Vijil Enara. Chenthamarakshan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 8, 2020

12944868 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
12/944,868 11/12/2010 Vijil Enara Chenthamarakshan IN920100151US1
(790.093)
6562
89885 7590 09/08/2020
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
JASMIN, LYNDA C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3629
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2020 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 VIJIL ENARA CHENTHAMARAKSHAN,
NANDAKISHORE KAMBHATLA,
ROSE CATHERINE KANJIRANTHINKAL,
AMIT KUMAR RAMBACHAN SINGH,
and KARTHIK VISWESWARIAH
____________________

Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,8681
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before: MARC S. HOFF, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
SCOTT R. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
rejection of claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21.2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellants state that International Business Machines Corporation is the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 2, 3, and 11–19 have been cancelled. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

2
Appellants’ invention is system and method for matching job
candidates with positions through an automated scoring and ranking process.
Candidates are ranked using a scoring function based on previous
assignments. Embodiments provide for the ranking of candidates which
includes identifying the position requirements, mining relevant candidate
information, prioritizing mined information based on past assignments, and
ranking candidates based on how well they match the position requirements.
Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is reproduced below:

1. A system comprising:

at least one processor; and

a memory operatively connected to the at least one processor;

wherein, responsive to execution of computer readable
program code accessible to the at least one processor, the at
least one processor is configured to:

access historical position assignment data, the historical
position assignment data including data for at least one past job
position related to at least one current position, wherein the data
comprises a job description of the at least one past job position,
at least one candidate assigned to the at least one past job
position, and at least one candidate rejected from the at least
one past job position;

analyze the historical position assignment data for the at
least one past job position to generate a position profile,
wherein the analyzing comprises extracting and using attributes
of the at least one candidate rejected from the at least one past
job position as negative examples and extracting and using
attributes of the at least one
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

3
candidate assigned to the at least one past job position as
positive examples to learn attributes of a suitable candidate,
wherein the analyzing further comprises identifying, based
upon the negative examples and positive examples,
substitutable skills for at least one requirement of the at least
one current position;

obtain, via a designated website, a plurality of candidate
applications for the at least one current position;

extract, using a processor, candidate features from each
of the plurality of candidate applications, wherein the extracted
candidate features correspond to the at least one position
feature;

generate, based on the relevant candidate features, a
candidate profile for each of the plurality of candidate
applications;

automatically score each of the candidate profiles using
the generated positionprofile, the at least one position feature,
and the at least one candidate attribute;

wherein to automatically score comprises utilizing the
historical position assignment data to perform at least one of:
creating a scoring model and weighting the at least one
candidate attribute;

wherein the utilizing comprises analyzing the historical
position assignment data and, relative to the at least one
position to be matched with at least one candidate, modifying
the at least one of: creating a scoring model and weighting the
at least one candidate attribute; and

rank the plurality of candidate applications for the at least
one current position based on the score for each of the
candidate profiles.

Appeal Br. 38–39, Claims App.
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

4
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Name Reference Date
Magrino US 2002/0198766 A1 Dec. 26, 2002
Levine US 2006/0100919 A1 May 11, 2006
Kapoor US 9,405,799 B1 Aug. 2, 2016

Claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 8–14; see also
Reply Br. 5.
Claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor. Final Act. 14–24.
Claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21 stand provisionally rejected on the ground
of non-statutory obviousness type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 1 and 3–10 of co-pending Application No. 13/596,817. Final
Act. 24–26.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed
April 16, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief filed Sept. 11, 2018 (“Reply
Br.”); and the Final Office Action mailed Nov. 1, 2017 (“Final Act.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer mailed July 11, 2018 (“Ans.”) for their respective
details.
ISSUES
1. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea?
2. Is the recited abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
3. Does the claimed invention recite an inventive concept?
4. Does the combination of Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor teach or
suggest analyzing historical position assignment data, including extracting
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

5
and using attributes of at least one rejected candidate as negative examples
and extracting and using attributes of at least one accepted candidate as
positive examples to learn attributes of a suitable candidate?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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. See, 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. Id. 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 Alice, 573 U.S. 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.”).
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, 69 (1972)).
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

6
Concepts determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 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 at 176, 192 (“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. at
192 (citing Benson and Flook), and 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
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
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

7
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
section 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum, 84 Fed Reg.”)
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 50.3 Under that guidance, we first look to
whether the 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); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) 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
are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

3 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 (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

8
(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 Memorandum.
ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
Appellant argues the rejected claims as a single unit. We select claim
1 as representative of the claims under appeal, pursuant to our authority
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Representative claim 1 recites the following limitations. Aspects of
the claimed abstract idea are indicated in italics. Additional non-abstract
limitations are noted in bold:

1. A system comprising:
at least one processor; and
a memory operatively connected to the at least one
processor;
wherein, responsive to execution of computer readable
program code accessible to the at least one processor, the at
least one processor is configured to:
(a) access historical position assignment data, the
historical position assignment data including data for at least
one past job position related to at least one current position,
(b) wherein the data comprises a job description of the at
least one past job position, at least one candidate assigned to
the at least one past job position, and at least one candidate
rejected from the at least one past job position;
(c) analyze the historical position assignment data for the
at least one past job position to generate a position profile,
wherein the analyzing comprises extracting and using attributes
of the at least one candidate rejected from the at least one past
job position as negative examples and extracting and using
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

9
attributes of the at least one candidate assigned to the at least
one past job position as positive examples to learn attributes of
a suitable candidate, wherein the analyzing further comprises
identifying, based upon the negative examples and positive
examples, substitutable skills for at least one requirement of the
at least one current position;
(d) obtain, via a designated website, a plurality of
candidate applications for the at least one current position;
(e) extract, using a processor, candidate features from
each of the plurality of candidate applications, wherein the
extracted candidate features correspond to the at least one
position feature;
(f) generate, based on the relevant candidate features, a
candidate profile for each of the plurality of candidate
applications;
(g) automatically score each of the candidate profiles
using the generated position profile, the at least one position
feature, and the at least one candidate attribute;
(h) wherein to automatically score comprises utilizing the
historical position assignment data to perform at least one of:
creating a scoring model and weighting the at least one
candidate attribute;
(i) wherein the utilizing comprises analyzing the
historical position assignment data and, relative to the at least
one position to be matched with at least one candidate,
modifying the at least one of: creating a scoring model and
weighting the at least one candidate attribute; and
(j) rank the plurality of candidate applications for the at
least one current position based on the score for each of the
candidate profiles.

These limitations, under the broadest reasonable interpretation,
constitute steps to access data for at least one past job position related to a
current position, including job description, data on at least one candidate
selected for the position, and data on at least one candidate rejected for the
position. A position profile is generated, using rejected candidate data as a
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

10
negative example and selected candidate data as a positive example.
Candidate applications for the current position are obtained, candidate
features are extracted, and a candidate profile is generated for each of the
candidate applications. A scoring model is created and the candidate
profiles are scored according to the model. The candidate applications are
then ranked based on the score for each of the candidate profiles.
We determine that limitations (a), (b), and (d) correspond to the
gathering of data. Limitations (a) and (b) concern gathering historical
position data, and specifying what sort of data that is. Limitation (d)
concerns obtaining a plurality of candidate applications for the current
position to be filled.
The Memorandum recognizes that certain groupings of subject matter
have been found by the courts to constitute judicially excepted abstract
ideas: (a) mathematical concepts, (b) certain methods of organizing human
activity, and (c) mental processes. Memorandum, 84 Fed Reg. 52. If a
claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in
the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is
still in the mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be
performed in the mind.4 We determine that the claim steps beyond those

4 See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); see also
Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that computer-implemented method for
“anonymous loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be
“performed by humans without a compute.r”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP
Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

11
directed to extra-solution activity (i.e., gathering, display, or storage of data)
– generating a position profile from historical position data; extracting
candidate features from candidate applications; generating a candidate
profile from candidate applications; scoring each of the candidate profiles;
and ranking the scores of the candidate profiles – constitute steps that may

claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the
underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper
or in a person’s mind.”); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Holding that the incidental use of
“computer” or “computer readable medium” does not make a claim
otherwise directed to process that “can be performed in the human mind, or
by a human using a pen and paper.”) (patent eligible), 1376 (Distinguishing
Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
as directed to inventions that “could not, as a practical matter, be performed
entirely in a human’s mind.”). Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“‘[M]ental processes[]
and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic
tools of scientific and technological work.’”) (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at
67); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 (same); Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65 (Noting that
the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary
numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a person would do it by head and
hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139,
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (Holding that claims to the mental process of “translating a
functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component
description of the logic circuit” are directed to an abstract idea, because the
claims “read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with
pencil and paper.”); In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test
Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (Concluding that concept
of “comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of
alterations” is an “abstract mental process.”); In re Brown, 645 F.Appx.
1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential) (Claim limitations
“encompass the mere idea of applying different known hair styles to balance
one’s head. Identifying head shape and applying hair designs accordingly is
an abstract idea capable, as the Board notes, of being performed entirely in
one’s mind.”).
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

12
be performed in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer
components.
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Appellant contends that the claims are directed to technological
improvements to the technological field of filtering and selecting job
candidates. Appeal Br. 22; see also Spec. ¶¶ 1, 18–25, and 33. Appellant
alleges that the claim limitations provide a method for filtering and selecting
job candidates using a machine trained system in order to provide a more
consistent review of candidates and reduce time needed by users to screen
and select job candidates. Appeal Br. 22.
We do not agree that Appellant has identified a “technological
improvement to a technological field.” Id. Rather, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellant’s invention is directed to an improvement to the
abstract idea of matching job candidates with job openings. The application
of computer technologies to data processing tasks does not amount to a
patent-eligible technological improvement. Performing calculations more
efficiently on a computer does not materially affect the patent eligibility of
subject matter. Bancorp Servs. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 687 F.3d
1266 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Appellant argues that the specification discloses benefits over
conventional techniques for job candidate filtering and selection. Appeal Br.
23; see also Spec. ¶¶ 1, 18–25, and 33. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive to show patent eligibility. Appellant’s cited portions of its
Specification are directed to describing prior art procedures for manual or
automated job candidate screening. That Appellant discloses a solution to
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

13
the business problem of identifying highly qualified job candidates does not
mean that Appellant has disclosed a patent-eligible invention.
Appellant argues that the claims are directed to an improvement in
existing computer technology, as the Specification identifies benefits of the
currently claimed limitations over conventional techniques for candidate
selection and filtering. Appeal Br. 25. Appellant discloses that computers
provide the capability to screen “thousands” of resumes and to avoid a
“typical manual screening process.” Spec. ¶¶ 1, 23. Appellant’s argument is
not persuasive on the topic of patent eligibility, because Appellant has
disclosed the application of known computer technology to an abstract idea,
rather than an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. We
agree with the Examiner that the invention under appeal uses known data
querying and comparison techniques, executed on known computer
components. Ans. 6.
Appellant refers to an allegedly “machine trained” system to provide a
more consistent review of applications. Appeal Br. 23. First, claim 1 makes
no mention of any such “machine training” or “machine learning.” Second,
even in the context of the recitation of such a term (claim 21), we agree with
the Examiner that the invention under appeal employs known data querying
and comparison steps, where the processing of data is merely affected by the
data itself. Ans. 7. It is evident from Appellant’s scant, passing mention of
“machine learning” in the Specification that Appellant does not seek to
patent any technological improvement in machine learning or machine
training. Spec. ¶ 35.
Appellant argues that the Specification describes specific technical
improvements to programming that permit its system to filter and select job
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

14
candidates in novel, non-obvious ways. Appeal Br. 26; see also Spec. ¶¶ 26,
27, 32, and 33. Appellant cites Trading Technologies to support its
argument that such specific technological modifications “generally produce
patent-eligible subject matter.” Appeal Br. 25; see also Trading Techs. Int’l,
Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 670 Fed.Appx. 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(nonprecedential).
Appellant’s analogy to Trading Technologies is unpersuasive. There,
the court found patent eligibility as a consequence of claims that “require a
specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed
functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is
addressed to and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state
of the art.” Trading Techs., 670 Fed.Appx. at 1004. In the invention under
appeal, Appellant has not identified any such functionality, directly related
to the technological structure, that resolves such a specifically identified
problem in the art.
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a mental process, one
of the categories of abstract ideas recognized in the Memorandum. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 52. We thus conclude that the claims recite an
abstract idea.

INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea of filtering and selecting job applicants, including the analysis of
historical position assignment data including rejected candidate attributes
and accepted candidate attributes, into a practical application. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 51. We consider whether there are any
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

15
additional elements beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in
combination, “integrate the [abstract ideas] into a practical application, using
one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Id. at 54–55.
The Memorandum provides exemplary considerations that are
indicative that an additional element may have integrated the exception (i.e.,
the abstract idea recited in the claim) into a practical application:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed Reg. 55; see also MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), and
(e)–(h).
As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a “processor,” “memory,” “computer readable program code,” and
“website.”
Appellant refers to a “processor” of a “general purpose computer,
special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing
apparatus.” Spec. ¶ 45. We determine that Appellant discloses a
“processor” as a generic component.
Appellant defines “memory” (“system memory 630”) as “computer
readable storage media in the form of volatile and/or nonvolatile memory
such as read only memory (ROM) and/or random access memory (RAM).
By way of example, and not limitation, system memory 630 may also
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

16
include an operating system, application programs, other program modules,
and program data.” Spec. ¶ 38. We determine that Appellant has not
disclosed memory as a non-generic component.
Appellant defines “computer readable program code” as being stored
on one or more computer readable medium(s). Spec. ¶ 41. “Program code”
may be transmitted using any appropriate medium. Spec. ¶ 43. Such
compute program code may be written in “Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like
and conventional procedural programming languages.” Spec. ¶ 44. We
determine that the disclosed computer readable program code is generically
recited.
Appellant mentions a designated “website,” by which job candidates
may apply for job 104, only once, with no description or elaboration.
Appellant does not refer to or describe the “website” as anything other than a
generic component.
Appellant contends that claim 1 “requires something more than a
generic computer” by “automatically ranking a plurality of candidate
application (sic) for a current job position using historical position
assignment data.” Appeal Br. 28. Appellant cites to paragraphs 1, 18–25,
and 33 of the Specification, but these paragraphs only describe prior art
methods of manual or automatic resume screening. As mentioned supra, we
determine that Appellant’s argument about “machine training” corresponds
to mere data querying and comparison steps that provide for automatic
processing of resumes.
Appellant asserts, without evidence, that known elements are
combined in a manner that is unconventional and non-generic. Appeal Br.
29. Appellant argues, without evidence, that the claim limitations are not
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

17
well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Appellant then mentions
BASCOM without evidence or detail explaining why the case is analogous.5
Appeal Br. 30. Appellant’s arguments here wholly fail to establish that
Appellant has disclosed a specific, discrete implementation of an abstract
idea, and a technical improvement over prior art ways of performing the
claimed method (here, of matching job candidates to job openings), as in
BASCOM. We determine that Appellant has not demonstrated a non-
conventional, non-generic arrangement of known, conventional components.
We conclude that the claims do not recite additional elements that
integrate the recited abstract idea of using historical job position data and
historical job candidate data to evaluate candidate applications for a present
job opening into a practical application under the standards established by
the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Last, we consider whether claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21 express an
inventive concept, i.e., whether any additional claim elements “‘transform
the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at
217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate
whether the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and
conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[] well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 56.

5 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

18
As discussed supra, the claims recite the additional elements of a
“processor,” “memory,” “computer readable program code,” and “website.”
We determine supra that Appellant does not disclose any of these additional
elements as being anything other than well-understood, routine, and
conventional.
Regarding the use of the recited generic computer components
identified, the Supreme Court has held that “the mere recitation of a generic
computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. Our reviewing court provides
additional guidance: See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at 1096 (“[T]he use of
generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not
alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject
matter.”); see also OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (Claims reciting, inter alia,
sending messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized
system to automatically determine an estimated outcome, and presenting
offers to potential customers found to merely recite “‘well-understood,
routine conventional activit[ies],’ either by requiring conventional computer
activities or routine data-gathering steps.”). We determine from Appellants’
general disclosure of these elements that the claimed processor, memory,
program code, and website are generic computer components. As such, they
cannot transform the recited patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention.
Appellants have presented no argument contesting the Examiner’s
characterization of any additional claim element as well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Appellants have not contended that the Examiner lacked
factual support for any finding that a claim element is well-understood,
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

19
routine, and conventional. As a result, we determine that none of the claim
elements, additional to those limitations we determined to constitute a
mental process, recite a limitation or combination of limitations that are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field of user
authentication.

SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY — CONCLUSION
We conclude that the claims recite a process of comparing job
candidate applications to historical job listings and prior applicants (both
accepted and rejected), extracting candidate features, generating candidate
profiles, scoring each of the candidate profiles, and ranking the candidate
applications according to score, which we determine to constitute a mental
process, one of the categories of invention found by the courts to constitute
an abstract idea.
We further conclude that the claims do not integrate the identified
abstract idea into a practical application.
We further conclude that the claimed invention does not recite
additional claim elements that transform the nature of the claim into a
patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21.

35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection of claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21 over Levine,
Magrino, and Kapoor

The Examiner finds that Levine and Magrino do not teach analyzing
the historical position assignment data for the at least one past job position to
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

20
generate a position profile, wherein the analyzing comprises extracting and
using attributes at the at least one candidate rejected from the at least one
past job position as negative examples and extracting and using attributes of
the at least one candidate assigned to the at least one past job position as
positive attributes to learn attributes of a suitable candidate. Final Act. 17.
The Examiner then finds that Kapoor teaches extracting and using such
information about rejected and assigned candidates. Final Act. 17–18.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner cites to
various portions of column 43 of Kapoor as evidence. Kapoor’s disclosure
at column 43 is concerned with the interface illustrated in Kapoor Figure
34B, which is an interface “for employee onboarding.” Kapoor col. 42:38–
39. “A variety of information is displayed pertaining to job candidates.”
Kapoor col. 42:40–41. “[T]he interface in Fig. 34B may further be
applicable for current employees who are candidates for new positions,
promotions, and/or the like, such as may require additional training, passing
a test, and/or the like.” Kapoor col. 43:7–10. Figure 34B illustrates an
interface that presents a plurality of columns of information to a user,
presumably an administrator, such as a status column with information
“reflecting performance on a test, performance in an interview;” columns for
start date, location, name, and email; and columns where a user may enter
information. Id. at col. 43:18-37. “In one implementation, the interface
elements may allow an administrator to reject a candidate with respect to a
particular job offer, promotion, title change, and/or the like, and/or to offer
the same to the candidate.” Id. at col. 43:39-43.
While Kapoor discloses an invention generally related to the field of
identifying appropriate job candidates, we do not find in Kapoor a disclosure
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

21
of the analysis of historical position assignment data that is cited by the
Examiner. We find that Kapoor does not teach a system extracting and
using attributes of at least one rejected candidates, to be used as negative
examples, and does not teach extracting and using attributes of assigned
candidates, to be used as positive attributes, to learn attributes of a suitable
candidate.
We conclude that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor teaches all the limitations of the claimed
invention. Thus, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21.

Obviousness Double Patenting Rejection
Appellant argues that the claims of this application “are not identical
and patentably distinct,” and of different classes of invention, from claims 1
and 3–10 of co-pending Application No. 13/596,817 (“the ’817
application”). Appeal Br. 36. With the exception of claim 10, we are not
persuaded by Appellant’s argument. We have reviewed the claims under
appeal and the claims pending in the ’817 application, and we agree with the
Examiner that the two sets of claims, while not identical, are substantially
similar. We agree with the Examiner that the various steps of the method
claimed herein, as contrasted withthe system or computer program product
claims of the ‘868 application, are obvious variations of one another.
The subject matter of claim 10 is not recited in any claim of the ’817
application.
Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

22
We sustain the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory double patenting
rejection of claims 1, 4–9, 20, and 21. We do not sustain the provisional
non-statutory double patenting rejection of claim 10.
DECISION
1. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
2. The recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application.
3. The claimed invention does not recite an inventive concept.
4. The combination of Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor does not teach
or suggest analyzing historical position assignment data, including extracting
and using attributes of at least one rejected candidate as negative examples
and extracting and using attributes of at least one accepted candidate as
positive examples to learn attributes of a suitable candidate.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4–10, 20, and 21 is
affirmed.
CONCLUSION SUMMARY

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–10, 20,
21
101 Patent Eligible
Subject Matter
1, 4–10, 20,
21

1, 4–10, 20,
21
103 Levine, Magrino,
Kapoor
1, 4–10,
20, 21
1, 4–10, 20,
21
Obviousness-type
double patenting
1, 4–9, 20, 21 10
Overall
Outcome

1, 4–10, 20,
21

Appeal 2018-008847
Application 12/944,868

23
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