THE DUN & BRADSTREET CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 17, 2021

2021002563 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 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.
15/291,385 10/12/2016 Alla KRAMSKAIA 384.9460USU 3170
27623 7590 12/17/2021
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/17/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALLA KRAMSKAIA, NIPA BASU,
JINGTAO JONATHAN YAN, KAROLINA KIERZKOWSKI,
NALANDA MATIA, JOSEPH ANDREACCHI, and PETER F. KINKEL
____________

Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,3851
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection2 of claims 1–4, 6, and 7. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation
as the real party in interest (Appeal Br. 2).
2 All references to the Final Office Action refer to the Final Office Action
mailed on January 28, 2020.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection (37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)).
THE INVENTION
Appellant states its invention relates “generally to a global networking
system for real-time gathering of data from differing time zones and to
enable the generation of a global business ranking (GBR) of any business
entity worldwide in terms of business information transparency and
availability even if all of the data is not currently available due to time zone
differences..” Spec. 1:12–16.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A networking system for real-time generation of a global
business ranking based upon country-specific data retrieved from
at least a plurality of countries, said system comprising:
a plurality of country data collection systems located in a
plurality of different countries and operating in parallel, wherein
each of the plurality of data collection systems is configured to
collect said country-specific data from a plurality of country
sources in parallel, thus yielding country-specific collected data;
a transformation engine which receives and categorizes
said country-specific collected data into at least one category
selected from the group consisting of: country trade data, country
financial data and country derogatory information, thus yielding
categorized country-specific data;
a macro score processor that processes data concerning
countries, and produces macro score data indicative of an overall
risk of business in a country;
a signal score processor that processes data concerning
business activities and inquiries, and produces signal score data
indicative of said business activities and inquiries;
a data/attribute repository which merges said categorized
country-specific data with (i) data from a global database, (ii)
said macro score data and (iii) said signal score data, to form
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

3

merged data, and sorts said merged data into at least one selected
from the group consisting of: global trade data, global financial
data and global derogatory information, thus yielding global
data; and
a global business ranking processor comprising:
(a) a first computer that retrieves said global data on a
real-time basis; and
(b) a second computer that generates said global
business ranking for a particular business entity.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Name Reference Date
Davies US 2005/0137899 A1 June 23, 2005
Xu US 2006/0241923 A1 Oct. 26, 2006
Macy US 2010/0191634 A1 July 29, 2010
Bader US 2012/0303537 A1 Nov. 29, 2012
Katragadda US 8,484,199 B1 July 9, 2013
Ahmed US 2014/0136440 A1 May 15, 2014

Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davies, Bader, and Ahmed.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Davies, Bader, Ahmed, and Xu.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Davies, Bader, Ahmed, and Katragadda.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Davies, Bader, Ahmed, Katragadda, and Macy.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

4

FINDINGS OF FACT
We have determined that the findings of fact in the Analysis section
below are supported at least by a preponderance of the evidence.3
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103 REJECTION
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “a signal score
processor that processes data concerning business activities and inquiries,
and produces signal score data indicative of said business activities and
inquiries.”
The Examiner finds Davies discloses this limitation at paragraph 63
because:
Davies teaches changes and updating corporate linkages based
on the incoming business data (Davies, paragraph [0063]). These
updated corporate linkages give the user signal score data
because they let the user assess the risk of a business (Davies,
paragraph [0024]).
Answer 28.
We disagree with the Examiner that the corporate linkage 108
function in Davies is the equivalent of the claimed “signal score processor.”
Davies at paragraph 24 states:
Corporate linkage 108 uses corporate identifiers to link
corporate family structures to help customers understand total
corporate risk and opportunity with any given company. Within
a corporate family, headquarters, branches, parents and
subsidiaries are all viewed in terms of their relationship to other
members of the same family tree. Understanding these

3 See Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
Patent Office).
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

5

relationships can help customers aggregate total risk exposures,
uncover new selling opportunities, avoid conflict-of-interest
situations, negotiate global purchasing agreements, perform
merger and market analysis and more.

The definition of “score” is “a number that expresses accomplishment (as in
a game or test) or excellence (as in quality) either absolutely in points gained
or by comparison to a standard.” Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/score.
At best, Davies, at paragraph 24, discloses: “Within a corporate
family, headquarters, branches, parents and subsidiaries are all viewed in
terms of their relationship to other members of the same family tree.”
Leaving to a user the task of assessing at a relationship level total corporate
risk and opportunity within a given company does not equate to a numeric
number indicator as required by the definition of the term “score.”
That is, in Davies, a user must know the essence of the underlying
relationships that are disclosed in order to make his/her assessment. But,
with a score, the attributes, i.e., relationships, would be standardized so that
a numeric rating can be generated based on a standard. It is not apparent and
the Examiner does not explain how these differences are obvious variants of
one another.
Therefore, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1. Since claims 2–4, 6, and 7 depend from claim 1 and
since we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1, the rejections of claims 2–4,
6, and 7 likewise cannot be sustained. The additional references used in the
rejections of dependent claims, namely, Xu (claims 2, 3), Katragadda (claim
6), and Macy (claim 7), do not remedy the deficiency noted above with the
Davies disclosure.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

6

35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter a new
ground of rejection against claims 1–4, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being drawn to an abstraction without significantly more.4
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept
of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
(“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.”).

4 We note the Examiner’s statements in the Answer concerning Ahmed:
“synching data across geographically dispersed servers is not a technical
problem requiring a technical solution. . . . This is not a technical solution to
a technical problem, but a business solution to a business problem” (Answer
10). These statements moved us to reinstate the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection
given the Examiner considered this art to be pertinent to the claims.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

7

Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

8

elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted).
“A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”).5 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency
management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;6 see also October
2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:

5 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
6 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04 and also supersedes all versions of the
USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related guidance issued prior
to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should
not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments challenging the
sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection will not be addressed to the extent
those arguments are based on now superseded USPTO guidance.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

9

(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) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).7
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, 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.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on whether ‘their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement

7 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–
55.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

10

in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract
idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36.
In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a “directed to” two prong
test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the
claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.04–2106.05.
The Specification states:
This disclosure relates generally to a global networking system
for real-time gathering of data from differing time zones and to
enable the generation of a global business ranking (GBR) of any
business entity worldwide in terms of business information
transparency and availability even if all of the data is not
currently available due to time zone differences. In particular, the
system enables real-time generation of a GBR based upon
globally retrieved information, such as data, from multiple
sources and/or countries throughout the world.
Spec. 1:12–18.
The preamble of claim 1 states it is for “generation of a global
business ranking based upon country-specific data retrieved from at least a
plurality of countries.”
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
a plurality of country data collection systems located in a
plurality of different countries and operating in parallel, wherein
each of the plurality of data collection systems is configured to
collect said country-specific data from a plurality of country
sources in parallel, thus yielding country-specific collected data;
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

11

. . . receives and categorizes said country-specific
collected data into at least one category selected from the group
consisting of: country trade data, country financial data and
country derogatory information, thus yielding categorized
country-specific data;
. . . processes data concerning countries, and produces
macro score data indicative of an overall risk of business in a
country;
. . . processes data concerning business activities and
inquiries, and produces signal score data indicative of said
business activities and inquiries;
. . . merges said categorized country-specific data with (i)
data from a global database, (ii) said macro score data and (iii)
said signal score data, to form merged data, and sorts said merged
data into at least one selected from the group consisting of: global
trade data, global financial data and global derogatory
information, thus yielding global data; and
. . .
(a) . . . retriev[ing] said global data on a real-time basis;
and
(b) . . . generat[ing] said global business ranking for a
particular business entity.

Accordingly, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites a way of
ranking a business in a given country based on a global scale.
Limitations such as, “receives and categorizes said country-specific
collected data into at least one category selected from the group consisting
of: country trade data, country financial data and country derogatory
information, thus yielding categorized country-specific data;” and “. . .
merges said categorized country-specific data with (i) data from a global
database, (ii) said macro score data and (iii) said signal score data, to form
merged data, and sorts said merged data into at least one selected from the
group consisting of: global trade data, global financials data and global
derogatory information, thus yielding global data,” constitute characterizing
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

12

collecting and analyzing information.
The steps, “processes data concerning countries, and produces macro
score data indicative of an overall risk of business in a country; . . .
processes data concerning business activities and inquiries, and produces
signal score data indicative of said business activities and inquiries,” involve
calculations, which are mathematical calculations and constitute a judicial
exception. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Thus, all the steps listed in italics above mimic human thought
processes of selecting certain information over others, i.e., evaluation and
creating, perhaps with paper and pencil, graphic data interpretation
perceptible only in the human mind and/or involve mathematical
calculations. 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). The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts to
be abstract. For example, the Federal Circuit has held that abstract ideas
include the concepts of collecting data, analyzing the data, and reporting the
results of the collection and analysis, including when limited to particular
content. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp.,
850 F.3d 1332, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (identifying the abstract idea of
organizing, displaying, and manipulating data); Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (characterizing collecting
information, analyzing information by steps people go through in their
minds, or by mathematical algorithms, and presenting the results of
collecting and analyzing information, without more, as matters within the
realm of abstract ideas).
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

13

Thus, under the first prong, claim 1 recites the patent ineligible
judicial exceptions of a mental process and a mathematical calculation.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Concerning the claim recitation, “a plurality of country data collection
systems located in a plurality of different countries and operating in parallel,
wherein each of the plurality of data collection systems is configured to
collect said country-specific data from a plurality of country sources in
parallel, thus yielding country-specific collected data,” we find that this
phrase is directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and
merely invokes generic processes and systems. See McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claim
term simply recites functional results to be achieved by any means.
Moreover, this recitation explicitly recites a way of data collection which is
itself, patent ineligible. See, e.g., Content Extraction and Transmission LLC
v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(“[T]he claims of the asserted patents are drawn to the abstract idea of
1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set,
and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory.”);
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only
generically requires a transformation engine, a macro score processor, a
signal score processor, a global database, a global business ranking
processor, and a first and second computers. These components are
described in the Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. 5:11–
27, 6:–28, 7:1–9, 7:20–27; 8:1–7, Fig. 1–4. We fail to see how the generic
recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so
integrates the judicial exception as to “impose[] a meaningful limit on the
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

14

judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to business ranking, does not make them any less abstract. See OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be
limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them
any less abstract.”).
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must
include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim
in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Concerning this step, we find the claims at issue amount to “nothing
significantly more” than an instruction to apply the abstract idea of
intermediated settlement using some unspecified, generic computer. “[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 to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer. In short, each step does no more
than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

15

claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the
computer itself. The Specification spells out different generic equipment
and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular
steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
information access under different scenarios. See, e.g., Spec. 5:11–27, 6:–
28, 7:1–9, 7:20–27; 8:1–7, Fig. 1–4. Thus, the claims at issue amount to
nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea 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.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis
(receives/categorize/process/score/merge/generate) and storing is equally
generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. 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) (holding that
sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and
transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable
Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of
processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract). The ordering
of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
Claims 2–4, 6, and 7 depend from independent claim 1, and are
directed to the same abstract idea as claim 1. See Content Extraction &
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

16

Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that when all claims are directed to the same
abstract idea, “addressing each claim of the asserted patents [is]
unnecessary”). These dependent claims recite additional features related to
the collecting and categorizing of data, e.g., “collected data by translating,
standardizing or summarizing said collected data pursuant to country-
specific logic or rules” (claim 4); “produces said global business ranking
even if any or all of said global data is incomplete by using a statistical
model or business knowledge to fill in any deficient information or data”
(claim 2).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did err in rejecting claims 1–4, 6, and 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1–4, 6, and 7 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

17

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1, 4 103 Davies, Bader,
Ahmed
1, 4
2, 3 103 Davies, Bader,
Ahmed, Xu
2, 3
6 103 Davies, Bader,
Ahmed,
Katragadda
6
7 103 Davies, Bader,
Ahmed,
Katragadda,
Macy
7
1–4, 6, 7 101 Eligibility 1–4, 6, 7
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6, 7 1–4, 6, 7

In addition to reversing the Examiner’s rejection(s) of one or more
claims, this decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of rejection
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
This Decision contains a new rejection within the meaning of 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) (2007).
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that Appellant, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new rejection:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate
amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating
to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter
reconsidered by the Examiner, in which event the prosecution
will be remanded to the Examiner. . . .
Appeal 2021-002563
Application 15/291,385

18

(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record. . . .
Further guidance on responding to a new ground of rejection can be
found in the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 1214.01.
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).

REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)