Abdullah Erdal

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 31, 2021

2020006419 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/521,100 10/22/2014 Abdullah Celik Erdal 209884.0003.7 (P001) 4125
8791 7590 03/31/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
CHOY, PAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/31/2021 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ABDULLAH CELIK ERDAL
____________

Appeal 2020-006419
Application114/521,100
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection2 of claims 1, 4–20, and 23–27. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Abdullah Celik Erdal as the real
party in interest.
2 All references to the Final Office Action refer to the Final Office Action
mailed on May 15, 2019.
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant states the invention relates “to enterprise software” and
more particularly, “to an integrated workplace management platform.”
Spec. ¶0002.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for processing actionable
messages of a workplace management platform, the method comprising:
receiving, by an action manager executed by a processor of a computer
server, a create
command received from a first user of a first device for composing a
first actionable message specifying a first action, wherein the first
action includes a work related activity to be performed by a second
user as a recipient of the first actionable message;
in response to the create command, transmitting, by a workplace
management interface module executed by the processor, user
interface data representing a message composing user interface to the
first device of the first user to cause the first device to display in a first
display area of a display of the first device, wherein displaying the
message composing user interface comprises
displaying a first field within the message composing user interface to
receive a
due date of the first action, wherein the second user is required to
complete performing the first action by the due date,
displaying a second field within the message composing user interface to
receive
a reply-by date of the first action, wherein the second user is required
to respond to the first actionable message by the reply-by date to
acknowledge receiving the first actionable message,
displaying a third field within the message composing user interface to
receive a
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

3

duration of the first action, wherein the third field is an optional field
to allow the first user to provide an estimated amount of time required
to complete the first action,
displaying a subject field to describe a subject matter of the first
actionable message,
display a TO field to specify one or more recipients of the first actionable
message, including an email address of the second user, and
displaying a message field to allow the first user to provide a description of
the first actionable message;
receiving, from the first user, a send command;
determining, whether the send command is an actionable message, based on
a first due date, a first reply-by date, and a first duration of the first
action;
in response to receiving the send command, transmitting the first actionable
message to a
second device of the second user over a network, the first actionable
message including information specifying the first due date, the first
reply-by date, and the first duration of the first action;
storing the first action in a data store as a part of list of actions associated
with the second user, wherein the data store is configured to store a
plurality of actions associated with a plurality of users;
displaying a first sidebar panel in a second display area of the display,
the first sidebar panel including a first message identifier identifying
the first actionable message that has been sent to the second user,
wherein the first sidebar panel is configured to list all pending actions
that are associated with the first user without listing regular email
messages of the first users, wherein the regular email messages are
without a due date and a duration of an action attached therein;
automatically scheduling, by a calendar manager executed by the processor,
a reminder event for the second user based on the first reply-by date
extracted from the first actionable message, wherein the reminder event is
configured to remind the second user to respond to the first actionable
message; and
storing the reminder event in the data store as a part of a list of events
associated with the second user, wherein the data store is configured
to store a plurality of events associated with a plurality of users;
automatically triggering the reminder event prior to the reply-by date of the
actionable
message to alert the second user to respond;
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

4

determining, whether the second user has accepted, declined, or requested
for change, the
actionable message based on a response of the second user;
automatically scheduling, if the second user has accepted the actionable
message, a corresponding action in a calendar database or entry
associated with the second user, wherein displaying the message
composing user interface further comprises displaying a second
sidebar panel in a third display area, while the first actionable
message is concurrently displayed in the first display area;
displaying a contact window within the second sidebar panel having contacts
of users associated with the first user;
in response to a selection of a contact of the second user from the contact
window of the second sidebar panel, automatically specifying an
email address of the second user in the TO field of the first actionable
message; and
displaying a third sidebar panel in a fourth display area, the third sidebar
panel including a status of the first actionable message indicating if
the second user has accepted, declined, or requested for change the
first actionable message;
determining availability information of the second user based on calendar
information associated with the second user;
displaying an available time slot window within the second sidebar panel,
while the first actionable message is concurrently displayed within the
first display area; and
displaying one or more time slots that are available for the second user based
on the availability information of the second user in view of at least
the first due date of the first action.

THE REJECTIONS3
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 4–20 and 23–27 35 under U.S.C.
§ 101 because the claims are directed to a judical exception.

3 The Examiner withdraws the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). (Answer 3).

Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

5

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 10–17 in the
Final Office Action and on pages 4–7 in the Examiner’s Answer.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will affirm the rejection of claims 1, 4–20, 23–27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
The Appellant argues claims 1, 4–20 and 23–27 as a group. (Appeal
Br. 5). We select claim 1 as the representative claim for this group, and so
the remaining claims stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2015).
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See id. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept
of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate
settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010)
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

6

(“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of
hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 77). “[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[]
fail[s] to transform that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”).4 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency
management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;5 see also October
2019 Update at 1.

4 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
5 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04 and also supersedes all versions of the
USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related guidance issued prior
to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should
not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments challenging the
sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection will not be addressed to the extent
those arguments are based on now superseded USPTO guidance.
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

8

Under the 2019 Revised 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).6
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look, under
Step 2B, to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on whether ‘their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet

6 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–
55.
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

9

Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement
in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract
idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36.
In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a “directed to” two prong
test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the
claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.04–2106.05.
The Specification states:
knowledge workers spend about 2 1/2 hours of their workday
using their email. However, only 1 in 7 of these daily emails
received are characterized as critical to work activities.
Therefore, a typical knowledge worker end up wasting
substantial amount of their time for searching and sorting emails
and relevant information. Many of those unrelated or
unnecessary emails not only create distraction but also
unmanageable information overload for the knowledge workers.
According to research, 80% of the emails in our inbox are not
important or urgent, leaving only 20% of the emails to be perhaps
critical to our business.
Spec. ¶ 5.
The preamble of claim 1 states it is “for processing actionable
messages of a workplace management platform.”
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
receiving, …, a create command …for composing a first
actionable message specifying a first action, wherein the first
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

10

action includes a work related activity to be performed by a
second user as a recipient of the first actionable message; in
response to the create command, transmitting, …a message…to
cause the first device to display in a first display area of a display
of the first device, wherein displaying the message …comprises
displaying a first field within the message… to receive a due date
of the first action, wherein the second user is required to
complete performing the first action by the due date, displaying
a second field within the message …to receive a reply-by date of
the first action, wherein the second user is required to respond to
the first actionable message by the reply-by date to acknowledge
receiving the first actionable message, displaying a third field
within the message …to receive a duration of the first action,
wherein the third field is an optional field to allow the first user
to provide an estimated amount of time required to complete the
first action, displaying a subject field to describe a subject matter
of the first actionable message, display a TO field to specify one
or more recipients of the first actionable message, including an
email address of the second user, and displaying a message field
to allow the first user to provide a description of the first
actionable message; receiving, from the first user, a send
command; determining, whether the send command is an
actionable message, based on a first due date, a first reply-by
date, and a first duration of the first action; in response to
receiving the send command, transmitting the first actionable
message to …the second user, the first actionable message
including information specifying the first due date, the first
reply-by date, and the first duration of the first action; storing the
first action…as a part of list of actions associated with the second
user,…; displaying a first sidebar panel in a second display area
of the display, the first sidebar panel including a first message
identifier identifying the first actionable message that has been
sent to the second user, wherein the first sidebar panel … list[s]
all pending actions that are associated with the first user without
listing regular email messages of the first users, wherein the
regular email messages are without a due date and a duration of
an action attached therein;… scheduling, …, a reminder event
for the second user based on the first reply-by date extracted from
the first actionable message, wherein the reminder event is
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

11

configured to remind the second user to respond to the first
actionable message; and storing the reminder event …as a part
of a list of events associated with the second user, …;…
triggering the reminder event prior to the reply-by date of the
actionable message to alert the second user to respond;
determining, whether the second user has accepted, declined, or
requested for change, the actionable message based on a
response of the second user; … scheduling, if the second user has
accepted the actionable message, a corresponding action in a
calendar database or entry associated with the second user,
wherein displaying the message …further comprises displaying
a second sidebar panel in a third display area, while the first
actionable message is concurrently displayed in the first display
area; displaying a contact window within the second sidebar
panel having contacts of users associated with the first user; in
response to a selection of a contact of the second user from the
contact window of the second sidebar panel,… specifying an
email address of the second user in the TO field of the first
actionable message; and displaying a third sidebar panel in a
fourth display area, the third sidebar panel including a status of
the first actionable message indicating if the second user has
accepted, declined, or requested for change the first actionable
message; determining availability information of the second user
based on calendar information associated with the second user;
displaying an available time slot window within the second
sidebar panel, while the first actionable message is concurrently
displayed within the first display area; and displaying one or
more time slots that are available for the second user based on
the availability information of the second user in view of at least
the first due date of the first action.

The Examiner found “[t]he claimed subject matter is directed to a
system and method for processing actionable messages of a workplace
management platform.” Final Act. 13. The Examiner concluded, “The
claims as a whole, [recite] a method that allows for users to manage
relationships or interactions between people (including social activities,
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

12

teaching, and following rules or instructions), which falls within the certain
methods of organizing human activity grouping.” Id. at 14.
Accordingly, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites a
way of processing actionable messages using fillable fields for responding to
task items included as part of the message. This is consistent with the
Examiner’s determination. Limitations such as, “scheduling, …, a reminder
event for the second user based on the first reply-by date extracted from the
first actionable message, wherein the reminder event is configured to remind
the second user to respond to the first actionable message;” “storing the
reminder event …as a part of a list of events associated with the second
user;” “triggering the reminder event prior to the reply-by date of the
actionable message to alert the second user to respond;” “determining,
whether the second user has accepted, declined, or requested for change, the
actionable message based on a response of the second user;” “scheduling, if
the second user has accepted the actionable message, a corresponding action
in a calendar database or entry associated with the second user,” all effect
human response and hence, constitute interactions between people.
Interactions between people caused by tasking them to respond to a message
is one of certain methods of organizing human activity that are judicial
exceptions. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The claimed display of the various sidebar panels in the display area
merely recite resulting systems. That is, such limitations as, “displaying a
second sidebar panel in a third display area, while the first actionable
message is concurrently displayed in the first display area,” and “displaying
a contact window within the second sidebar panel having contacts of users
associated with the first user,” are abstractions because the claims “do not
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

13

claim a particular way of programming or designing the software to create
[the side panels]… that have these features, but instead merely claim the
resulting systems. Essentially, the claims are directed to certain
functionality—here, the ability to generate …[side panels] with certain
features. (citations omitted).” Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229 at
1241 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Claimed steps such as, “displaying a third sidebar panel in a fourth
display area, the third sidebar panel including a status of the first actionable
message indicating if the second user has accepted, declined, or requested
for change the first actionable message,” are data gathering steps considered
insignificant extra-solution activity. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent
Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611–12 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The limitation, “displaying a first sidebar panel in a second display
area of the display, the first sidebar panel including a first message identifier
identifying the first actionable message that has been sent to the second
user,” is simply outputting the results of the analyses, a post-solution
activity. See Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191–92.
Finally, we find that the action limitations listed above in condensed
form of claim 1 noted in italics, mimic human thought processes of selecting
certain information over others, i.e., evaluation, and creating perhaps with
paper and pencil, graphic data interpretation perceptible only in the human
mind. See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed.
Cir. 2016); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093–
94 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The Federal Circuit has held similar concepts to be
abstract.
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

14

Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only
generically requires “a processor of a computer server,” “a first device”
having a display, and “a second device” having a display. These
components are described in the Specification at a high level of generality.
See Spec. ¶¶ 42, 140, 141, 144–147, Fig. 1. We fail to see how the generic
recitations of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so
integrates the judicial exception as to “impose[] a meaningful limit on the
judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed
to monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
Thus, we find that the claims recite the judicial exceptions of a certain
method of organizing human activity and a mental process.
That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to actionable messaging, does not make them any less abstract. See
OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be
limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them
any less abstract.”).
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must
include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim
in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Concerning this step, the Examiner found the following: “[t]herefore,
the claims as a whole, these elements do not provide meaningful limitations
to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

15

idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
itself.” Final Act. 17. We agree with the Examiner. “[T]he relevant
question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the
practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a generic computer.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer. Limitations, such as, “wherein the
first sidebar panel is configured to list all pending actions that are associated
with the first user without listing regular email messages of the first users,
wherein the regular email messages are without a due date and a duration of
an action attached therein,” and “displaying a second sidebar panel in a third
display area, while the first actionable message is concurrently displayed in
the first display area,” are but expectations, which are aspirational. All of
these computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 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”). In short, each
step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic
computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to improve the
functioning of the computer itself. The Specification spells out different
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

16

generic equipment and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of information access under different scenarios. See, e.g., Spec.
¶¶ 42, 140, 141, 144–147, Fig. 1. Thus, the claims at issue amount to
nothing significantly more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using
some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not
enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis
(receiving/transmitting/displaying(successively)/receiving/determining/sche-
duling/triggering/scheduling) and storing is equally generic and conventional
or otherwise held to be abstract. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772
F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for
exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an
abstraction); Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that sequence of data retrieval,
analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission was abstract);
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding sequence of processing, routing, controlling,
and monitoring was abstract). The ordering of the steps is, therefore,
ordinary and conventional.
As to the structural claim (27), it is
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
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

17

components configured to implement the same idea. 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 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). As a corollary, the
claims are not directed to any particular machine.
We have reviewed all the arguments Appellant has submitted
concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Appeal Br. 20–23; Reply Br. 2–6). We find that our
analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which
have been made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant argues: “Both email messages and the various components
of the integrated communication and collaboration platform are inherently
tied to the internet age.” (Appeal Br. 21).
We not persuaded by Appellant. As described above, the only claim
elements beyond the abstract idea are “a processor of a computer server,” “a
first device” with a display, and “a second device” with a display. Appellant
cannot reasonably deny that the operation of these elements are well-
understood, routine, or conventional. Indeed, the Federal Circuit, in
accordance with Alice, has “repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine
dispute as to eligibility” where claims have been defended as involving an
inventive concept based “merely on the idea of using existing computers or
the Internet to carry out conventional processes, with no alteration of
computer functionality.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (citations omitted).
Appellant argues,
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

18

The elements of claim 1 in combination, at least, relates to a
workplace management system (i.e., the integrated
communication and collaboration platform) to manage actions
and events among different management tools and social
networking solutions, such as automatically scheduling a
reminder event based on the first reply-by date extracted from
the first actionable message.
(Appeal Br. 22).
A limitation such as, “automatically scheduling a reminder event
based on the first reply-by date extracted from the first actionable message,”
would at best link the method to the technological environment of the
workplace management system, which does not, in and of itself, render the
claim any less abstract. (See 2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.)
Appellant argues,
As a practical matter, current communication and collaboration
tools handle a large amount of information…. The disclosed
workplace management system uses action/event items to
differentiate actionable messages from regular email
messages/actionable events to minimize the number of messages
and thus help prevent information overload when there are many
messages.
(Appeal Br. 22–23).
We disagree with the Appellant because an improvement in efficiency
alone does not render a process/system patent eligible. “While the claimed
system and method certainly purport to accelerate the process of analyzing
audit log data, the speed increase comes from the capabilities of a general-
purpose computer, rather than the patented method itself.” See Bancorp
Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278
(Fed. Cir. 2012).
For the reasons identified above, we determine there are no
deficiencies in the Examiner’s prima facie case of patent ineligibility of the
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

19

rejected claims. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 101 rejection
of claims 1, 4–20, and 23–27.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4–20 and
23–27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2020-006419
Application 14/521,100

20

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–20,
23–27
101 Patentable Subject
Matter
1, 4–20,
23–27

Overall
Outcome
1, 4–20,
23–27

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