Woodard, Bridget et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 21, 201912898204 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 21, 2019) Copy Citation 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. 12/898,204 10/05/2010 Bridget Woodard 088325-0780979 (101700US) 3419 51206 7590 10/21/2019 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP/Oracle Mailstop: IP Docketing - 22 1100 Peachtree Street Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309 EXAMINER WEISENFELD, ARYAN E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3689 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/21/2019 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): KTSDocketing2@kilpatrick.foundationip.com ipefiling@kilpatricktownsend.com oraclepatentmail@kilpatricktownsend.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BRIDGET WOODARD, WEISHIN YIN, JENNY KWAN, HUI DONG, RACHEL IP, and EARNEST IVIE ____________ Appeal 2017-0118341 Application 12/898,204 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and BIBHU R. MOHANTY, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 An oral hearing was held October 3, 2019. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 Bridget Woodard, Weishin Yin, Jenny Kwan, Hui Dong, Rachel Ip, and Earnest Ivie (Appellant) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a non– final rejection of claims 22–41, the only claims pending in the application on appeal.3 We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented an eProcurement system with the ability to communicate a changed requirement. Spec. para. 17. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 22, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 22. A method for processing data change requests in accordance with templates to generate updated versions of requisition orders, the method comprising: [1] transmitting, from a computing system and to a first user device associated with a customer, a first interface that: identifies each of a plurality of fields, a first field of the plurality of fields indicating an item requested by a requisition order; and 2 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed May 31, 2017 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief filed September 26, 2017 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed August 1, 2017 (“Ans.”); and the Non-Final Action mailed January 25, 2017 (“Non-Final Act.”). 3 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 3 includes, for each field of at least some the plurality of fields, an input component configured to receive input to indicate whether re-approval is required for a value of the field to be changed; [2] receiving, via the first interface, a first communication from the first user device that indicates that re-approval is required for a value of a second field of the plurality of fields to be changed; [3] generating, at the computing system and based on the first communication, a template for a customer that indicates that re-approval is required for a value of the second field to be changed; [4] accessing requisition data for a particular requisition order that identifies, for each field of the plurality of fields, a value for the field, the value having been identified in a previous communication; [5] accessing status data for the particular requisition order that indicates a status of sourcing associated with a line item; [6] determining, based on the status data and the template, that one or more fields of the plurality of fields are eligible for processing of value changes, the one or more fields including the second field; [7] facilitating a presentation, via a second user interface, that includes the requisition data and one or more indications that provision of a changed value for any of the one or more fields is to be processed to update or conditionally update the particular requisition order; [8] receiving, via the second user interface, one or more second communications that identify: Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 4 a first proposed changed value for the second field, wherein effecting the first proposed changed value for the second field requires re-approval; and a second changed value for a third field of the plurality of fields, wherein effecting the second changed value for the third field does not require re-approval; [9] generating, at the computing system and based on the one or more second communications and the template, a change-request presentation that identifies the particular requisition order, the first proposed changed value and the second field but does not identify the second changed value; [10] transmitting, via a third user interface, the change-request presentation to a second user device; [11] receiving, via the third user interface, a third communication that includes a response to the first proposed changed value; and [12] generating, by the computing system, an updated version of the requisition order that includes the second changed value for the third field, wherein a value for the second field in the requisition order depends on the response. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 5 The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Kumomura US 5,850,219 Dec. 15, 1998 Baumann US 7,082,408 B1 July 25, 2006 King US 2002/0152133 A1 Oct. 17, 2002 Holland & Knight, The Often Overlooked Attorney Review Clause, Attorney Advertising Article, October 2003 (hereinafter “Holland Knight”). Claims 22–41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claims 22–29 and 32–39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, and Kumomura. Claims 30, 31, 40, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, and Baumann.4 ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes the claim limitations. 4 A rejection of claims 23 and 33 and all dependent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) (Non-Final Act. 8), was withdrawn. Ans. 2–3. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 6 FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence. Facts Related to the Prior Art King 01. King is directed to providing an on-line marketplace and, more particularly, to on-line negotiation, contract formation and/or querying into price and availability of desired goods. King para. 2. 02. King describes creating on-line marketplaces. The marketplace permits a buyer to issue a requisition check inquiring into at least one of the price and availability of goods. The marketplace receives this requisition check and forwards it to the sellers or suppliers of the goods. Each supplier then issues a response indicating the price and/or availability of the goods. Based on this requisition check, the buyer then formulates an order which is passed through the marketplace to the suppliers. The suppliers can accept the order or issue a counterproposal. The marketplace tracks the requisition checks, responses to the requisition checks, submitted orders, and responses to orders. King para. 8. Holland Knight 03. Holland Knight is directed to describing the use of an attorney review clause in real estate contracts. Holland Knight 1. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 7 Kumomura 04. Kumomura is directed to electronic approval that can determine in a simple manner an electronic mail to be approved from among those received, perform electronic approval on selected electronic mail to be approved in an efficient manner, and send the approved electronic mail to a specified destination in an efficient manner. Kumomura 1:6–15. ANALYSIS Initially we construe certain claim limitations. We begin by construing “transmitting . . . a first interface” in claim 22, limitation 1. The Specification does not describe this. All descriptions of interfaces in the Specification refer to screen displays, so it is initially unclear how a screen display, being an intangible appearance upon a display screen, could be transmitted. Appellant cites Specification paragraphs 19, 30, and 32 and Figure 3A as support. Appeal Br. 4. Paragraph 19 does not describe an interface. Paragraph 30 describes the visual appearance of an interface, but not its transmission. Paragraph 32 describes fields of an interface, but not its transmission. Figure 3A portrays the visual appearance of an interface, but not its transmission. There appears to be no written description support for transmitting the interface. We will presume what is meant is transmitting data that is used to generate an interface. As such, this limitation is conventional data transmission. Similar analysis also pertains to limitation 10 of transmitting a presentation, taken to mean transmitting data used to generate a presentation. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 8 Claims 22–41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more STEP 15 Claim 22, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question,[] consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)) (citations omitted). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite 5 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.”). Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 9 one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 22 recites transmitting interface data, receiving communication data, generating template data, accessing requisition and status data, determining eligibility data, facilitating data presentation, receiving more communication data, generating presentation data, transmitting presentation data, receiving yet more communication data, and updating requisition data. Accessing data is data reception. Determining eligibility is rudimentary criteria analysis. Facilitating presentation is data display. Thus, claim 22 recites transmitting, receiving, generating, analyzing, displaying, and updating data. None of the limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 10 From this we see that claim 22 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas include: (1) mathematical concepts;6 (2) certain methods of organizing human activity;7 and (3) mental processes.8 Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 22 recites the concept of purchasing goods and services. Specifically, claim 22 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to update a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals. The advice to update a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals involves updating a requisition order, which is an economic act, and identifying goods or services to be purchased, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 22 recites “generating . . . an updated version of the requisition order,” which is an 6 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); and SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 7 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; see also Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); and In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160– 61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 8 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 11 activity that would take place whenever one is altering a prospective purchase. Similarly, claim 1 recites “identifies each of a plurality of fields, a first field of the plurality of fields indicating an item requested by a requisition order,” which is also characteristic of purchasing goods or services. The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to updating requisition orders. Non-Final Act. 4. The preamble to claim 22 recites that it is a method for processing data change requests in accordance with templates to generate updated versions of requisition orders. The steps in claim 22 result in updating requisition orders absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitations 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11 recite receiving data. Limitations 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 12 recite generic and conventional transmitting, generating, analyzing, displaying, and updating of requisition data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals. To advocate updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at paragraph 17 describes the invention as relating to an eProcurement system with the ability to communicate a changed requirement. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 22 is directed to purchasing goods and services. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 12 This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because purchasing goods and services are commercial transactions. The concept of purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals is one idea for recording changes to purchases. The steps recited in claim 22 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (tracking and storing information relating to a user’s purchases). From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 22 is directed to purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 22 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.9 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions . . . embody, use, reflect, rest upon, 9 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.at 175). Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 13 or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts [“]to a new and useful end,[”] we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the [“]buildin[g] block[s][”] of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps 2, 4, 5, 8, and 11 are pure data gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 1, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 12 recite basic conventional data operations such as transmitting, generating, updating, displaying and storing data. Step 6 recites generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so presents no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 22 simply recites the concept of purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 14 Claim 22 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The 23+ pages of specification only spell out different generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals under different scenarios.10 They do not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 22 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply purchasing goods and services by updating a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent- eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26. None of the limitations reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that 10 The Specification describes personal computers and/or laptop computers. For client devices and general purpose computers for servers. Spec. paras. 69–70. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 15 the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 22 is directed to achieving the result of purchasing goods and services by advising one to update a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 22 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea ;[“]to a particular technological environment.[”] Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 16 process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted). “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea[] on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for transmitting, receiving, generating, analyzing, displaying, and updating data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’ ‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’[] those functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend they invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 17 Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 22 adds nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data transmission-reception- generation-analysis-display-update is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); see also Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission); and Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 22 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 22 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 18 This Court has long “warn[ed] . . . against” interpreting § 101 “in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of purchasing goods and services by advising one to update a requisition for goods or services after obtaining necessary approvals, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Non-Final Action 3–7 and Answer 3–15 and reach similar legal conclusions. We now turn to the Reply Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the “independent claims set forth a specific mechanism via which requested value changes are differentially processed for various fields in accordance with a particular template.” Reply Br. 3. The mechanism is specific only in the sense it is specified using words. Changing values based on criteria to differentiate circumstance is conventional data processing. Data bases conventionally Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 19 and routinely rely on templates. A template is just another text document. No technological implementation details are recited. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that “the change- request presentation selectively [approves] a changed value for a field requiring re-approval but not another changed value for another field not requiring re-approval. Thus, efficiency of this communication is improved, and data access of an approving entity can also be improved.” Reply Br. 3– 4. This improves the information, but not the computer technology. “The claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Appellant cites to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 875 Fed.Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Reply Br. 4. First, this case is non-precedential and two related precedential cases with user interfaces had the claims held ineligible. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG Inc., 875 Fed.Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Second, the claims do not recite and the Specification does not describe structure associated with the interface, only data content. In Trading Technologies, in response to a similar argument that the claims “provide a particular graphical user interface that improves usability, visualization, and efficiency,” the Court determined that “[t]he claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology. . . . The “tool for presentation” here . . . is simply a generic computer.” Trading Techs., 921 F.3d at 1384–85 Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 20 (citations omitted). Similarly here the claims are not focused on an interface, but on providing information to users in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology and the tool for presentation is a generic computer. Claims 22–29 and 32–39 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, and Kumomura We are persuaded by Appellant's argument that “Holland Knight relates to real estate contracts and does not disclose transmission of a change-request presentation.” Reply. Br. 5. Claims 30, 31, 40, and 41 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, and Baumann These claims depend from the claims in the prior rejection. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 22–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. The rejection of claims 22–29 and 32–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, and Kumomura is improper. The rejection of claims 30, 31, 40, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, and Baumann is improper. Appeal 2017–011834 Application 12/898,204 21 CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 22–41 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 22–41 101 Eligibility 22–41 22–29. 32–39 103 King, Holland Knight, Kumomura 22–29. 32–39 30, 31, 40, 41 103 King, Holland Knight, Kumomura, Baumann 30, 31, 40, 41 Overall Outcome 22–41 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation