Andrew Ioannou

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 12, 2019

12275655 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 12, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/275,655 11/21/2008 Andrew Ioannou R00165NP 2460
129668 7590 08/12/2019
Invoke / Oracle
30 Wall Street #800
8th Floor
New York, NY 10005
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/12/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
docketing@InvokeIP.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANDREW IOANNOU1
____________

Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4, 7–11, 14, 17–21, 24, 27–31, and 33–35,
which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 Appellant identifies Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention is generally directed to “executing and/or
managing business processes,” and specifically to “implementing a business
process schedule based on temporal information.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
storing, by a server system, in a process definition
repository, a set of executable files for a plurality of business
process definitions, the set of executable files including at least
one executable file for a particular business process definition of
the plurality of business process definitions, the at least one
executable file for the particular business process definition
storing a plurality of instructions, executable by an interpreter,
that cause the interpreter to perform a plurality of steps for
implementing a particular business process when executed;
storing, by the server system, a database of temporal
information for a plurality of business processes including the
particular business process, the database of temporal information
comprising a plurality of records that include references to
executable files for one or more business process definitions of
the plurality of business process definitions, at least one record
in the database of temporal information comprising a time
condition and a reference to a storage location for a set of one or
more instructions of the plurality instructions in the at least one
executable file stored in the process definition repository, the set
of one or more instructions corresponding to an associated step
of the plurality of steps for the particular business process and
causing the interpreter to perform the associated step of the
plurality of steps when executed by the interpreter, the time
condition further comprising a time statement and a condition
statement;
detecting, by the server system, an occurrence of an event
within the particular business process;
in response to detecting the occurrence of the event within
the particular business process, identifying by the server system
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

3
the time condition comprising the time statement and the
condition statement;
wherein the time statement defines a particular time
relative to a time of the occurrence of the event;
wherein the condition statement defines how the
interpreter should handle the set of one or more instructions
corresponding to the associated step of the particular business
process at the particular time defined by the time statement;
identifying, by the server system based on the reference to
the storage location, the set of instructions corresponding to the
associated step of the particular business process within at least
one executable file associated with the particular business
process definition for the particular business process, the
reference to the storage location belonging to the same record of
the plurality of records as the time condition; and
starting or stopping, by the interpreter based on the
condition statement, execution of the set of one or more
instructions corresponding to the associated step of the particular
business process at the particular time relative to the time of the
occurrence of the event.

REJECTION
Claims 1, 4, 7–11, 14, 17–21, 24, 27–31, and 33–35 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Final Act. 2.

ANALYSIS
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
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

4
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. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See 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, and, thus, patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S.
593, 611 (2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584,
594–95 (1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63,
69 (1972)). Concepts determined to be patent-eligible include physical and
chemical processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr,
450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v.
Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson,
409 U.S. at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
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
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

5
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (internal citation 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 PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Memorandum”). Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (MPEP) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th Ed., Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 55–56. Only if a claim (1) recites a
judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or

Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

6
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See id. at 56.
Furthermore, the Memorandum “extracts and synthesizes key
concepts identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract
idea exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when
recited as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own or
per se)”:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;

(b) Certain methods of organizing human activity—
fundamental economic principles or practices (including
hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal
interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal
obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and

(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Id. at 52 (footnotes omitted).
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 1
Under the first step of the Alice/Mayo framework, the Examiner
concludes that the claims are directed to “certain methods of organizing
human activity” and “‘an idea of itself,’ which include[s] . . . a mental
process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human
using a pen and paper.’” Final Act. 3 (citing Accenture Glob. Servs., GMBH
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

7
v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336 (2013), Elec. Power Grp., LLC
v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Appellant argues the claims “clearly are not directed to methods of
organizing human activity . . . [but r]ather recite various technical
limitations.” App. Br. 8. Appellant argues the claims are not like those in
Accenture, because they “are not directed to generating tasks to be
performed by an organization.” App. Br. 11. Appellant further argues that
the “claims are not directed to collecting, analyzing, and presenting
information” like in Electric Power Group, and rather are “directed [to]
controlling how and when executable instructions are handled by an
interpreter.” App. Br. 11.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s determination that the claims recite a mental process under the
guidelines set forth in the Memorandum. See Final Act. 3–5. Appellant’s
application is titled “A Business Process Schedule.” Appellant describes
that business process definition languages or scripts outline the steps to be
performed in a business process. Spec. ¶ 2. Appellant describes that
“business processes involve time-related events which form part of the
customers operations and policies” and that there is currently “no
consolidated repository of the temporal nature of customer’s business
processes. Spec. ¶ 3. This requires the “timing of the steps in a business
processes [to be] managed manually by system administrators or certain
significant dates might be held as data in various locations throughout the
application.” Spec. ¶ 3. Appellant further describes the need to provide a
“formal link between the job being scheduled and the step in the business
process it represents.” Spec. ¶ 3.
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

8
Appellant seeks to solve this problem by “storing the temporal
information [associated with a business process definition] in a central
repository” and identifying and executing a business process definition
associated with temporal information “[i]n response to determining [a] time
condition has been satisfied.” Spec. ¶ 4.
For example, claim 1 recites a method comprising:
storing . . . a set of . . . files for a plurality of business process
definitions . . . including at least one . . . file for a particular
business process definition of the plurality of business process
definitions . . . storing a plurality of instructions . . . that cause
the interpreter to perform a plurality of steps for implementing a
particular business process when executed;
storing . . . temporal information for a plurality of business
processes including the particular business process . . .
comprising a plurality of records that include references to . . .
files for one or more business process definitions of the plurality
of business process definitions, at least one record . . . comprising
a time condition and a reference to a storage location for a set of
one or more instructions of the plurality instructions in the at
least one . . . file stored in the process definition repository, the
set of one or more instructions corresponding to an associated
step of the plurality of steps for the particular business process
and causing . . . to perform the associated step of the plurality of
steps . . ., the time condition further comprising a time statement
and a condition statement;
detecting . . . an occurrence of an event within the particular
business process;
in response to detecting the occurrence of the event within the
particular business process, identifying . . . the time condition
comprising the time statement and the condition statement;
wherein the time statement defines a particular time relative to a
time of the occurrence of the event; wherein the condition
statement defines how . . . should handle the set of one or more
instructions corresponding to the associated step of the particular
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

9
business process at the particular time defined by the time
statement;
identifying . . . based on the reference to the storage
location, the set of instructions corresponding to the associated
step of the particular business process within at least one . . . file
associated with the particular business process definition for the
particular business process, the reference to the storage location
belonging to the same record of the plurality of records as the
time condition; and
starting or stopping . . . based on the condition statement,
execution of the set of one or more instructions corresponding to
the associated step of the particular business process at the
particular time relative to the time of the occurrence of the event.
App. Br. 17–18 (Claims Appendix). Claim 11 recites similar limitations in
“a system comprising one or more hardware processors and a memory
communicatively coupled with and readable by at least one of the one or
more hardware processors, the memory containing instructions which, when
executed by the at least one of the one or more hardware processors, cause
the server system to” perform actions like method claim 1. App. Br. 19–20
(Claims Appendix). Claim 21 recites a “machine-readable memory” claim
with similar limitations. App. Br. 26 (Claims Appendix).
We agree with the Examiner that the claims at issue here have
similarities to the claims found abstract in Accenture in that they recite
detecting the occurrence of an event and generating certain tasks based on
the occurrence of that event (e.g., identifying the time condition, identifying
the set of instructions, and starting or stopping execution of the instructions).
The claims here are also similar to those in Electric Power Group in that
they recite collecting information (storing files for a plurality of business
process definitions, storing temporal information for a plurality of business
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

10
processes, detecting an occurrence of an event) and analyzing information
(e.g., identifying the time condition, identifying the set of instructions, and
starting or stopping execution of the instructions), all of which could be
performed practically by a human mind .
Moreover, Appellant has not persuasively argued why the claim
limitations identified above cannot be practically performed by a human,
either mentally, manually, or with the use of pen and paper, similar to claims
found patent ineligible as mental processes. See, e.g. CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266,
1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Essentially, Appellant seeks to automate a manual
process. See Spec. ¶ 3 (“the timing of the steps in a business processes is
managed manually by system administrators”); see, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Mentioning
certain computer components in the claims (e.g. “server system,”
“repository,” “database,” “interpreter,” “executable file”) does not impose
sufficiently meaningful limitations on claim scope beyond these mental
steps. Intellectual Ventures, 838 F.3d at 1318; Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1278–
79.
Accordingly, we conclude the claims recite a mental process as
identified in the Memorandum, and thus an abstract idea. As we agree with
the Examiner that the claims recite a mental process, we need not address
the Examiner’s alternative characterization that the claims recite certain
methods of organizing human activity.
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

11
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 2
In determining whether the claims are “directed to” the identified
abstract idea, we next consider whether the claims recite additional elements
that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. For the
reasons set forth below, we discern no additional element (or combination of
elements) recited in the claims that integrates the judicial exception into a
practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appellant argues that the claims are not directed to abstract ideas
because the “claims recite technical limitations that are directed to
improvements in batch processing and execution handling by interpreters.”
App. Br. 7; see App. Br. 8–9. Specifically, Appellant argues that “the claims
recite various technical limitations, that, when considered individually or in
combination, are directed to improvements in instruction scheduling and
handling by interpreters.” App. Br. 8. According to Appellant, the claims
“deal specifically with controlling how an interpreter handles executable
instructions,” which “starts [or] stops the instructions based on the condition
statement of a record stored in the database of temporal information, which
is an unconventional approach.” App. Br. 9. Appellant also contends that
the “claims recite an inventive concept that solves a technology-based
problem.” App. Br. 13. Specifically, Appellant contends that the claimed
invention “streamline[s]/improve[s] execution of instructions by an
interpreter.” App. Br. 14; see Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings. See Ans. 4–15; Final Act. 3–5. Specifically, we agree
with the Examiner that “the invention is not directed to any improvement in
the computing arts,” and rather “is directed to merely updating the computer
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

12
implementation of long practiced business processes to allow for greater
ease of use.” Ans. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ 3). Specifically, the Examiner
determines the claim is not directed to “improvements to interpreters, but the
simple of implementation of business processes.” Ans. 7 (citing Spec. ¶ 39);
see also Ans. 14. The Examiner further determines that the “invention is
directed to the abstract idea of sequencing of tasks, specifically business
process scheduling” and “replaces a human operator with a computer
embodiment.” Ans. 11.
Appellant argues the claimed invention is directed to “improvements
to schedulers and interpreters in computing systems,” which “yield[]
significant technical benefits, such as higher throughput, faster execution
times, and more efficient utilization of computing resources,” which are “an
improvement in computer functionality.” App. Br. 10 (citing Spec. ¶ 49);
see Reply Br. 2. However, contrary to Appellant’s argument, the
Specification does not describe the alleged technical benefits. For example,
Paragraph 49 describes a benefit that “a user can access and change the
temporal information that is used by the business process without accessing
or affecting the business process definition.” However, the Specification
does not describe a resulting “higher throughput, faster execution times, and
more efficient utilization of computing resources” as alleged by Appellant.
We further agree with the Examiner’s determination that the
additional claim limitations—those that are not identified as the abstract
idea—merely recite a “generic computer performing generic computing
tasks,” and are “mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer.”
Final Act. 4–5. Appellant does not direct our attention to any disclosure in
the Specification that indicates the claimed “server system,” “repository,”
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

13
and “database” are anything other than generic computer components. E.g.,
Spec. ¶ 23 (“user computers 105, 110 can be general purpose personal
computers”); ¶ 25 (“server computers 120, 125, 130 . . . can be general
purpose computers”); ¶ 28 (generally describing the database); see also
Spec. ¶¶ 29–32, 35. Rather, the claims merely adapt the mental processes
(i.e., storing files for business process definitions including instructions,
storing temporal information including records with time conditions and
references to storage locations for the instructions, performing associated
steps of the business process, detecting event occurrence, identifying the
time condition including time statement defining a time relative to event
occurrence time and a condition statement defining how instructions should
be handled at a specific time, identifying instructions based on the reference
to storage location, determining to start or stop execution of the instructions
based on the associated step and time) to an execution of steps performed by
a processor (e.g., server system). See claims 1, 11, 21. Relying on a
computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is
insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 224
(“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions,
and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp,
687 F.3d at 1278 (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . .
does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”); MPEP
2106.05(f)(2) (“Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary
capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data)
or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after
the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or
mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more.”).
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

14
Appellant further argues that “limitations are directed to solving a
problem rooted in technology” and specifically “involve improvements to
execution scheduling and handling by an interpreter.” App. Br. 10. We are
not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that “the use of the interpreter in the instant application is strictly
of a routine nature.” Ans. 8 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 39, 49); see Ans. 15. For
example, the Specification describes that “the system 300 includes an
application 325 executed by a computer system” that “can comprise any of a
variety of software applications,” such as various modules “for performing
various processes as known in the art.” Spec. ¶ 34. The application “can
include a process interpretation module 320 that reads the process definition
315 from the process definition repository 310, interprets the BPEL or other
language definition of the process, and initiates and/or influences the
processing of the various application modules 325 to implement or execute
the business process.” Spec. ¶ 35. Appellant’s Specification does not
explicitly describe an “interpreter,” but instead describes a “process
interpretation module” that performs the claimed interpreter functions (i.e.,
“perform a plurality of steps for implementing a particular business process
when executed,” “starting or stopping . . . based on the condition statement,
execution of the set of one or more instructions corresponding to the
associated step of the particular business process at the particular time
relative to the time of the occurrence of the event”). In other words, the
process interpretation module, as described in the Specification, performs its
routine functions to interpret process definitions and execute the steps as
instructed.
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

15
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the claims fail to integrate the
abstract mental process into a practical application.
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2B
Turning to step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, we look to whether
the claims (a) add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are
not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or (b) simply
append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known
to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines the claimed additional elements (e.g.,
“server system,” “repository,” and “database”) merely “recite the use of a
generic computer performing generic computing tasks,” and are “mere
instructions to implement the idea on a computer.” Final Act. 4–5.
According to the Examiner, these additional elements recite a “generic
computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that
are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities.” Id.
Appellant argues the claims are similar to those in Amdocs (Israel)
Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 761 F.3d 1329, 1331–36 (Fed. Cir. 2014) in
that “the interpreter, process repository, and records in the database of
temporal information, recited in claim 1, operate in an unconventional
manner to provide an unconventional technological solution to a
technological problem.” App. Br. 12. Appellant similarly relies on
BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d
1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) to argue that certain limitations involve
unconventional approaches to controlling how an interpreter handles
executable instructions. App. Br. 13–14.
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

16
We are not persuaded. Unlike the claims in Amdocs, the claims here
do not provide an unconventional technological solution to a technological
problem. As discussed above, the claims merely adapt the mental processes
to an execution of steps performed by a processor. As also discussed above,
the claimed interpreter performs routine functions and does not operate in an
unconventional manner. As properly identified by the Examiner, the
claimed invention does not recite any “new data structure” and instead
“simply [recites] a new data field in an old and well known data structure,
namely a central repository of data or a database.” Ans. 12. According to
the Examiner, the claims “are viewed as the [sic] merely the manipulation or
reorganization of data and . . . do not use limited rules in a process
specifically designed to achieve an improved technological result in
conventional industry practice.” Ans. 12.
Likewise, in BASCOM, the claims recited a “specific method of
filtering Internet content” requiring “the installation of a filtering tool at a
specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering
features specific to each end user.” BASCOM, 827 F.3d at 1345–46, 1350.
Although the Court determined the claims recited generic computer,
network, and Internet components which were not inventive by themselves,
the Court found the ordered combination of the limitations provided the
requisite inventive concept. Id. at 1349–1350 (“[A]n inventive concept can
be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known,
conventional pieces.”). There, the patent extensively claimed and explained
how a particular arrangement of elements was “a technical improvement
over prior art ways of filtering such content.” Id. at 1350 (E.g., “According
to BASCOM, the inventive concept harnesses this technical feature of
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

17
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.”). By contrast, Appellant has not sufficiently
explained how the claims are performed such that they are not routine,
conventional functions of a generic computer. As set forth above, the
claimed “server system,” “repository,” and “database” are generic computer
components. Appellants do not direct our attention to anything in the
Specification that indicates these generic components perform anything
other than well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Elec.
Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of
the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional
computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and
presenting the desired information”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“That a computer receives and sends the
information over a network—with no further specification—is not even
arguably inventive”); In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607,
614 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (server that receives data, extracts classification
information from the received data, and stores the digital images insufficient
to add an inventive concept); Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26 (receiving, storing,
sending information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the additional claim
limitations besides the abstract idea are well-understood, routine, and
conventional elements.
For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter, as well as
independent claims 11 and 21 with commensurate limitations, and
Appeal 2018-006774
Application 12/275,655

18
dependent claims 4, 7–10, 14, 17–20, 24, 27–31, and 33–35, which were not
separately argued.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 7–11, 14, 17–21,
24, 27–31, and 33–35 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED