Vijil Enara. Chenthamarakshan et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 8, 2020

13596817 - (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.
13/596,817 08/28/2012 Vijil Enara Chenthamarakshan IN920100151US2(790.093C) 7542
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,
NANDADISHORE KAMBHATLA,
ROSE CATHERINE KANJIRANTHINKAL,
AMIT KUMAR RAMBACHAN SINGH, and
KARTHIK VISWESWARIAH
____________________

Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,8171
Technology Center 3600
____________________

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

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 3–10.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

2
Appellant’s 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. ¶ 3.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
utilizing at least one processor that executes computer code
comprising instructions that perform the steps of:
accessing 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;
obtaining at least one candidate attribute from candidate data;
accessing at least one position feature from at least one position to be
matched with at least one candidate, wherein the at least one position feature
is extracted from a position profile;
obtaining, via a designated website, a plurality of candidate
applications;
extracting, 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;
generating, based on the candidate features, a candidate profile;
automatically scoring the candidate profile based on the at least one position
feature, the at least one candidate attribute, and the historical position
assignment data;

Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

3
wherein said automatic scoring 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 creating a scoring model comprises utilizing the data for
at least one past job position by using skills of the at least one candidate
assigned to the at least one past job position as positive examples and using
skills of the at least one candidate rejected from the at least one past job
position as negative examples;
wherein said 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
ranking the at least one candidate profile based on the score for each of the
at least one candidate profile.

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. 02, 2016

Claims 1 and 3–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor(s) or applicant(s)
regards as the invention. Appeal Br. 14.
Claims 1 and 3–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Id.
Claims 1 and 3–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor. Id.
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

4
Claims 1 and 3–10 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. 12/944,868. Id.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Apr.16, 2018), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Sept.
11, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 11, 2018) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Is “using skills of at the least one candidate assigned to the at least
one past job position” or “using skills of the at least one candidate rejected
from the at least one past job position” indefinite?
2. Does the claimed invention recite an abstract idea?
3. Is the recited abstract idea integrated into a practical application?
4. Does the claimed invention recite an inventive concept?
5. Does the combination of Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor teach or
suggest analyzing historical position assignment data, including using skills
of at least one rejected candidate as negative examples and using skills of at
least one accepted candidate as positive examples?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The test for definiteness under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, is
whether “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed when the
claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety
Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted). Claims must “particularly point[] out and distinctly claim[] the
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

5
subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.” 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, ¶ 2. However, “[o]nly claims not amenable to construction or
insolubly ambiguous are indefinite . . . . A claim term is not indefinite just
because it poses a difficult issue of claim construction.” Star Scientific, Inc.
v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 537 F.3d 1357, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(internal citations and quotation marks omitted). “Thus, the definiteness of
claim terms depends on whether those terms can be given any reasonable
meaning.” Datamize, LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1347
(Fed. Cir. 2005).

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. 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.”).
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

6
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)).
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; see also id. at 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. (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.”).
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

7
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
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
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”).3 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
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)).

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 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

8
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
(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 112 rejection
The Examiner rejects the claims as indefinite because the limitation
“wherein the creating a scoring model comprises utilizing the data for at
least one past job position by using skills of the at least one candidate
assigned to the at least one past job position as positive examples and using
skills of the at least one candidate rejected from the at least one past job
position as negative examples” could be construed to mean “actually
requiring a candidate to ‘use the skills’ as in a test for competence.” Final
Act. 8.
We do not agree with the Examiner. We find that it is clear from the
Specification that “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed
when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, 806 F.2d
at 1576. For example, Appellant’s Specification discloses building a
database of past job assignments or of job skill data. This historical data is
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

9
analyzed by using previous candidate assignments as positive examples and
using previous rejected candidates as negative examples. Spec. ¶ 27.
Because we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as
indefinite, we do not sustain the § 112 rejection of claims 1 and 3–10.
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 method comprising:
utilizing at least one processor that executes computer
code comprising instructions that perform the steps of:
(a) accessing 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;
(b) obtaining at least one candidate attribute from
candidate data;
(c) accessing at least one position feature from at least
one position to be matched with at least one candidate, wherein
the at least one position feature is extracted from a position
profile;
(d) obtaining, via a designated website, a plurality of
candidate applications;
(e) extracting, 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;
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

10
(f) generating, based on the candidate features, a
candidate profile;
(g) automatically scoring the candidate profile based on
the at least one position feature, the at least one candidate
attribute, and the historical position assignment data;
(h) wherein said automatic scoring 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 creating a scoring model comprises
utilizing the data for at least one past job position by using
skills of the at least one candidate assigned to the at least one
past job position as positive examples and using skills of the at
least one candidate rejected from the at least one past job
position as negative examples;
(j) wherein said 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
(k) ranking the at least one candidate profile based on
the score for each of the at least one candidate profile.

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
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.
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

11
We determine that limitations (a), (b), and (d) correspond to the
gathering of data. Limitation (a) concerns gathering historical position data,
and specifying what sort of data that is. Limitation (b) concerns obtaining
candidate attributes from historical candidate data. 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 FR at 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 directed to

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.”); 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 computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined 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); id. at 1376 distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v.
Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

12
extra-solution activity (i.e., gathering, display, or storage of data) –
accessing at least one position feature from at least one position to be
matched; extracting candidate features from candidate applications;
generating candidate profiles; automatically scoring candidate profiles;
creating a scoring model; weighting candidate attributes; and ranking the
candidate profiles based on the scores obtained – constitute steps that may
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

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. App’x. 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 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

13
improvements to the technological field of filtering and selecting job
candidates. Appeal Br. 19; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 17–24, 32. 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. 19.
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.
20; Spec. ¶¶ 2, 17–24, 32. 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 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
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

14
selection and filtering. Appeal Br. 22. Appellant discloses that computers
provide the capability to screen “thousands” of resumes and to avoid a
“typical manual screening process.” Spec. ¶¶ 2, 19. 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, representative
claim 1 makes no mention of any such “machine training” or “machine
learning.” Second, 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. ¶ 34.
Appellant argues that the Specification describes specific technical
improvements to programming that permit its system to filter and select job
candidates in novel, non-obvious ways. Appeal Br. 22; Spec. ¶¶ 25, 26, 31,
32. Appellant cites Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc. to support its
argument that such specific technological modifications “generally produce
patent-eligible subject matter.” Appeal Br. 22; Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v.
CQG, Inc., 670 Fed. App’x. 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (nonprecedential).
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

15
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. App’x. 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. 84 Fed.
Reg. at 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. at 51. We consider whether there are any
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:
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

16
(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 FR at 55; MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).

As noted supra, we note that the claims recite the additional elements
of a “processor,” “computer code,” and “website.”
Appellant refers to a “processor” of a “general purpose computer,
special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing
apparatus.” Spec. ¶ 44. We determine that Appellant discloses a “processor”
as a generic component.
Appellant defines “computer readable program code” as being stored
on one or more computer readable medium(s). Spec. ¶ 40. “Program code”
may be transmitted using any appropriate medium. Spec. ¶ 42. Such
computer program code may be written in “Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like
and conventional procedural programming languages.” Spec. ¶ 43. 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. Spec.
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

17
¶ 19. 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. 25. Appellant cites to paragraphs 2, 17–24,
and 32 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.
26. Appellant argues, without evidence, that the claim limitations are not
well-understood, routine, or conventional activity. Appellant then mentions
BASCOM5 without evidence or detail explaining why the case is analogous.
Id. 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

5 BASCOM Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

18
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 and 3–10 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. at 50, 56.
As discussed supra, the claims recite the additional elements of a
“processor,” “computer 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.”); OIP Techs, 788 F.3d at 1363 (claims reciting, inter alia, sending
messages over a network, gathering statistics, using a computerized system
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

19
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” (alteration in original)). We
determine from Appellant’s 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.
Appellant has presented no argument contesting the Examiner’s
characterization of any additional claim element as well-understood, routine,
and conventional. Appellant has not contended that the Examiner lacked
factual support for any finding that a claim element is well-understood,
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.
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

20
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 and 3–10.

§ 103 Rejection of claims 1 and 3–10, over Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor
The Examiner finds that Levine and Magrino do not teach accessing
historical position assignment data, including at least one candidate rejected
from the at least one past job position, and wherein creating a scoring model
comprises using skills of the at least one candidate rejected from the at least
one past job position as negative examples and using the skills of the at least
one candidate assigned to the at least one past job position as positive
attributes. Final Act. 20–21. The Examiner then finds that Kapoor teaches
using such information about rejected and assigned candidates. Final
Act. 21.
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. The Examiner cites to
various portions of column 43 of Kapoor as evidence. Id. 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
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

21
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
of the analysis of historical position assignment data that is cited by the
Examiner. We find that Kapoor does not teach a system using the skills of at
least one rejected candidate, to be used as negative examples, and does not
teach using the skills of assigned candidates, to be used as positive
examples, 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 § 103 rejection of claims
1 and 3–10.
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,
4–10, 20, and 21 of co-pending Application No. 12/944,868 (“the ’868
application”). Appeal Br. 32–33. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument. We have reviewed the claims under appeal and the claims
Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

22
pending in the ’868 application, and we agree with the Examiner that the
two sets of claims, while not identical, are substantially similar. Ans. 11. We
agree with the Examiner that the various steps of the method claimed herein,
as contrasted with the system or “computer program product claims of the
‘868 application, are obvious variations of one another.
We sustain the Examiner’s provisional non-statutory double patenting
rejection of claims 1 and 3–10.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The claim language “using skills of the at least one candidate
assigned to the at least one past job position” or “using skills of the at least
one candidate rejected from the at least one past job position” is not
indefinite.
2. The claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
3. The recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical
application.
4. The claimed invention does not recite an inventive concept.
5. The combination of Levine, Magrino, and Kapoor does not teach or
suggest analyzing historical position assignment data, including using skills
of at least one rejected candidate as negative examples and using skills of at
least one accepted candidate as positive examples.

Appeal 2018-008800
Application 13/596,817

23
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–10 101 Patent Eligible
Subject Matter
1, 3–10
1, 3–10 103 Levine, Magrino,
Kapoor
1, 3–10
1, 3–10 Obviousness-type
double patenting
1, 3–10
Overall
Outcome

1, 3–10

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, and 3–10, is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED