. Applicant is not
requesting such algorithms be read into the claim, only that the
terms “generate” and “adaptively” not be read out of the claim
when the specification clearly illustrates such terms. Reading
these terms out of the claim limitation is not an interpretation
consistent with the specification, and as such reversal is
warranted.
Reply Br. 5. As we construed above, “adaptively schedule” means to
efficiently generate or modify duties or legs assignments in a schedule. Liao
says the more robust a schedule, the more capacity the schedule has to
absorb airline operation disturbances without deviating from the planned
airline schedule. Thus Liao’s robust scheduling is a form of adaptively
scheduling because capacity to absorb disturbances is a form of operational
efficiency. Liao’s robustness analysis module generates robustness metrics,
equivalent to the recited robustness index, used in a feedback loop to
improve the efficiency and adapt the results using an optimization
module. Thus, “generate” and “adaptively” are not read out of the
claims.
Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

23

Appellant does not rebut any of the Examiner’s Answer
determinations as to the remaining claims in the Reply Brief.

Claims 7, 17, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Romero, Liao, and Hao
Appellant relies on the arguments in the prior rejection.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a
supporting written description within the original disclosure is proper.
The rejection of claims 1–6, 8–16, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Romero and Liao is proper.
The rejection of claims 7, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Romero, Liao, and Hao is proper.

Appeal 2021-001780
Application 15/629,854

24

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–20 is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 101 Eligibility 1–20
1–20 112(a) Written
Description
1–20
1–6, 8–16, 18,
19
103 Romero Liao 1–6, 8–16, 18,
19

7, 17, 20 103 Romero Liao 7, 17, 20
Overall Outcome 1–20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED