Armon, Gilad et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 9, 2019

14258295 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 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.
14/258,295 04/22/2014 Gilad Armon 07696-P0003A 1664
136531 7590 10/09/2019
The Roy Gross Law Firm, LLC
50 Washington Street
Suite 733/734
Norwalk, CT 06854
EXAMINER
FRUNZI, VICTORIA E.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3688
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/09/2019 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GILAD ARMON, ADIEL LOINGER, URI BLATT, and
SHAHAR SIEGMAN
____________

Appeal 2018–007587
Application 14/258,295
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Non-Final Rejection of claims 17–42, all of the pending claims.1,2 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 (2017). Appellant indicates the real party-in-interest is
KENSHOO LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–16 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
2

BACKGROUND
The disclosed invention relates to a method of benchmarking in online
advertising. Spec. 3:28–4:2, Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 17, which is representative of the subject matter of the appeal
and is reproduced from the Claims Appendix of the Appeal Brief, reads as
follows:
17. A method for benchmarking in online advertising, the
method comprising using at least one hardware processor for
automatically:
serving a plurality of online ad entities to a plurality of users
through a plurality of internet connected web browsers at a
plurality of time points;
gathering a plurality of performance metrics resulting from
the serving;
constructing, from said serving and said plurality of
performance metrics, multiple historical time series comprising
values of N metrics associated with M online ad entities,
wherein N ≥ 1 and M ≥ 2, each value associated with one of the
plurality of time point values;
computing statistical relationships, each of the statistical
relationships being between the metrics of different pairs of the
M online ad entities;
constructing an N x M x M matrix of the statistical
relationships between the M online ad entities over the
N metrics;
combining cells of the matrix using cluster analysis, to
produce multiple clusters each comprised of similarly-
characterized cells according to the statistical relationships;
receiving a[] plurality of performance metric[s] associated
with a target ad entity, each of the plurality of performance
metric[s] comprising a metric value and a time point value;
presenting the multiple clusters to an advertiser;
receiving an advertiser selection of at least one of the
multiple clusters as a joint benchmark, wherein the selection is
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
3

based on a similarity between at least some of the metrics of the
target ad entity and the multiple clusters;
comparing the target ad entity with the joint benchmark to
compute a difference between at least one comparison metric of
the target ad entity with a respective at least one comparison
metric of the joint benchmark; and
sending automatically a command to automatically adjust at
least one ad bidding parameter of the target ad entity based on
the comparing, wherein the adjustment of the at least one ad
bidding parameter is selected from the group consisting of:
decreasing a bid value, increasing a budget value, decreasing a
budget value, adding a searched keyword, removing a searched
keyword, increasing geographies of advertisers, decreasing
geographies of advertisers, increasing geographies of users,
decreasing geographies of users, adding user demographics,
removing user demographics, adding a browser language, and
removing a browser language.

REJECTION ON APPEAL3
Claims 17–42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
ANALYSIS
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 17–42 are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Appeal Br. 7–12. Appellant
argues claims 17–42 together as a group. See id. Consequently, we choose
claim 17 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In
particular, Appellant contends that the Examiner’s determination that claims
17–42 are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more were
improperly based on comparisons to multiple abstract ideas and comparisons
to case law irrelevant to the present invention. See Appeal Br. 8–10 (citing

3 Additional grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 subject to the
Appeal were withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 3
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
4

CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir.
2011)). According to Appellant, “the claims are directed to a specific
solution for overcoming technical interfacing problems [between] a human
user and an automatic advertisement platform for adjusting bid parameters
automatically when there is insufficient data to determine a benchmark for a
new advertisement entity.” Id. at 10; see id. at 8, 9 (similar arguments).
Appellant contends the claimed invention is a strict computer science
technique, not a mental process or just an abstract idea. See id. at 11.
According to Appellant, “[m]odern online advertising methods, which
utilize computers for tasks which were not possible to automate before, are
unmistakably within the scope of patent-eligible inventions as determined by
the Federal Circuit in [DDR].” Id. (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed Cir. 2014)). Appellant contends that, like McRO,
the recited claims use a combination of technologies (specific claim
elements and formulas) to perform advertisement benchmarking in the
dynamic and real-time environment of advertising platforms, and interface
between the advertiser and the [advertising] platform to find the closest
similar cluster . . . based on . . . metrics of a new ad entity to determine
unknown performance of that [new ad] entity.” Appeal Br. 11 (citing McRO
Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Amer. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
Appellant further argues that, like Enfish, “the present claimed invention,
being directed to addressing a particular computerized text analytics
problem, is directed to specific improvements to the way computers operate
to solve this special problem, and thus are patent eligible under § 101.” Id.
(citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed Cir. 2016)).
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
5

The Supreme Court’s two-step framework guides our analysis of
patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217 (2014). In addition, the Office recently published
revised guidance for evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, specifically with respect to applying the Alice framework. USPTO,
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). If a claim falls within one of the statutory
categories of patent eligibility (i.e., a process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter) then the first inquiry is whether the claim is directed
to one of the judicially recognized exceptions (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea). Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. As part of this
inquiry, we must “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 Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d
1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016). According to the recent Guidance, this first
inquiry has two prongs of analysis (i) does the claim recite a judicial
exception (e.g., an abstract idea); and (ii) if so, is the judicial exception
integrated into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Under the Guidance, if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application, the claim is patent eligible under § 101. See id. at 54–55. If the
claims are not directed to a judicial exception, the inquiry ends. See McRO,
837 F.3d at 1312. However, if the claim is directed to a judicial exception
(i.e., recites a judicial exception and does not integrate the exception into a
practical application), the next step is to determine whether any element, or
combination of elements, amounts to significantly more than the judicial
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
6

exception. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217; see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 56.
Here, we conclude claim 17 generally is directed to identifying one or
more online ad entities as potential benchmarks and adjusting a first target
online ad entity based on a comparison to a selected benchmark. This is
consistent with how Appellant describes the claimed invention. See Spec.
18:14–27:22, Figs. 4–5 (describing identifying one or more online ad entities
as potential benchmarks, or identifying clusters of online ad identities as
potential joint benchmarks, and performing automatic actions with respect to
a target online ad entity based on a comparison to a selected benchmark or
joint benchmark).
Consistent with the Guidance and case law, we conclude that
identifying one or more online ad entities as potential benchmarks and
adjusting a first target online ad entity based on a comparison to a selected
benchmark is a mental process and, thus, an abstract idea. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52; see also Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d
1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that “analyzing information by
steps people go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms,
without more, as essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea
category”); CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371–72 (concluding claims directed
to “detecting credit card fraud based on information relating [to] past
transactions” can be performed in the human mind and were drawn to a
patent-ineligible mental process); FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
839 F.3d 1089, 1093–94 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding claims directed to
“collecting and analyzing information to detect misuse and notifying a user
when misuse is detected” to be mental processes within the abstract-idea
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
7

category); Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Sys. & Software LLC, 887 F.3d
1376, 1385–86 (explaining the concepts of voting, verifying the vote, and
submitting the vote for tabulation to be abstract).
Claim 17 is reproduced below and includes the following claim
limitations that recite identifying one or more online ad entities as potential
benchmarks, and adjusting a first target online ad entity based on a
comparison to a selected benchmark, emphasized in italics:
17. A method for benchmarking in online advertising, the
method comprising using at least one hardware processor for
automatically:
serving a plurality of online ad entities to a plurality of users
through a plurality of internet connected web browsers at a
plurality of time points;
gathering a plurality of performance metrics resulting from
the serving;
constructing, from said serving and said plurality of
performance metrics, multiple historical time series comprising
values of N metrics associated with M online ad entities,
wherein N ≥ 1 and M ≥ 2, each value associated with one of the
plurality of time point values;
computing statistical relationships, each of the statistical
relationships being between the metrics of different pairs of the
M online ad entities;
constructing an N x M x M matrix of the statistical
relationships between the M online ad entities over the
N metrics;
combining cells of the matrix using cluster analysis, to
produce multiple clusters each comprised of similarly-
characterized cells according to the statistical relationships;
receiving a[] plurality of performance metric[s] associated
with a target ad entity, each of the plurality of performance
metric[s] comprising a metric value and a time point value;
presenting the multiple clusters to an advertiser;
receiving an advertiser selection of at least one of the
multiple clusters as a joint benchmark, wherein the selection is
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
8

based on a similarity between at least some of the metrics of the
target ad entity and the multiple clusters;
comparing the target ad entity with the joint benchmark to
compute a difference between at least one comparison metric of
the target ad entity with a respective at least one comparison
metric of the joint benchmark; and
sending automatically a command to automatically adjust at
least one ad bidding parameter of the target ad entity based on
the comparing, wherein the adjustment of the at least one ad
bidding parameter is selected from the group consisting of:
decreasing a bid value, increasing a budget value, decreasing a
budget value, adding a searched keyword, removing a searched
keyword, increasing geographies of advertisers, decreasing
geographies of advertisers, increasing geographies of users,
decreasing geographies of users, adding user demographics,
removing user demographics, adding a browser language, and
removing a browser language.
More specifically, the concept of identifying one or more online ad
entities as potential benchmarks, and adjusting a first target online ad entity
based on a comparison to a selected benchmark comprises the following
mental process(es): (1) constructing multiple historical time series
comprising values of N metrics associated with M online ad entities;
(2) computing statistical relationships between the metrics of different pairs
of the M online ad entities; (3) constructing an N x M x M matrix of the
statistical relationships between the M online ad entities over the N metrics;
(4) combining cells of the matrix using cluster analysis to produce multiple
clusters of similarly-characterized cells according to the statistical
relationships; (5) comparing a target ad entity with a selected benchmark;
and (6) adjusting the target ad entity based on the comparing. These steps
may be performed by a human with the aid of pen and paper because the
scope of claim 17 includes, at minimum, one metric (N ≥ 1) and two online
ad entities (M ≥ 2). In other words, a human, with the aid of pen and paper,
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
9

can: (1) construct multiple historical time series comprising values of one
metric associated with two online ad entities, each value associated with one
of the plurality of time point values; (2) compute statistical relationships
between the metrics of different pairs of the two online ad entities;
(3) construct a 1 x 2 x 2 matrix of the statistical relationships between the
two online ad entities over the one metric; (4) combine cells of the matrix
using cluster analysis, to produce multiple clusters each comprised of
similarly-characterized cells according to the statistical relationships;
(5) compare a target ad entity with a selected joint benchmark (i.e., a
selected cluster) to compute a difference between at least one comparison
metric of the target ad entity with a respective at least one comparison metric
of the joint benchmark; and (6) adjust at least one ad bidding parameter of
the target ad entity based on the comparing.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claimed
invention is a strict computer science technique, not a mental process or just
an abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 11 (citing Alice; DDR). If a claim, under
its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but
for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
in the mind. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer-
implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose
them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”);
see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (holding that the incidental use of a
“computer” or “computer readable medium” does not make a claim
otherwise directed to a process that “can be performed in the human mind,
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
10

or by a human using a pen and paper” patent eligible); Mayo Collaborative
Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71 (2012) (explaining mental
processes are not patentable); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–53 nn.14–15.
Additionally, we note that using a computer to perform tasks more quickly
or efficiently does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise ineligible
abstract idea. See, e.g., Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of
Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the
required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer
does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject
matter.”). As noted by Appellant, “[p]revious to computer technologies and
the implementation of internet search engine-based advertising, . . . human
advertising professionals acquired benchmark data by trial and error over
periods of years and decades.” Appeal Br. 8.
Because the claim recites a judicial exception, we next determine
whether the claim integrates the judicial exception into a practical
application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. To determine whether the
judicial exception is integrated into a practical application, we identify
whether there are “any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the
judicial exception(s)” and evaluate those elements to determine whether they
integrate the judicial exception into a recognized practical application.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55 (emphasis added); see Manual of Patent
Examining Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed.
Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018).
Here, we find the additional limitations do not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. Although Appellant asserts that the
invention solves a “technical problem” or “technical interfacing problems”
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
11

(see Appeal Br. 8–11), the claims do not recite an improvement to the
functionality of a computer or other technology or technical field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(a)). The claims also do not recite (i) a “particular
machine” to apply or use the judicial exception (see MPEP § 2106.05(b));
(ii) a particular transformation of an article to a different thing or state
(see MPEP § 2106.05(c)); or (iii) any other meaningful limitation
(see MPEP § 2106.05(e)). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
The additional limitations of claim 17 recite: (1) “at least one
hardware processor for automatically,” and (2) “serving a plurality of online
ad entities to a plurality of users through a plurality of internet connected
web browsers at a plurality of time points.” We agree with the Examiner
that these claim recitations are generic computer elements. See Non-Final
Act. 5 (citing Spec. 11:25–30, 13:15–20). Implementing an abstract idea on
a generic computer is not a practical application of the abstract idea. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 221, Spec. 11:25–30 (“These computer program
instructions may be provided to a hardware processor of a general purpose
computer, special purpose computer or other programmable data processing
apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via
the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing
apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the
flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.”).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments analogizing the
claims before us with the facts before the Federal Circuit in McRO and
Enfish. See Br. 10–11 (citing McRO; Enfish)). Appellant does not direct us
to evidence to demonstrate that the claimed invention provides a specific
improvement in technology like the claims in McRO which provided a
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
12

specific improvement in the technology of computer animation. Appellant
also does not direct us to evidence to demonstrate that the claimed invention
provides an improvement in computer capabilities, like the claims in Enfish
which provided a self-referential table in a computer database that improved
the computer functionality itself. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, it is
unclear how the subject matter of claim 17 provides any improvement in
technology or computer functionality based on Appellant’s following
unsupported arguments: (1) “the use of a specialized technique and
mathematics for interfacing between the advertiser and the advertising
platform . . . ;” (2) the “use [of] a combination of technologies (specific
claim elements and formulas) to perform advertisement benchmarking in the
dynamic and real-time environment of advertising platforms, and interface
between the advertiser and the [advertising] platform to find the closest
similar cluster . . . based on . . . metrics of a new ad entity to determine
unknown performance of that [new ad] entity;” and (3) “addressing a
computerized text analytics problem.” Appeal Br. 10–11 (citing McRO,
Enfish). As the Federal Circuit has stated,
Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of
manual processes using generic computers does not constitute a
patentable improvement in computer technology. In those
cases, “the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in
computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas
that use computers as tools.
Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (quoting Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354
(Fed Cir. 2016). Similarly, “[r]elying on a computer to perform routine
tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
13

eligible.” OIP Techs, Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2015).
The additional limitations of claim 17 also recite: (1) serving a
plurality of online ad entities to a plurality of users through a plurality of
internet connected web browsers at a plurality of time points; (2) gathering a
plurality of performance metrics resulting from the serving; (3) receiving
performance metrics associated with a target ad entity; (4) presenting
multiple clusters to an advertiser; and (5) receiving a selection of at least one
of the multiple clusters as a joint benchmark.
Gathering of data as input for further processing, and displaying
information resulting from data collection and processing are the types of
extra-solution activity (i.e., in addition to the judicial exception), the courts
have determined insufficient to transform judicially excepted subject matter
into a patent-eligible application. See MPEP § 2106.05(g); see also Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010) (holding the use of well-known
techniques to establish inputs to the abstract idea as extra-solution activity
that fails to make the underlying concept patent eligible); Elec. Power Grp.,
830 F.3d at 1355 (explaining that “merely presenting the results of abstract
processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as
identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part
of such collection and analysis”); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788
F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (finding that gathering statistics generated
based on customer testing for input to a pricing calculation “fail[s] to
‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention”). For
these reasons, we also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
14

receiving a user selection of one cluster to use as a benchmark is
significantly more than an alleged abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 10–11.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
following additional elements are significantly more than an alleged abstract
idea, and were not addressed by the Examiner: (1) using statistical analysis
between multiple previous ad entities; (2) arrangement of the statistical
values in a matrix; (3) clustering similar ad entities; (4) comparing partial
data of the new ad entity with a selected cluster; and (5) adjusting
automatically the bid parameters of the new ad entity based on the other
metrics of the selected cluster. See Appeal Br. 10–11. Contrary to
Appellant’s argument, the Examiner identified these elements as forming the
abstract idea of a mental process. See Non-Final Act. 3–4.
Because we determine claim 17 does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application, and is instead directed to an abstract
idea, we analyze the claims under step two of Alice to determine if there are
additional limitations that individually, or as an ordered combination, ensure
the claims amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Alice, 573
U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77–79). As stated in the Guidance,
many of the considerations to determine whether the claims amount to
“significantly more” under step two of the Alice framework are already
considered as part of determining whether the judicial exception has been
integrated into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Therefore, at this point of our analysis, we determine if the claims add a
specific limitation, or combination of limitations, that is not well-
understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append
well-understood, routine, conventional activities at a high level of generality.
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
15

See id. “Whether something is well-understood, routine, and conventional to
a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual determination.”
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Here, Appellant’s claims do not recite specific limitations (or a
combination of limitations) that are not well-understood, routine, and
conventional. We agree with the Examiner that the claim recitations of “at
least one hardware processor for automatically,” “serving a plurality of
online ad entities to a plurality of users through a plurality of internet
connected web browsers at a plurality of time points,” and “automatically”
are generic computer elements and conventional and routine processes. See
Non-Final Act. 5 (citing Spec. 11:25–30, 13:15–20). We also agree with the
Examiner’s finding that our reviewing courts have determined that
processing and receiving data, as well as the application of repetitive
calculations are conventional computer functions. See Ans. 4; see also
Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, (utilizing an
intermediary computer to forward information); OIP Techs., Inc., v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers
and gathering statistics; sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v.
Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and
sends information over a network); Flook, 437 U.S. at 594 (recomputing or
readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266,
1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims
is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive
calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of
those claims.”); Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc., v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093
(Fed. Cir. 2019) (agreeing with Board’s determination that “receiving
Appeal 2018-007587
Application 14/258,295
16

market information is simply routine data gathering, and displaying
information as indicators along a scaled price axis is well-understood,
routine conventional activity.”).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 17–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 17–42 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
17–42 101 Eligibility 17–42

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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED