Vrabete, Brad

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 30, 2020

14998270 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/998,270 12/26/2015 Brad Vrabete P87042/45631-244119 3356
73486 7590 07/30/2020
Barnes & Thornburg LLP (Intel)
11 S. Meridian Steet
Indianapolis, IN 46204
EXAMINER
CIESLEWICZ, ANETA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2829
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
INdocket@btlaw.com
Inteldocs_docketing@cpaglobal.com
inteldocket@btlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRAD VRABETE
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270
Technology Center 2800
Before JAMES C. HOUSEL, MICHELLE N. ANKENBRAND, and
JULIA HEANEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOUSEL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–12, 14–20, and 22–27 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation.
Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed January 17, 2019, 2.
2 Our Decision additionally refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
December 26, 2015, the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) dated May 3,
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal relates to the Internet of Things (IoT),
i.e., devices (e.g., sensors, vehicles, appliances, industrial equipment, and
other things) having computing resources and network capability. Spec. ¶ 1.
Appellant discloses that a typical IoT connected device at the edge of a
network may have limited available bandwidth but the device may generate
a large amount of data. Id. ¶¶ 1–2. In such cases, the data is often discarded
due to the limited bandwidth instead of being transmitted. Id. ¶ 2. To that
end, Appellant discloses a system for adaptive bandwidth reduction that
captures sensor data over a period of time, analyzes the data and determines
a trend, and, based on the trend, determines a mathematical model, which
includes coefficients. Id. ¶ 11. The values of the coefficients and/or other
parameters of the determined mathematical model are in turn communicated
to a cloud compute device over a network. Id.
Claim 18, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
18. A method for transmitting sensor data by an Internet of
Things (IoT) gateway device, the method comprising:
receiving, by the IoT gateway device and from a sensor,
sensor data;

2018, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) dated April 19, 2019, and the Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed June 14, 2019. The Final Office Action was
originally mailed April 26, 2018, but was then re-mailed on May 3, 2018 as
a Letter Restarting Period for Response. An Interview Summary was also
mailed May 3, 2018, which indicated that a § 112 rejection in the April 26,
2018 Final Office Action had been withdrawn.

Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

3
determining, by the IoT gateway device, a mathematical
model to represent the sensor data based on a trend of the
sensor data, wherein determining the mathematical model
comprises (i) determining a number, n, of coefficients to be
used in the mathematical model and (ii) determining a value of
a plurality of coefficients of the mathematical model; and
sending, by the IoT gateway device, the values of the
plurality of coefficients to a cloud compute device.
OPINION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1–12, 14–20, and 22–
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
Final Act. 3–6.
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”). After considering the
argued claims relative to case law presented in this Appeal and each of
Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies
reversible error. Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons
expressed in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer. We add
the following primarily for emphasis.
Legal Framework
Section 101
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 U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

4
include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. 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, our
inquiry focuses on the Supreme Court’s two-part framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Services v.
Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (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 the Court has determined are abstract ideas and, thus, patent
ineligible, include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as
fundamental economic practices (e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20);
mathematical formulas (e.g., Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978));
and mental processes (e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)).
Concepts the Court has determined are 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 (1853))); 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
Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

5
not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula.”
Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; 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 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 part
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.
USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

6
(Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019 Revised Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are,
as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October 2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“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. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).4
2019 Revised 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, [and] 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 (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df).
4 We perform this evaluation 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 2019 Revised Guidance - Section III(A)(2),
84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

7
(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 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Analysis
Applying the guidance set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance and
October 2019 Update, we conclude that claims 1–12, 14–20, and 22–27 do
not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Appellant argues claims 1–12, 14–
20, 22–25, and 27 as a first group and claim 26 as a second group. Appeal
Br. 5–18. Appellant’s arguments for the first group focus on the limitations
of claim 18. Id. at 12. Therefore, claims 1–12, 14–17, 19, 20, 22–25, and 27
stand or fall with claim 18, which we select as representative. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Claim 26, which Appellant separately argues, is addressed
separately below.
Claims 1–12, 14–20, 22–25, and 27
Step 2A, Prong One — The Judicial Exception
Under Step 2A, Prong One, the 2019 Revised Guidance instructs us
first to determine whether each claim recites any judicial exception to patent
eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The Memorandum identifies three judicially-
excepted groupings: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of
organizing human activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3)
mental processes. Id. at 52.
The Examiner determines that claim 18 is recites an abstract idea. In
the Final Office Action, the Examiner finds, inter alia, that the
“determining” limitation of claim 18 is a mental process that falls within the
category of abstract ideas, whereas in the Answer, the Examiner finds that
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

8
this limitation recites both a mental process and a mathematical concept.
Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 4, 7.
Appellant “does not dispute that claim 18 recites a mathematical
concept” but argues, instead, that the limitations “determining . . . a
mathematical model . . . based on a trend of the sensor data” and
“determining a number, n, of coefficients to be used in the mathematical
model” do not recite a mathematical concept or an abstract idea and should
be analyzed as additional elements. Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 2–4.
In response, the Examiner agrees that claim 18 recites an abstract idea
in the form of a mathematical concept, but finds that the entire
“determining” limitation, including determining the mathematical model and
its coefficient values, recites a mathematical concept because these
limitations involve the determination of the mathematical model (i.e., the
abstract idea) and claim 18 lacks specificity of how any trend of sensor data
is used to choose the mathematical model or how the model is selected based
on the coefficients. Ans. 3–6. Alternatively, the Examiner finds that the
“determining” limitation recites a mental process that can be performed by
the human mind because it encompasses determining a linear function and
its two coefficients as a mathematical model for a set of data points. Id. at 7.
We agree with the Examiner that claim 18 recites a mental process.5
Claim 18 does not specify any particular mathematical model nor exclude a
linear function as the mathematical model. Nor does claim 18 recite how

5 We do not disagree that claim 18 also recites a mathematical concept.
Indeed, claim 18 appears to recite a mathematical concept by reciting the
determination of a mathematical model, which includes the calculation of
the value of its coefficients. However, we need not address this aspect of
claim 18 because this claim includes a mental process within its scope.
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

9
many sensor data points are used. Further, the Specification refers to linear
terms, which indicates that a linear function was contemplated as a
mathematical model for the claimed invention. Spec. ¶¶ 30, 32. A person is
able to perform practically, in his or her mind, the determination of a linear
function, including its two coefficients (slope and abscissa), as a
mathematical model based on a trend of data, especially when there are few
or two data points. Such a mental determination would include determining
the coefficients for the linear function by determining the slope of the linear
function and where the linear function intercepts the ordinate axis (i.e., the
abscissa).
Appellant responds that:
[w]hile it would be possible for a human to do a simple linear fit
to two points, it would be impractical for a human to do so in a
realistic embodiment of the claim by continuously monitoring a
sensor and mentally performing a polynomial fit—or even a
linear fit—to a large number of data points.
Reply Br. 5–6. Thus, Appellant’s argument is essentially that claim 18 does
not recite a mental process that may be performed by the human mind
because it encompasses more complex mathematical models.
This argument is unpersuasive because it fails to address the entire
scope of claim 18. We do not evaluate whether a claim recites a judicial
exception by analyzing whether the claim encompasses a mental process that
cannot be performed by the human mind. Instead, our evaluation requires
analyzing whether the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation,
encompasses a mental process that can be performed by the human mind.
2019 Revised Guidance, fn 14; October 2019 Update 7–8. For the reasons
discussed above, the broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 18
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

10
encompasses determining a linear function as a mathematical model,
including its coefficients, based upon a trend of data (e.g., as few as two data
points). As noted above, Appellant acknowledges that this is a mental
process that can be performed by the human mind. Reply Br. 5.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that certain
dependent claims recite additional features that specify how a mathematical
model is selected, relate to an improvement, or recite features that are not
well-understood, routine, and conventional. Reply Br. 3, 7–8. Under
regulations governing appeals to the Board, any new argument not timely
presented in the Appeal Brief will not be considered when filed in a Reply
Brief, absent a showing of good cause explaining why the argument could
not have been presented in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2); In
re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not
first raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte
Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that
arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief will not
be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause
explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal
Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(“Properly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a
belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a
showing of good cause.”). Appellant fails to provide such a showing.
Accordingly, these arguments have been waived.6

6 Even if we were to consider these new arguments, they would not be
persuasive of reversible error. For instance, claims 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, and 25
fail to specify what the alert threshold is, how this threshold is determined,
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

11
In view of the foregoing, the “determining” limitation of claim 18
reasonably involves a mental process, including evaluation and judgment.
The 2019 Revised Guidance expressly recognizes mental processes as
constituting an abstract idea. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the “determining” limitation of claim 18 recites a judicial
exception to patent-eligible subject matter under Step 2A, Prong One.
Independent claims 1 and 10 include similar determining limitations, see
Appeal Br. 20, 21–22 (Claims App’x), and, therefore, recite a judicial
exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two — Integration into a Practical Application
Having determined that claim 18 recites the abstract idea of a mental
process, we next look to determine whether this claim recites “additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.”
MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h); 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 F.3d at 53–54.
Integration into a practical application requires an additional element or a
combination of additional elements in the claim to “apply, rely on, or use the
judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed

and how the comparison between the sensor data and the alert threshold is
use to determine the mathematical model. In other words, the limitations in
these claims recite the alert threshold at a high level of generality. Therefore,
these limitations fail to take the claims out from a judicial exception.
Further, Appellant fails to persuasively explain how claims 3 and 27, which
require determining a precision of the plurality of coefficients, do not
include the judicial exception. Instead, Appellant merely provides possible
examples without explaining why these examples could not be performed
mentally. As such, claims 3, 8, 9, 16, 17, 24, 25, and 27 do not recite an
additional element beyond the abstract idea, as the Examiner indicated in the
rejection. Final Act. 5–6.
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

12
to monopolize the exception.” 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–
54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth exemplary considerations indicative that
an additional element or combination of elements may have integrated the
judicial exception into a practical application).
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two of the 2019 Revised Guidance and
the October 2019 Update, we consider whether claim 18 as a whole
integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception.
The October 2019 Update explains that “[a]n important consideration to
evaluate when determining whether the claim as a whole integrates a judicial
exception into a practical application is whether the claimed invention
improves the functioning of a computer or other technology.” October 2019
Update 12.
Appellant contends the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea
into a practical application, specifically an IoT gateway device that uses a
mathematical model to adaptively conserve bandwidth based on a trend of
sensor data. Appeal Br. 14; Reply Br. 6. According to Appellant, “the
claimed invention improves the functioning of the IoT gateway device by
adaptively reducing bandwidth while providing high quality sensor data.”
Appeal Br. 14. Appellant further asserts that claim 18’s invention is
comparable to the invention in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because the claimed invention also provides a
“specific improvement to the way computers operate.” Id. at 15–16.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as the Examiner
explains (Ans. 9), claim 18’s additional elements—the “receiving” and
“sending” limitations—do not amount to more than data gathering and data
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

13
outputting, which are insignificant extra-solution activities.7 The Examiner
further explains that, unlike the invention in Enfish, Appellant’s invention
relies on a general purpose computer or device to function in its ordinary
capacity. Id. at 11. For instance, the IoT gateway device is essentially a
general purpose computer that is used as a tool to determine the
mathematical model based on the trend in sensor data, including the
coefficients of the model. Id.
Nor do the additional elements, when considered individually and as
an ordered combination, reflect an improvement to the functioning of a
computer, or to any other technology or technical field. See 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55, n.25. The Examiner finds that claim 18 lacks
particularity with regard to Appellant’s asserted improvement. Ans. 8–9, 11–
12. As the Examiner finds (id. 8), nothing in the claim “suggests that the
mathematical model ‘adaptively conserve(s) bandwidth based on a trend of
the sensor data’ or that functioning of the IoT gateway device is improved.”
Nor does claim 18 require the provision or preservation of high quality
sensor data. Indeed, claim 18 recites both the extra-solution activities
(receiving sensor data and sending coefficient values) and the mathematical
model determining step at a high level of generality. Although claim 18
requires that the model be determined “based on a trend of the sensor data,”

7 Insignificant data gathering steps “add nothing of practical significance to
[an] underlying abstract idea.” Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d
709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Moreover, an “outputting” limitation is an
ancillary part of such collection and analysis of information. SAP Am., Inc.
v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (merely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more, is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis).
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

14
there are no limitations on how this determination is to be related to a trend
of the sensor data, how any trend in the data is to be identified, whether
qualitatively or quantitatively, and how accurate and precise the model
simulates the sensor data. Moreover, Appellant has not shown that the
claimed invention results in any improvement in the cloud compute device,
especially if the mathematical model fails to simulate the sensor data with
accuracy and precision. See Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc., Nos.
2019-1765, 2019-1767, 2019-1823, 2020 WL 3400682, at *4 (Fed. Cir. June
19, 2020) (explaining that the patent specification must describe how a
technological problem is solved and this solution must be evident from the
claims).
In addition, the Examiner finds that Appellant’s asserted improvement
appears to derive from the abstract idea itself. Ans. 13. A claimed
invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed cannot render
the invention “significantly more” than the ineligible concept. BSG Tech
LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Nor is the
judicial exception particularly limited or non-monopolizing by reciting
receiving sensor data (i.e., generic data gathering) and sending coefficient
values, as recited in claim 18.
Thus, when considered as a whole, claim 18 does nothing more than
generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment. The “prohibition against patenting abstract ideas ‘cannot be
circumvented by attempting to limit the use of [the abstract idea] to a
particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant postsolution
activity.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 610–11 (quoting Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92);
Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom, SA, 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed Cir. 2016)
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

15
(“[Limiting the claims to the particular technological environment of power-
grid monitoring is, without more, insufficient to transform them into patent-
eligible applications of the abstract idea at their core.”); Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Narrowing the
abstract idea of using advertising as a currency to the Internet is an ‘attempt[
] to limit the use’ of the abstract idea ‘to a particular technological
environment,’ which is insufficient to save a claim.”) (quoting Alice, 573
U.S. at 219–20).
In sum, we find that claim 18 does not integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application. Accordingly, claims 1–12, 14–20, 22–25, and 27
are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B — Inventive Concept
Because claim 18 is directed to an abstract idea and does not include
additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application, we evaluate the additional elements of the claim, individually
and in combination, to determine whether the claim provides an inventive
concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more
than the exception itself). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner concludes, and we agree, that the claims do not contain
any additional elements, individual or in combination, that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Final Act. 4. Viewed individually,
claim 18 contains the additional elements of (1) “receiving, by the IoT
gateway device and from a sensor, sensor data” and (2) “sending, by the IoT
gateway device, the values of the plurality of coefficients to a cloud compute
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

16
device.” As explained above, these elements are insignificant extra-solution
activities of data gathering and outputting information.8
Indeed, Appellant does not dispute that receiving sensor data is well-
understood, routine, or conventional. Reply Br. 7. Appellant instead argues
that the limitations of determining the coefficients of a mathematical model
and determining the mathematical model based on a trend of sensor data are
additional elements that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Id. at 7–8. However, as explained above, these limitations are part of the
mental process of determining the mathematical model, and not additional
limitations we consider under step 2B.
The additional elements of claim 18 also do not indicate an inventive
concept when viewed as an ordered combination. Appellant asserts “the
feature of basing a mathematical model on a trend of sensor data is
unconventional for similar reasons as the claims in Amdocs,”9 and uses “an
unconventional technique of basing a mathematical model that is used to
represent sensor data using a trend of the sensor data itself.” Appeal Br. 16–
17. Appellant, however, does not explain how the claimed invention uses an
“unconventional technique,” other than implementing the abstract idea via
generic components, or how such components are arranged in an
unconventional arrangement to achieve the improvement Appellant asserts.
In this regard, we note that Appellant discloses that it was known that IoT

8 The Examiner further finds that the structures referred to in the method of
claim 18 (i.e., the IoT gateway device, sensor, and cloud compute device)
are well-understood, routine, and conventional and cites references to
support this finding. Ans. 13. Appellant does not dispute this finding.
9 Amdocs (Israel), Ltd v. Opennet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2016).
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

17
gateway devices receive sensor data from a sensor and that such data may be
sent to cloud-based servers. Spec. ¶¶ 1–2. Thus, claim 18’s arrangement of
IoT gateway device and cloud-based server is not an unconventional
arrangement.
Therefore, on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the
additional elements of claim 18 amount to significantly more than the
judicial exception, such as by indicating an inventive concept.
In summary, we have carefully considered Appellant’s arguments but
are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–
12, 14–20, 22–25, and 27.
Claim 26
Claim 26 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein to determine the
number, n, of coefficients to be used in the mathematical model comprises to
determine a number, n, of coefficients to be used in the mathematical model
based on the trend of the sensor data.” Appellant argues that claim 26 recites
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application and impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea. Appeal Br.
17–18; Reply Br. 8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because, as the Examiner
finds, the limitation of claim 26 is merely an extension of the abstract idea
that claim 18 recites. Final Act. 6. Claim 26 essentially recites that the
number of coefficients of the mathematical model are based on the trend of
the sensor data. As the Examiner explains, this is similar to the limitation (in
claims 1 and 18) of determining a mathematical model based on the trend of
the sensor data. Ans. 14. As a result, claim 26 only recites the abstract idea
and there are no additional elements for analysis of whether there is an
Appeal 2019-005056
Application 14/998,270

18
integration of the judicial exception into a practical application or an
inventive concept.
Therefore, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the record and for the reasons set forth above
and in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–12, 14–20, and 22–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to patent ineligible subject matter is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–12, 14–20,
22–27
101 Patent Eligibility 1–12, 14–20,
22–27

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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