Alden Blowers

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2021001877 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 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.
14/340,315 07/24/2014 Alden J. Blowers 6286P003 6052
8791 7590 10/28/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP
ATTN: IP DOCKETING
P.O. BOX 7037
ATLANTA, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
POLLOCK, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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 ALDEN J. BLOWERS
____________

Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
SHEILA F. McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judges.

McSHANE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2–10, 12–15, and 17–23. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alden J. Blowers.
Appeal Brief filed September 23, 2020, hereafter “Appeal Br.” 3.

Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

2

BACKGROUND
The invention relates to “an automated tax settlement service that
generates reconciliation reports on a per employer basis based on both
automated clearing house (ACH) transactions and transactions made by
checks issued by a payroll provider system and/or a payroll employer
system.” Specification, hereafter “Spec.,” ¶ 1.
Claims 8 and 21 are the only independent claims, with representative
claim 21 reproduced from page 19 of the Appeal Brief (Claims App.):
21. A computer-implemented method for reducing risk for
invested payroll funds in a managed bank account system managing
bank accounts for a plurality of employers, said method comprising:
receiving automated clearing house (ACH), wire or
check payroll transaction data and ACH, wire or check
feedback data from a payroll provider bank account and an
employer bank account, wherein the payroll provider bank
account and the employer bank account are controlled by said
managed bank account system enabling said ACH, wire and
check transaction data and said ACH, wire and check feedback
data to be accounted for during reconciliation processing
performed by reconciliation services of said managed bank
account system;
creating a ledger for each employer from said payroll
transaction data, each said ledger including said payroll tax data
to maintain overall balances for each of a plurality of tax
authorities, said ledgers providing a complete balanced
accounting history of payroll tax processing for each said
employers’ payroll tax liabilities, collection of said payroll tax
liabilities, and payment of said payroll tax liabilities to a
corresponding one of said tax authorities for each said employer
so that all of said payroll transaction data are ledgered and
balanced to a bank account of a corresponding employer;
at predetermined intervals or m response to receipt of
new ACH or wire or check transaction data or new ACH or
wire transaction feedback data, said reconciliation services
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

3

comparing the ACH, wire or check transaction feedback data
with said payroll transaction data affecting account balances in
said ledgers on a per employer basis to determine whether there
is a match between respective entries;
based on said comparing, generating a reconciliation
report on a per employer basis, wherein said reconciliation
report provides verification for said payroll transaction data
affecting account balances in the ledgers that match
corresponding transaction feedback data indicating that the
payroll transaction data was processed as expected, wherein
inconsistencies in said processed payroll transaction data are
included in the reconciliation report for resolution, wherein
upon completion of said resolution, said ledgers are balanced
on a per employer basis to reduce risk of failure to meet
payment obligations.
The Examiner rejects claims 2–10, 12–15, and 17–23 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Action, hereafter
“Final Act.,” 3–12, mailed January 8, 2020; Answer, hereafter “Ans.,” 3–7,
mailed November 24, 2020.
DISCUSSION
35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the 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. 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.
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

4

Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to
the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to
mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas 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) (“Diehr”)); “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
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

5

of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., id. at 187 (“It is now commonplace
that an application of a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known
structure or process may well be deserving of patent protection.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
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 (citation and quotation marks
omitted). “A claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional
features’ to ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].”’ Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The USPTO has guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101, in
accordance with judicial precedent. 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”).
Under 2019 Guidance, a claim is “directed to” an abstract idea if the claim
recites any of (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity, and (3) mental processes—without integrating such abstract
idea into a “practical application,” i.e., without “apply[ing], rely[ing] on, or
us[ing] 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.” Id. at 52–55. A claim so
“directed to” an abstract idea constitutes ineligible subject matter, unless it
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

6

recites an additional element (or combination of elements) amounting to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Id. at 56.
With this context in mind, we evaluate the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 21.2 The Examiner considers the claimed steps and
finds that claim 21 is directed to a method of organizing human activity but
for the recitation of the generic computer components. Final Act. 8. More
specifically, the Examiner finds that “[m]inimizing risk for invested payroll
funds in a managed bank account system managing bank accounts for a
plurality of employers is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in
commerce systems.” Id. at 8–9. The Examiner finds that if a claim
limitation covers a fundamental economic principle or practice, “it falls
within the organizing human activity grouping of abstract ideas.” Id. at 8–9.
Appellant argues that claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea because
“in addition to optimizing risk for payroll funds in a managed bank account
system,” the limitations include “requir[ing] the generation of a
reconciliation report which includes inconsistencies in the processed payroll
transaction data which can then be used to balance ledgers” and reduces the
risk of failure to meet payment obligations. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant
contends that “the claims clearly do not seek to tie up any judicial exception
such that others cannot practice it,” and preemption is the main point for the
judicial exception to statutory subject matter. Id. (citing McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games America, 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“McRO”).
Appellant further asserts that payroll providers have been operating

2 Appellant argues § 101 issues to the claims as a group (Appeal Br. 7–11),
and we select claim 21 as representative of the claims for the § 101
evaluation. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

7

successfully for years “without undertaking all of the claimed steps,” and
“[t]he invention improves the way computers process payroll data to, among
other things, reduce risk of failure to meet payment obligations which would
otherwise exist.” Id.
Under step one of the Alice framework, we “look at the ‘focus of the
claimed advance over the prior art’ to determine if the claim’s ‘character as a
whole’ is directed to excluded subject matter.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC
v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Elec.
Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
The first step of the Alice framework “asks whether the focus of the claims
is on the specific asserted improvement in [the relevant technology] or,
instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool.” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335–36 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Enfish”); see also 2019 Guidance at 54–
55.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that representative claim 21 is
directed to minimizing risk for invested payroll funds in a managed bank
account system, which is a method of organizing human activity and is an
abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third
party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and
thus an abstract idea); Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (concluding that
‘‘managing a stable value protected life insurance policy by performing
calculations and manipulating the results’’ is an abstract idea); Trading
Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data assisting
financial security traders is an abstract idea).
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

8

Appellant argues that the steps of the representative claim improves
the way computers operate, however, we discern the steps to be directed to
collecting, organizing, and performing computations on financial data in
order to minimize risk, and Appellant does not identify any inventive or
novel step. Instead, as the Examiner found, and we agree, these steps are
performed by generic computer processes. See Final Act. 8. Further,
receiving data from various sources, including when limited to particular
content, and analyzing the data and displaying the data is “within the realm
of abstract ideas.” Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350,
1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appellant additionally asserts that in light of the specific steps of the
claim, there is no preemption of the abstract idea. Appeal Br. 9. We do not
find this argument persuasive because “[w]hile preemption may signal
patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does
not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom,
Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see also OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“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”). Appellant further argues that payroll providers have not
previously undertaken all of the claimed steps, however, an analysis based
upon anticipation or obviousness is not relevant to our analysis for patent
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See Return Mail, Inc. v. U.S. Postal
Service, 868 F.3d 1350, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

9

We therefore conclude that representative claim 1 recites a judicial
exception to 35 U.S.C. § 101, that is, a method of organizing human activity,
which is an abstract idea.
The next issue under the second prong of step 2A is whether
additional elements in representative claim 1 integrate the judicial exception
into a practical application, such as elements reflecting an improvement in
the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or
technical field.3,4.
The Examiner finds that “the judicial exception is not integrated into a
practical application” and “[t]he claim limitations are not indicative of
integration into a practical application by claiming an improvement to the
functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.”
Final Act. 9. The Examiner finds that “the claim limits of transmitting and
receiving data are claimed and described at a high level of generality and are
functions any general purpose computer performs such that it amount no
more than mere instruction to apply the exception to a particular

3 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diehr.
4 The 2019 Guidance states that the analysis of an “integration into a
practical application” involves “[i]dentifying . . . any additional elements
recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s)” and “evaluating those
additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether
they integrate the exception into a practical application.” 2019 Guidance,
54–55. Among the considerations “indicative that an additional element (or
combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical
application” is whether “[a]n additional element reflects an improvement in
the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or
technical field.” Id. at 55 (footnote omitted). “[W]hether an additional
element or combination of elements integrate[s] the exception into a
practical application should be evaluated on the claim as a whole.” Id., n.24
(emphasis omitted).
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

10

technological environment” and the limitations “only recite broad functional
language being performed by the generic use of at least one processor.” Id.
at 9–10. The Examiner also finds that the processor, memory, and network
are also “described at a high level of generality and perform generic
computer functions such that it amount no more than mere instruction to
apply the exception to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 10.
Further, the Examiner finds that “merely limiting the use of an abstract idea
‘to a particular technological environment’ or implementing the abstract idea
on a ‘wholly generic computer’ is not sufficient as an additional feature to
provide ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” Ans. 5 (citing Alice
Corp., 573 U.S. at 222).
Appellant argues that the claims include an inventive concept because
they “recite specific features are other than what is well-understood, routine,
and conventional in the field” and “amount to significantly more than the
alleged abstract idea when looking at the elements of the claims as an
ordered combination.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant contends that an ordered
combination of steps is provided “where, based on a ledger comparison
performed by a computer, a computer implemented reconciliation report
manager generates a reconciliation report on a per employer basis, which
provides verification” and “[t]he report includes inconsistencies in the
processed payroll transaction data for resolution by a payroll provider
system, so that upon completion of said resolution, the ledgers are balanced
on a per employer basis to reduce risk of failure to meet payment
obligations.” Id. Appellant alleges that the ordered combination is enough
to provide an “inventive concept” in view of “the specificity of the technical
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

11

solution and the particular arrangement of elements required by the claims,”
such as those claims found patent-eligible in BASCOM, Trading
Technologies, McRO, and Enfish. Id. at 10–11 (citing BASCOM Global
Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(“BASCOM”); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. CQG, Inc., 675 F. App’x 1001
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (“Trading Techs.”); McRO; Enfish); see also Reply Brief,
hereafter “Reply Br.,” 3–7, mailed January 15, 2021.
Appellant further argues that the claims overcame the prior art of
record and there is an “inventive concept” because no §§ 102 or 103
objections apply. Appeal Br. 10. Appellant also asserts that the claimed
steps meet a long felt need to provide the claimed risk minimization. Reply
Br. 3.
In Enfish, the Federal Circuit noted “[s]oftware can make non-abstract
improvements to computer technology just as hardware improvements
can[.]” Enfish, 822 F.3d at1335. However, the court asked “whether the
focus of the claims is on [a] specific asserted improvement in computer
capabilities . . . or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’
for which computers are invoked merely as a tool.” Id. at 1335–36.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the combined
representative claim 21 recites an ordered combination that is enough to
provide an “inventive concept.” See Appeal Br. 10–11. As an initial matter,
Appellant provides no specific explanation of how the ordered combination
provides a specific the technical solution, and, instead, portions of claimed
steps are merely paraphrased. See id. at 10.
Additionally, Appellant argues that claims in specific cases that were
found to be patent eligibility because they integrate the judicial exception
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

12

into a practical application are similar to the claims here. Appeal Br. 10–11;
Reply Br. 3–7. However, in contrast to representative claim 21, Trading
Techs., Enfish, McRO, and BASCOM are all directed to improvements in
technology. For instance, in Trading Techs., the claims required “a specific,
structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality
directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure that is addressed to
and resolves a specifically identified problem in the prior state of the art.”
Trading Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1004. In Enfish, the claims were deemed to
be patent eligible because they were directed to improvements in the way
computers and networks carry out their basic functions. See Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1335–36. In McRO, the claims “focused on a specific asserted
improvement in computer animation.” McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314. In
BASCOM, the Federal Circuit agreed that the evidence presented for the
claims at issue supported that an ordered combination of the claim elements
provided a specific way to filter content on the Internet to overcome existing
technology problems with other Internet-filtering systems and improved the
filtering performance of the computer system itself, which represented
significantly more than each of the conventional elements, and the filtering
method represented a technological innovation BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1351.
More specifically, Appellant asserts that the steps of “receiving
automated clearing house (ACH), wire or check payroll transaction data” is
comparable to BASCOM’s claim limitation of “a plurality of first personal
site lists associated . . . with accounts” and “at predetermined intervals or in
response to receipt of new ACH or wire or check transaction data or new
ACH or wire transaction feedback data, said reconciliation services
comparing the ACH, wire or check transaction feedback data with said
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

13

payroll transaction data” is comparable to BASCOM’s claim limitation “a . . .
remote server receiving said network access requests,” and both the
limitations in the instant claims and in BASCOM are performed using
existing computers. Reply Br. 4. The distinguishing point of BASCOM is,
however, that the “inventive concept harnesse[d] [a] technical feature of
network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts
with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering
system on an ISP server.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1350. For the instant
claim, however, the receipt of payroll transactions and comparison has not
been found by the Examiner to be more than the generic function of any
general purpose computer. Final Act. 9–10. We agree. Appellant does not
point us to anything that discloses that the receipt of payroll data and the
comparison, including the applications or interaction between any
applications, is novel or inventive, nor is there any description of any
particular programming.
Appellant also argues that “setting a preset parameter,” as claimed in
Trading Techs., is comparable to the creating a ledger for each employer as
claimed. Reply Br. 5. Appellant argues that the claim’s requirements of
generating a specific reconciliation report to resolve inconsistencies and to
balance ledgers is similar to Trading Tech.’s requirement of “a specific,
structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed functionality
directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure.” Id. We do not
agree with Appellant. In Trading Techs., the claim is not to simply
displaying information on a graphical user interface, but as Appellant notes,
the claim is to a specific structured computer graphical user interface paired
with a prescribed functionality, which is “necessarily rooted in computer
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

14

technology” that “overcome[s] a problem specifically arising in the realm of
computer networks.” Trading Techs., 675 F. App’x at 1004–5. That is not
the case with the instant claim. Appellant does not direct to anything that is
more than the generic function of any general purpose computer or that the
claim addresses a computer technology problem.
Appellant also compares McRO’s finding that “[t]he specific structure
of the claimed rules would prevent broad preemption” to the claims here,
and argues that the claim limitations here are directed to specific steps that
similarly prevent broad preemption. Reply Br. 5–6. As we discussed above,
however, the issue whether the claims do not preempt all ledger transactions
does not make the claims any less abstract.
Additionally, Appellant contends that “the present claims do not seek
to improve computer functionality,” but nonetheless the rationale used in
Enfish applies. Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues that, as stated in Alice, the
issue is whether the claims seek to improve an existing technological
process, and the claims here “improve the technological process of resolving
inconsistencies in processed payroll transaction data to reduce risk of
failure.” Id. at 7. We do not agree because, as discussed above, the claimed
risk reduction process is a method of organizing human activity, which is not
technological in nature, short of using computers in a conventional method
which does not make the claims patent-eligible.
Further, we do not find persuasive Appellant’s argument that there is
an “inventive concept” because no §§ 102 or 103 objections apply. As
discussed above, an analysis based upon anticipation or obviousness is not
relevant to analysis for patent eligibility.
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

15

Here, we agree with the Examiner that representative claim 21 is “not
directed to an improvement in the way computers operate,” or to another
technological improvement, and “the focus of the claims is not on . . . an
improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract
ideas that use computers as tools.” See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys.,
Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
As a result, we conclude that representative claim 21 does not recite
additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application, and, and discussed above, we find no reversible error with the
Examiner’s findings that representative claim 21 recites an abstract idea.
We now look to whether representative claim 21 contains any
inventive concept or adds anything significantly more to transform the
abstract concept into a patent-eligible application. Alice, 573 U.S. at 216.
The Examiner finds that additional element of using a processor to
perform the abstract ideas amounts to no more than mere instructions to
apply the exception using a generic computer component, which cannot
provide an inventive concept. Final Act. 11. The Examiner further finds
that these “generic computer components are claimed at a high level of
generality to perform their basic functions which amount to no more than
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the particular
technological environment of field of use.” Id. (citing Spec. ¶¶ 41–48).
Appellant provides no arguments on this step of the analysis not already
addressed. See generally Appeal Br.; Reply Br.
The Federal Circuit has held that, after determining that the claim is
directed to an ineligible concept, we assess “whether the claim limitations,
other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it was
Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

16

directed, were well-understood, routine, and conventional.” BSG Tech LLC
v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018). We find no error
with the Examiner’s finding that the claim does not recite more than the
implementation of the abstract idea by a computer. Final Act. 5. The use of
conventional computer components to perform conventional steps to
implement an abstract idea has repeatedly been found to not make an
abstract idea patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (Instructing one
to “apply” an abstract idea and reciting no more than generic computer
elements performing generic computer tasks does not make an abstract idea
patent eligible.). As the Specification discloses, the invention uses
conventional computer equipment, with no specific programming identified.
See Spec. ¶¶ 41–48.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion that representative claim 21 is directed to patent-ineligible
subject matter.
CONCLUSION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–10, 12–
15, and 17–23 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
2–10, 12–
15, 17–23
101 Eligibility 2–10, 12–
15, 17–23

Appeal 2021-001877
Application 14/340,315

17

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED