Alexander Costakis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 14, 2022

2021002470 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2022)

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. 11/279,997 04/17/2006 Alexander M. Costakis 06-HSX001-A 9103 63710 7590 01/14/2022 CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P. INNOVATION DIVISION 110 EAST 59TH STREET NEW YORK, NY 10022 EXAMINER ROBINSON, AKIBA KANELLE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3628 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/14/2022 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): Caitlyn.kelly@chareiter.com gabriella.zisa@chareiter.com patentdocketing@cantor.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALEXANDER M. COSTAKIS ____________ Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and MATTHEW S. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Alexander M. Costakis (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1, 3-27, 53-63, 67-75, and 112-122, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented a way of market research based on a financial exchange. Specification 1:9-10. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 10, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 10. A method, comprising: [1] establishing, by at least one processor, communication with an electronic exchange; [2] facilitating, by the at least one processor, communication with the exchange for requests from an entity associated with a pharmaceutical that is pending approval to gather data regarding likelihood that the pharmaceutical that is pending approval will receive approval by a regulatory agency; [3] in response to the request to gather the data, enabling, by the at least one processor, the entity associated with the pharmaceutical to configure the exchange to generate a derivative based on the pharmaceutical that is pending approval; 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed August 3, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 24, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 14, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 3, 2020). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CFPH, LLC (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 3 [4] enabling, by the at least one processor, the entity associated with the pharmaceutical to allow individuals associated with the pharmaceutical to participate as traders in the electronic exchange; [5] monitoring, by the at least one processor, trading activity of the traders on the electronic exchange; [6] in response to the monitored trading activity, causing, by the at least one processor, the electronic exchange to generate market data; [7] based on the market data, applying, by the at least one processor, the market data to measure extent to which trader activity indicates that the pharmaceutical will receive regulatory approval; [8] enabling, by the at least one processor, the exchange to facilitate research related to the pharmaceutical that is pending regulatory approval; [9] initiating, by the at least one processor, execution of an internal timer for a sweep pricing cycle; [10] determining, by the at least one processor of at least one computing device of an electronic trading system, data representing an initial price of a financial instrument, wherein the initial price is determined based at least in part on a characteristic of the pharmaceutical, the financial instrument representing the pharmaceutical; [11] receiving, by the at least one processor, from a graphical user interface of a computer of a first trader of a group of traders, data representing a first order to buy the financial instrument; [12] storing the first order as a data structure in a queue; [13] maintaining the first order in the queue until expiration of an internal timer of the sweep pricing cycle; [14] receiving, by the at least one processor, from a graphical user interface of a computer of a second trader of the group of traders, data representing a second order to sell the financial instrument; Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 4 [15] storing the second order as a data structure in the [sic, queue]3; [16] maintaining the second order in the queue until expiration of the internal timer of the sweep pricing cycle; [17] detecting whether expiration of the sweep pricing cycle occurred; [18] in response to detection of the expiration of the sweep pricing cycle, releasing the first order from the queue and the second order from the queue and determining, by the at least one processor, data representing a price based at least in part on the first order and the second order during the sweep pricing cycle; [19] receiving, from a graphical user interface (GUI) of a computer associated with a trader, data representing a configurable passcode derived from a product associated with pharmaceutical; [20] determining, based on the configurable passcode, whether to allow the trader use a virtual currency to participate in electronic trading over an electronic exchange of a financial instrument associated with the pharmaceutical; and [21] executing, by the at least one processor, an electronic trade at the price; [22] determining, by the at least one processor, data representing an adjusted price based at least in part on a result associated with at least one of a stage of development of the pharmaceutical, a regulatory approval process of the pharmaceutical, and performance testing of the pharmaceutical; and [23] generating, by the at least one processor, market data associated with the pharmaceutical, the market data being based 3 Claim 10 omits the object to the phrase “in the.” Claims Amendment filed December 11, 2019. Corresponding claim 1 suggests the object should be “queue.” We treat this as such for purposes of this appeal. Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 5 at least in part on at least one of the trade, the first order, and the second order. Claims 1, 3-27, 53-63, 67-75, and 112-122 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.4, 5 ISSUES The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired. ANALYSIS STEP 16 Claim 10, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. STEP 2 The Supreme Court: set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that 4 The Examiner states that claims 64-66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Final Act. 2), the record, however, indicates that claims 64-66 are cancelled (Appeal Br. 33 (Claims App.)). 5 Three obviousness rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (Final Action 3-42) were withdrawn. Ans. 4. 6 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”). Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 6 claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . . determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . . consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent- eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this analysis as a search for an “‘inventive concept’”-i.e., an element or combination of elements that is “sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.” Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18 (2014) (citations omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 7 STEP 2A Prong 1 At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method claim 10 recites establishing and facilitating communication, enabling configuration and participation, monitoring data, generating data, measuring indication data, facilitating data research, initiating a pricing timer, determining price data, receiving, storing, and maintaining order data, detecting time expiration, releasing orders from a queue, receiving passcode data, determining whether to allow participation, executing order data, determining price data, and generating market data. Establishing and facilitating communication is conventional computer operation and data transmission. Enabling configuration and participation are conventional data processing. Monitoring data is receiving data. Measuring and researching data are rudimentary data analysis. Initiating a pricing timer and determining its expiration are conventional data processing. Determining data is analyzing data. Thus, claim 10 recites transmitting, processing, receiving, generating, analyzing, storing, and maintaining data. None of the limitations recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means. From this we see that claim 10 does not recite the judicial exceptions of either natural phenomena or laws of nature. Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 8 include (1) mathematical concepts7, (2) certain methods of organizing human activity8, and (3) mental processes9. Among those certain methods of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 10 recites the concept of managing commercial financial markets. Specifically, claim 10 recites operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to execute a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period. The advice to execute a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period involves executing a trade, which is an economic act, and setting a price, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce. For example, claim 10 recites “executing . . . an electronic trade,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is managing financial markets. Similarly, claim 10 recites “determining . . . data representing a price,” which is also characteristic of commercial transactions. 7 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71-72 (1972); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 8 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys. Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61 (Fed. Cir. 2018). 9 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371-72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 9 The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to accessing and updating of electronic trade records. Final Act. 2. The preamble to claim 10 does not recite what the method is to achieve, but the steps in claim 10 result in managing commercial financial markets by executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period absent any technological mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. As to the specific limitations, limitation 5, 11, 14, and 19 recite receiving data. Limitations 1-4, 6-10, 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-23 recite generic and conventional transmitting, processing, receiving, generating, analyzing, storing, and maintaining of order data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to these results. The limitations thus recite advice for executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period. To advocate executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period is conceptual advice for results desired and not technological operations. The Specification at 1:9-10 describes the invention as relating to market research based on a financial exchange. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 10 recites managing commercial financial markets. This is consistent with the Examiner’s determination. This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a certain method of organizing human activity because managing commercial Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 10 financial markets is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of managing commercial financial markets by executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period is one idea for managing such orders. The steps recited in claim 10 are part of how this might conceptually be premised. Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas when they recited similar subject matter. See Bilski above. Alternately this is an example of concepts performed in the human mind as mental processes because the steps of transmitting, processing, receiving, generating, analyzing, storing, and maintaining data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data interpretation is 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). Claim 10, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data transmission, processing, reception, generation, analysis, storage, and maintenance and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such, claim 10 recites transmitting, processing, receiving, generating, analyzing, storing, and maintaining data, and not a technological implementation or application of that idea. Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 11 From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 10 recites managing commercial financial markets by executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea. STEP 2A Prong 2 The next issue is whether claim 10 not only recites, but is more precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to, this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.10 At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g] block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the building blocks into something more. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted). Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results, devoid of implementation details. Steps 5, 11, 14, and 19 are pure data 10 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981). Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 12 gathering steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 1-4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 18 recite basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and storing data. Steps 23 is insignificant post solution activity, such as storing, transmitting, or displaying the results. Steps 7-10, 17, and 20-22 recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those results. Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 10 simply recites the concept of managing commercial financial markets by executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period as performed by a generic computer. This is no more than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite any particular implementation. Claim 10 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself. Nor does it effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. The Specification only spells out different generic equipment11 and parameters that might be applied using this concept 11 The Specification describes both the client computers and the server computers as comprised of one or more CPUs, various amounts of RAM storing computer programs and other data, and other components typically found in computers. Spec. 15:23-25. Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 13 and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of managing commercial financial markets by executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 10 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing commercial financial markets by executing a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225-26. None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. We conclude that claim 10 is directed to achieving the result of managing commercial financial markets by advising one to execute a market Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 14 order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period, as distinguished from a technological improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. STEP 2B The next issue is whether claim 10 provides an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter the analysis at Mayo step two. the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’” Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea “on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any “practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223-24 (citations omitted). Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 15 “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a computer for transmitting, processing, receiving, generating, analyzing, storing, and maintaining data amounts to electronic data query and retrieval-one of the most basic functions of a computer. All of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec. Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (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”). None of these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Appellant’s claim 10 add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The sequence of data transmission-processing- Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 16 reception-generation-analysis-storage-maintenance is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional. We conclude that claim 10 does not provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. REMAINING CLAIMS Claim 10 is representative. The remaining method claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical application of that concept. As to the structural claims, they: are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea. This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’ Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine. Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 17 LEGAL CONCLUSION From these determinations we further determine that the claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and legal interaction of managing commercial financial markets by advising one to execute a market order at a price based on the development stages of associated products and allowed by a passcode after queuing the order and receiving pricing data during a time period, without significantly more. APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s determinations and analysis from Final Action 2-3 and Answer 4-8 and reach similar legal conclusions. As the Reply Brief has no substantive arguments, we note the following as to the Appeal Brief. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that: the subject matter is integrated into a practical application of an abstract idea, which, in one example, provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. That is, in one example, these techniques help improve computer performance by facilitating communication and monitoring of an electronic exchange to determine data for a pharmaceutical and determining, based on a configurable passcode, whether to allow a trader to use virtual currency to participate in electronic trading over an electronic exchange of a financial instrument associated with a pharmaceutical. In one example, these techniques may help control activity over the network and control computer workload including computer resources such as memory resources, processor resources, and network resources such as network Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 18 bandwidth. This allows the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a computer. Appeal Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Facilitating communication and monitoring of an electronic exchange improves information rather than computer technology. “[T]he claims are focused on providing information to traders in a way that helps them process information more quickly, not on improving computers or technology. . . . The “tool for presentation” here . . . is simply a generic computer.” Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378, 1384-85 (Fed. Cir. 2019)(citations omitted). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that: these techniques may help improve computer performance by facilitating communication and monitoring of an electronic exchange to determine data for a pharmaceutical and determining, based on a configurable passcode, whether to allow a trader to use virtual currency to participate in electronic trading over an electronic exchange of a financial instrument associated with a pharmaceutical, which may help control transactions over the network and computer workload including computer resources such as memory resources, processor resources, and network resources such as network bandwidth. Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted). This is similar to the prior argument and is equally unpersuasive here. Using a password as a gatekeeper predates UNIX systems of the 1970’s, and is both generic and conventional. Appellant further argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims found patent-eligible in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 14-15. But the Court in Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC addressed Appellant’s Core Wireless argument. Relying principally on Core Wireless, TT argues the claimed invention provides an improvement in the way a computer Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 19 operates. We do not agree. The claims of the ’999 patent do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists traders in processing information more quickly. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d at 1093 (citations omitted). The instant claims do not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem. Instead, they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic information that assists users in processing information more quickly. Appellant cites Berkheimer for the proposition that evidence of something being conventional is necessary. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 16-17. Support for this finding is provided under Step 2B supra. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1, 3-27, 53-63, 67-75, and 112-122 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper. CONCLUSION The rejection of claims 1, 3-27, 53-63, 67-75 and 112-122 is affirmed. In summary: Appeal 2021-002470 Application 11/279,997 20 Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 3-27, 53- 63, 67-75, 112-122 101 Eligibility 1, 3-27, 53- 63, 67-75, 112-122 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED