ADP, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 23, 2021

2021000911 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 23, 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.
15/242,947 08/22/2016 Debashis Ghosh ES2016016-1 7812
126105 7590 07/23/2021
Duke W. Yee
Yee & Associates, P.C.
P.O. BOX 6669
MCKINNEY, TX 75071
EXAMINER
CRANDALL, RICHARD W.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/23/2021 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):
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DEBASHIS GHOSH
and JOHN ANTHONY DERRICO
__________________

Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–24, which are all of the pending claims.
See Appeal Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies ADP, LLC as the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 9, and 17 are independent. Claim 1 recites:
1. A system comprising:
a display system;
a payroll system including payroll information for
people; and
a computer system comprising:
a real property database comprising regions
organized into a plurality of levels in a hierarchy in which a
parent region in a first level in the plurality of levels is
comprised of child regions in a second level in the plurality of
levels that is below the first level in the hierarchy; and
a property analyzer implemented in program code
for execution on one or more processor units of the computer
system, the property analyzer in communication with the
display system, the payroll system, and the real property
database, wherein the property analyzer:
transforms the payroll information of the
payroll system into income information of the real property
database, wherein the income information is based on locations
of the people in the regions, the real property database is
different than the payroll system, and the income information of
the real property database is different than the payroll
information of the payroll system;
receives a request for first income
information of the income information of the real property
database corresponding to a first region of the regions in a
selected level in the hierarchy; and
identifies the first income information of the
income information of the real property database corresponding
to the first region in the selected level in the hierarchy in the
real property database;
wherein:
the payroll information provides current and up-to-
date information for use in identifying the income information;
the income information has a different function or
a different use than the payroll information; and
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

3
the display system displays the income information
of the real property database corresponding to the first region in
a graphical user interface, such that an operator performing an
operation with respect to real property can base performance of
the operation on displayed income information of the real
property database corresponding to the first region.
Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–24 are rejected as directed to a judicial exception to
35 U.S.C. § 101 without significantly more.
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Sklarz,2 Ferries,3 and Bueche.4
Claims 2–4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Sklarz, Ferries, Bueche, and JusticeMap.5
Claims 9, 12–14, 16, 17, 20–22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Sklarz, Bueche, and Ferries.
Claims 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Sklarz, Bueche, Ferries, and JusticeMap.
ANALYSIS
Eligibility of Claims 1–24
Appellant argues the claims as a group with respect to claim 1, which
we select as the representative claim of the group. Appeal Br. 8–11; see
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).

2 US 2002/0087389 A1, published July 4, 2002.
3 US 8,732,219 B1, issued May 20, 2014.
4 US 8,527,376 B1, issued September 3, 2013.
5 Justice Map available at https://web.archive.org/web/20140826221825/
http://www.justicemap.org:80/index.php?giAdvanced=1 (“JusticeMap”).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

4
The Examiner determines that claim 1 recites a system, which is a
statutory category of invention, namely, a machine. Final Act. 2. The
Examiner analyzes the individual limitations of claim 1 and determines that
they recite mental process steps that, but for the use of generic computer
components, can be performed mentally or manually. Id. at 3–6 (citing
October 2019 Update: Patent Eligibility, at 9), 48–49. The Examiner also
determines that the claimed real property database organizes information in
a table that can be kept mentally or on paper as an extension of the mental
processes as explained in the October 2019 Guidelines. Id. at 6. The
Examiner also determines that transforming payroll information is a mental
process as is selecting income/salary information from payroll information,
which people can do by observing their paystubs. Id. at 6–7; Ans. 3–4. The
Examiner further determines that organizing a database into parent and child
regions can be stored mentally. Id. at 6.
The Examiner also determines that claim 1 recites additional elements
of a computer system, a payroll system, and a graphical user interface on a
display system that are generic computer components used as tools and add
only insignificant extra solution activity to the claim. Final Act. 7–9. The
Examiner determines that the limitations of a display system displaying
income information of a real property database and an operator performing
an operation with respect to displayed income information are insignificant
extra solution activities that do not integrate the abstract idea. Id. at 9–11.
The Examiner further determines that the generic computer elements
are used merely as a tool, which is not significantly more than the abstract
idea, and the display and display steps are well-understood, routine, and
conventional activities of outputting data. Id. at 11.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

5
Principles of Law
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application.6 Id. at 52–55.

6 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will 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. at 54.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

6
If a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, we consider whether the claim
(3) provides an inventive concept such as by adding a limitation beyond a
judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the
field or (4) appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Revised Guidance Step 1
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a system, which is a
statutory category, namely, a machine. See 35 U.S.C. § 101; Final Act. 2.
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong One:
Do the Claims Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites a system with generic
computer limitations that perform functions that can be performed as mental
processes in the human mind or with a pen and paper. Final Act. 3–6; Ans.
4; Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Claim 1 also recites a method of
organizing human activity as a fundamental economic practice of property
valuation. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The application is titled REAL PROPERTY VALUATION SYSTEM.
The system “identif[ies] accurate values for the real properties.” Spec. ¶ 1.
It does so by taking into account the ability to pay and stability of income in
evaluating real property values by using income information of people in the
regions and locations where the real property is valued. Id. ¶¶ 6, 27, 45. It
improves on systems that value real property by using comparables, which
are a subjective snapshot of values that becomes outdated. Id. ¶¶ 2–6.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

7
We determine that claim 1 recites a system for performing valuations
of real property, which is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in
our system of commerce. See In re Villena, 745 F. App’x 374, 376 (Fed.
Cir. 2018) (“[W]e conclude that claim 57 is directed to an abstract idea––
specifically, a fundamental economic practice. Claim 57 merely recites the
familiar concept of property valuation.”); see also Spec. ¶¶ 2–5 (describing
the long standing practice of identifying real property values). Claim 57 in
Villena recited a computer system that received user-provided information
and produced automated valuation method values (current market estimates)
of residential properties in a geographic region by using residential property
information of properties in the geographic region. Villena, 745 F. App’x at
375. The system also displayed to a remote terminal a map-like display of
the geographic region with icons of each residential property in the region
and the associated real property values. Id.
Here, claim 1 receives payroll information by location, transforms it
into income information by region, and displays the income information for
geographic regions. Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.). Such functions can
be performed as mental processes. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[M]erely selecting information,
by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does nothing
significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes, whose
implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based category of
abstract ideas.”); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo
Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (collecting data,
recognizing certain data in a collected set, and storing recognized data are
well-known activities; “humans have always performed these functions”).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

8
Processing real property information as mental process steps (Spec.
¶ 6) does not make claim 1 any less abstract. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go through
in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as essentially
mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”; “[L]imiting 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.”); see also Move, Inc. v. Real Estate
Alliance Ltd., 721 F. App’x 950, 954 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[W]e agree with the
district court that claim 1 of the ’989 patent is directed to the abstract idea of
‘a method for collecting and organizing information about available real
estate properties and displaying this information on a digital map that can be
manipulated by the user.’”); Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229,
1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at
different levels of abstraction.”).
Appellant argues that the independent claims recite limitations that
cannot be performed in the human mind as a practical matter because the
human mind cannot manage the complex inter-relationships of data in a
database or display the resulting income information. Appeal Br. 8–9. In
particular, Appellant asserts that the property analyzer transforms payroll
information in a payroll system to income information in a real property
database that has regions organized into levels for parent and child regions,
and the income information in the real property database is based on the
locations of people in the regions of the real property database. Id. at 9.
Appellant contends that “[s]uch processing cannot be practically performed
in the human mind.” Id. We disagree.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

9
First, “[t]hat purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson.” CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63
(1972)). That a computer and its components exist in the physical realm
does not end the § 101 inquiry; otherwise, patent eligibility would depend on
the draftsman’s art. Alice, 573 U.S. at 224.
Second, the system of claim 1 essentially automates a process that can
be performed by humans as mental processes and/or with pen and paper. A
payroll system can be accessed to obtain payroll information and convert the
information into income information in a real property database by location
and regions. The income information can be organized by location regions
and provided (displayed) to an operator who uses the information to perform
an operation with respect to real property. Appeal Br. 16–17 (Claims App.).
In Gottschalk, the claims recited a method of converting binary-coded
decimals (BCD) numerals into pure binary numerals using a general-purpose
digital computer by storing BCD signals in a reentrant shift register, shifting
the signals to the right at least three places until there is a binary “1” in the
second position, masking out the binary “1”, adding a binary “1” to the first
position of the register, and doing further shifting and adding. Gottschalk,
409 U.S. at 64, 73–74. The court held that the conversion of BCD numerals
to pure binary numerals could be done mentally by using a table where the
method was not confined to a particular tool or machine. See id. at 67, 70
(“Transformation and reduction of an article ‘to a different state or thing’ is
the clue to the patentability of a process claim that does not include
particular machines.”).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

10
Here, the Specification states, “[p]ayroll information 150 is typically
used for payroll purposes while the transformation into income information
108 allows for evaluating real properties 104.” Spec. ¶ 47; see Appeal Br. 2
(citing Spec. ¶ 47 as the description for transforming payroll information
into income information of the real property database); see also Spec. ¶ 63
(“[T]he processing of payroll information 150 to obtain income information
108 may be performed in a number of different ways.”). No further details
are provided. This generic description, without even an algorithm as was
claimed in Gottschalk, for transforming generic payroll information into
generic income information confirms that the transformation of data by the
property analyzer can be performed as a mental process.
Examples in the Specification use monthly salaries. Spec. ¶¶ 74, 83,
84, 86, Figs. 5–10. A person can extract income information from a pay
statement as a mental process similar to the extraction of information from
checks in Content Extraction. See Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; see
Ans. 4–5. The Specification describes payroll records/earnings statements
(Figures 2, 4) as containing net pay 212, 414 and gross pay 410, which a
person can read from such statements. Spec. ¶ 52. The Specification also
states, “income information 108 may be derived from payroll information
150 received from payroll system 152” and “locations 114 also may be
derived from payroll information 150” based on a census block, block group,
census track, county, state, or region of a county. Id. ¶¶ 35, 37.
Obtaining information from a computer system can be done as mental
steps. E.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (obtaining information about
credit card transactions “can be performed by a human who simply reads
records of Internet credit card transactions from a preexisting database.”).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

11
CyberSource held, “even if some physical steps are required to obtain
information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, click-
ing a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability.”
Id. Furthermore, “a person may ‘construct[ ] a map of credit card numbers’
as required by step (b) by writing down a list of credit card transactions
made from a particular IP address” where “[t]here is no language in claim 3
or in the ’154 patent’s specification that requires the constructed ‘map’ to
consist of anything more than a list of a few credit card transactions.” Id. at
1372–73 (noting a sample “map” “merely consists of four listed credit card
transactions denoted by their dates, times, cardholder names, card numbers,
IP addresses, transaction amounts, and shipping addresses.”).
Here, as claimed, a property analyzer transforms payroll information
into income information based on locations of people in regions in some
unspecified manner devoid of any technical details and identifies the first
income information corresponding to a request for income information of a
first region in a selected level, again without any technical details. Such
activity recites a mental process at this level of generality. See CyberSource,
654 F.3d at 1373 (a map of credit card numbers can be used to detect fraud
“based on the simple observation that numerous transactions using different
credit cards, having different user names and billing addresses, all originated
from the same IP address”).
Nor does organizing income information by locations of people in
levels of parent and child regions take this subject matter out of the mental
process category. See Coffelt v. NVIDIA Corp., 680 F. App’x 1010, 1011
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he claims at issue here are directed to the abstract idea
of calculating and comparing regions in space.”).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

12
In Coffelt, the patentee argued that “calculating a particular steradian
region of space” is not abstract because “space” is a real thing, and not an
abstract concept. Id. The court held that “calculating a . . . steradian region
of space” “is a purely arithmetic exercise” so that “[t]he claims thus recite
nothing more than a mathematical algorithm that could be implemented
using pen and paper.” Id. Here, the property analyzer transforms payroll
information into income information of a real property database in some
unclaimed manner and processes requests for income information in the
database based on a first region of the regions without any technical details
or algorithm required to control the property analyzer. Id. (“We have held
that ‘analyzing information by steps people [can] go through in their minds,
or by mathematical algorithms, without more . . . [are] mental processes
within the abstract-idea category.”) (quoting Synopsis, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Our reviewing court has held similar claims to locating available real
estate properties by creating a database of available properties, displaying a
map of a desired geographic area, selecting a first area with boundaries in
the geographic area, zooming in on the first area of the map to display a
zoomed first area, selecting a second area having boundaries in the zoomed
first area, and displaying a second area of plural points to identify available
real estate properties recite only general steps of collecting, organizing, and
presenting information. Move, Inc. v. Real Estate Alliance Ltd., 721 F.
App’x 950, 952–53, 954–56 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“Instead of focusing on the
technical implementation details of the zooming functionality, for example,
claim 1 recites nothing more than the result of the zoom.”) (emphasis
added).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

13
As claimed, the property analyzer performs basic data gathering,
analysis, and display of “income information” based on locations of people
in regions without reciting any software, hardware, or technical innovations
to take claim 1 out of the abstract realm of a mental process that humans can
perform in their mind or with pen and paper. Even if technical details were
described in the Specification for operation of the property analyzer, claim 1
does not recite such technical details. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n
Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“While the
specification may be ‘helpful in illuminating what a claim is directed to . . .
the specification must always yield to the claim language’ when identifying
the ‘true focus of a claim.’”); ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920
F.3d 759, 769–70 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“Even if ChargePoint’s specification had
provided, for example, a technical explanation of how to enable
communication over a network for device interaction . . ., the claim language
here would not require those details. Instead, the broad claim language
would cover any mechanism for implementing network communication.”);
Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336,
1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (although the specification contained detailed software
implementation guidelines, “the complexity of the implementing software or
the level of detail in the specification does not transform a claim reciting
only an abstract concept into a patent-eligible system or method.”). Here,
the lack of technical details in claim 1 distinguishes it from claims that recite
patent eligible subject matter. See Appeal Br. 9–10; Ans. 5–6. And, the
property analyzer performs a fundamental economic practice. Appeal Br. 10
(arguing that the system allows more accurate valuations of real property).
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract idea identified above.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

14
Alice Step One
Revised Guidance Step 2A, Prong Two:
Is There an Integration into a Practical Application?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not
improve computers or other technology or implement the abstract idea with
a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Nor does claim 1 include
elements that transform or reduce a particular article to a different state or
thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking it to a
particular technological environment. Id. at 55; Final Act. 7–11; Ans. 6.
The display system, payroll system, computer system, real property
database, and property analyzer are described as generic computers and
components used to perform generic data processing functions. Computer
system 142 is a physical hardware system that includes one or more data
processing systems. Spec. ¶ 41. The data processing systems communicate
with one another by using a communications medium such as a local area
network, a wide area network, an intranet, or the Internet. Id. The data
processing systems may be selected from a computer, server computer,
tablet, or other suitable processing system. Id.
A display system 134 is connected to computer system 142. Id. ¶ 42.
It is a physical hardware system and includes display devices on which
graphical user interface (GUI) 136 may be displayed. Id. Display devices
include a light emitting diode display, a liquid crystal display, an organic
light emitting diode, or other suitable device on which GUI 136 can be
displayed. Id. An operator can interact with the GUI via an input system
148 such as a mouse, keyboard, trackball, touchscreen, and stylus. Id. ¶ 43.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

15
Payroll system 152 may be an organization or payroll company that
performs payroll for organizations in different geographical locations. Id.
¶ 36. Payroll system 152 may be a regional payroll system, a nationwide
payroll system, or an international payroll system. Id.
The “property analyzer” may be “implemented in software, hardware,
firmware, or a combination.” Id. ¶ 39. When implemented in software, the
property analyzer’s operations may be implemented in program code that is
configured to run on hardware such as a processor unit. Id. When firmware
is used, operations of the property analyzer may be implemented in program
code and data and stored in persistent memory to run on a processor unit. Id.
When hardware is used, it may include circuits that operate to perform the
operations of property analyzer 102. Id. Hardware may be a circuit system,
integrated circuit, application specific integrated circuit, programmable logic
device, or other suitable type of hardware configured to perform operations.
Id. ¶ 40. Processes may be implemented in circuits in semiconductors. Id.
These descriptions confirm the generic nature of these components
and the absence of any technical innovation or improvement to computers,
hardware, or software that is sufficient to integrate the abstract idea.
Appellant argues that the claims recite an improved graphical user
interface for providing income information derived from payroll information
in a payroll system to allow more accurate valuations of real property and to
enable operators to perform related operations on the real property where the
income information is correlated with locations/regions for the real property.
Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880
F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Appellant asserts that the claims improve
the accuracy of real property valuations. Id. We disagree.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

16
In Core Wireless, an application summary window was accessible
from the menu. It listed a limited set of data that was selectable to launch an
application to enable the data to be seen in the application. Core Wireless,
880 F.3d at 1362–63. It improved the efficiency of electronic devices by
bringing together a limited list of commonly accessed functions and stored
data that can be accessed directly from the main menu on a small screen
without having to scroll around and switch views to find the right data and
functionality or drill down through many layers to get to the desired data and
functionality as was required when using prior art interfaces. Id. at 1363.
Here, the system displays income information in a generic graphical
user interface so an operator can perform unspecified operations for the real
property based on displayed income information for a first region without
improving computers, interfaces, or other technology. See Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (interactive interface was a generic computer element that described a
generic web server and software tasked with providing web pages to and
communicating with a user’s computer and was not inventive); Interval
Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“The
asserted improvement here is the presentation of information in conjunction
with other information. Such an information-based improvement is not an
improvement ‘rooted in computer technology.’”); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at
1354 (“[M]erely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and
analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for
presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and
analysis.”). Nor is it clear how merely displaying income information by
region improves the accuracy of real property valuations.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

17
Even if the Specification described improvements to computers or
technology, the features are not claimed. See Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1325;
ChargePoint, 920 F.3d at 769–70. Here, the Specification confirms that the
display system, payroll system, computer system, real property database, and
property analyzer are generic computers/components that perform generic
data processing functions without improving computers or other technology.
Generic speed and efficiency improvements from a generic computer
implementation do not improve computers. See Customedia Techs., LLC v.
Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Bozeman Fin.
LLC v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 955 F.3d 971, 979 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(using well-known computer components to collect, analyze, and present
data does not make claims any less abstract); Credit Acceptance Corp. v.
Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (automating manual
processes using generic computers is not a patentable improvement).
“[T]he claims here do not ‘ha[ve] the specificity required to transform
a claim from one claiming only a result to one claiming a way of achieving
it.’” Ericsson, 955 F.3d at 1328 (citation omitted) (“Merely claiming ‘those
functions in general terms, without limiting them to technical means for
performing the functions that are arguably an advance,’ does not make a
claim eligible at step one.”) (citation omitted). Furthermore, “the need to
perform tasks automatically is not a unique technical problem.” Cellspin
Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc., 927 F.3d 1306, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2019); OIP Techs.,
Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“[R]elying
on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.”). Thus, we determine claim 1
lacks elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

18
Alice, Step Two and Revised Guidance Step 2B:
Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities that
are known in the industry. See Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368
(Fed. Cir. 2018); Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of
the Alice analysis considers if a claim adds a limitation beyond the judicial
exception that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity).
Individually, a display system, payroll system, computer system, real
property database, property analyzer, and graphical user interface are known
components that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional acts to
implement the abstract idea without providing an inventive concept. Their
generic description in the Specification indicates that they are well-known
enough that further details are not required to understand their structure or
functions. Nor do they improve computers or technology. Spec. ¶¶ 35–43
(describing the payroll system, property analyzer, display system, computer
system, and real property database as any known hardware, software, and/or
firmware components). Without these generic components, nothing remains
but the abstract idea identified under Prong One. See Bancorp Servs., L.L.C.
v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
“[A] claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly
more’ than that ineligible concept.” BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

19
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than when the
limitations are considered individually. BSG, 899 F.3d at 1290–91 (“If a
claim’s only ‘inventive concept’ is the application of an abstract idea using
conventional and well-understood techniques, the claim has not been
transformed into a patent-eligible application of an abstract idea.”); Two-
Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (steps of processing data, routing it, controlling it, and
monitoring its reception with conventional technology to achieve a desired
result and to comply with network communication protocols without
specifying protocol rules or parameters of user signals was not inventive);
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (using off-the-shelf, conventional computer,
network, and display technology to gather, send, and present information
was not inventive); Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, Inc., 772 F.3d 709, 715–16
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (routine steps of offering media, updating activity log,
receiving request to view media, and allowing access are not inventive).
Nor has Appellant shown that the elements perform functions that are
innovative or unconventional. Even if steps are groundbreaking, innovative,
or brilliant, the improvement is to the abstract idea rather than to computers
or technology. See Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1163 (“No matter
how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance
lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged
innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of that nature
is ineligible for patenting.”).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and claims 2–24, which fall
therewith.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

20
Claims 1, 5, 6, and 8
Rejected over Sklarz, Ferries, and Bueche
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Sklarz teaches a display
and computer system as claimed but does not teach transforming payroll
information into income information of the real property database where the
income information is based on locations of people in regions and the
payroll information provides current and up-to-date information for use in
identifying the income information. Final Act. 13–16. The Examiner finds
that Ferries teaches a system that determines geographic areas associated
with a user and transforms payroll information into income information of
the real property database by using a feature vector engine to create feature
vectors that combine “demographics of people living in the neighborhoods”
and “people’s income.” Id. at 16–17.
Appellant argues that Ferries’ teaching of feature vectors that contain
demographic information of people living in an area and people’s income
does not teach to transform payroll information into income information as
claimed. Appeal Br. 12–13.
In response, the Examiner explains that the creation of feature vectors
teaches the claimed transformation because the payroll information differs
from the income information. Ans. 7. The Examiner reasons that a feature
vector of Ferries combines “people’s income,” which is found in payroll
information, with demographics of people living in the neighborhoods so
that Ferries transforms “people’s income” into income information that is
different than the payroll information as claimed and combined with a
geographical feature. See id. at 7–8; see Final Act. 16–17.

Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

21
We agree with Appellant that Ferries does not transform payroll
information into income information when it combines people’s income with
demographics in a feature vector. Appeal Br. 7–8; Reply Br. 5–6. Ferries
instead uses real estate systems to provide information on neighborhoods
comparable to a user’s current, past, or desired neighborhood. Ferries, 1:27–
35. Among the information provided to a user is income level, median
income, and people’s income along with demographic information as the
Examiner finds. Id. at 5:63–6:8, 9:19–53. However, Ferries obtains this
vector information from external databases 140 and third party data sources
of publicly or commercially available or proprietary data sources that may
include average household income, demographic information, and property
information. Id. at 7:40–53. We find no teaching in Ferries to obtain payroll
information and transform it into income information as claimed. Ferries
teaches that a user’s income and financial data may be taken into account in
determining the affordability of homes in a future neighborhood. Id. at
9:19–36. Yet, we find no teaching that a user’s income is derived from or
transformed from payroll information or that “people’s income” represents
payroll information that is transformed into income information when it is
combined with demographic information in a feature vector.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 5, 6, and 8.
Claims 2–4 and 7
Rejected over Sklarz, Ferries, Bueche, and JusticeMap
The Examiner’s reliance on Sklarz, Ferries, Bueche, and JusticeMap
to teach features of claims 2–4 and 7 does not cure the deficiencies of
Ferries noted above as to claim 1. See Final Act. 21–26. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2–4 and 7.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

22
Claims 9, 12–14, 16, 17, 20–22, and 24
Rejected over Sklarz, Bueche, and Ferries
The Examiner cites Bueche to teach transforming payroll information
into salary information (claim 9) and payroll information used to produce
income information (claim 17). Final Act. 27–29, 33–36. The Examiner
reasons that Bueche’s teaching of an Automated Clearing House (ACH) that
direct deposits a payroll check into a financial institution teaches payroll
information, and calculating the user’s income taxes based on direct deposit
payroll information transforms the payroll information into salary/income
information of the user. Final Act. 29–30, 35–36; Ans. 11–12.
Appellant argues that Bueche’s teaching of a payroll system that uses
payroll information does not, alone or in any combination with Sklarz and
Ferries, teach a transformation of payroll information to income information
as claimed. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues that the Examiner’s reliance
on an ACH transaction of Bueche as a payroll transaction with the income
information of Sklarz/Ferries does not teach a transformation. Id. at 14–15.
Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s
findings that Bueche transforms payroll information into salary information
or produces income information as claimed. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The rejection relies solely on Bueche for this feature without using income
information from Sklarz/Ferries. Bueche teaches financial institutions that
receive payroll information of a user and transform that information into
income information (how much money the user made) in order to calculate
the person’s income taxes. Bueche, 4:12–33; see Final Act. 29 (citing id.).
Thus, we sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 17 and their respective
dependent claims 12–14, 16, 20–22, and 24, which are not argued.
Appeal 2021-000911
Application 15/242,947

23
Claims 10, 11, 15, 18, 19, and 23
Rejected over Sklarz, Bueche, Ferries, and JusticeMap
Appellant does not argue the patentability of claims 10, 11, 15, 18, 19,
and 23, which depend from claim 9 or 17. See Appeal Br. 11–15. Thus, we
summarily sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–24 101 Eligibility 1–24
1, 5, 6, 8 103 Sklarz, Ferries,
Bueche
1, 5, 6, 8
2, 4, 7 103 Sklarz, Ferries,
Bueche, JusticeMap
2, 4, 7
9, 12–14, 16,
17, 20–22, 24
103 Sklarz, Bueche,
Ferries
9, 12–14,
16, 17,
20–22, 24

10, 11, 15,
18, 19, 23
103 Sklarz, Bueche,
Ferries, JusticeMap
10, 11, 15,
18, 19, 23

Overall
Outcome
1–24
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