BBY SOLUTIONS, INC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 1, 2020

14704776 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 1, 2020)

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.
14/704,776 05/05/2015 Sanu Patel-Zellinger 1060.045US1 3953
21186 7590 05/01/2020
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
ZIMMERMAN, MATTHEW E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3684
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2020 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SANU PATEL-ZELLINGER, JULIE DURHAM,
BRIAN FLYNN, RYAN MENDOZA, RICHARD R. PATTERSON,
ROB VANHOUT, STEPHEN JAKALA, CHARLES ROONEY,
VIKAS JAISWAL, MAGESH VENKATESAN,
RAGHU VENKATESHWAR, ASAD KHAN, PUNEET K. GUPTA,
VAIBHAV AGRAWAL, ERIC BERENS, and CURTIS JANICKE
____________

Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–20, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “BBY Solutions,
Inc.” Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s discloure “pertain[s] to order fulfillment, logistics, and
delivery techniques for items of commerce.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1,
reproduced below with added bracketed notations and emphasis, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter. See Appeal Br., Claims App.
1. A method for processing data in a delayed order delivery
fulfillment scenario, the method performed by a computer system
comprising at least one hardware processor, and the method
comprising:
[(a)] collecting data for a plurality of shipments, the data
including information to indicate respective delivery statuses of
the plurality of shipments;
[(b)] calculating, from the data for the plurality of
shipments, that a delay condition has occurred for a shipment of
a first product instance of a product, the delay condition
indicating that at least one shipment is undeliverable to a
destination by a target delivery date;
[(c)] searching inventories of in-store locations to
determine a plurality of in-store locations that have an instance
of the product stocked in inventory, and distances from each of
the plurality of instore locations to the destination;
[(d)] electronically selecting a particular in-store location
of the plurality of in-store locations that have an instance of the
product stocked in inventory, the selecting of the particular in-
store location based on proximity of the particular in-store
location to the destination, the particular in-store location having
a shortest distance among the distances;
[(e)] identifying a second product instance stocked in
inventory of the particular in-store location to fulfill delivery of
the product in a replacement shipment to the destination;
[(f)] creating data that identifies at least one shipment
option for a substitute delivery of the second product instance in
the replacement shipment, the substitute delivery of the second
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

3
product instance scheduled to occur from the inventory at the
particular in-store location to the destination by the target
delivery date;
[(g)] creating data including an electronic delivery
instruction to trigger performance of the substitute delivery of the
second product instance in the replacement shipment, wherein
the data including the delivery instruction to trigger performance
of the substitute delivery of the replacement shipment to the
destination indicates that the substitute delivery is to be
performed via a selected shipment option of the identified at least
one shipment option; and
[(h)] sending a notification including an identification of
the second product instance stocked in the inventory of the
particular in-store location and the selected shipment option to a
device of the particular in-store location, [(i)] wherein in
response to the notification, the device of the particular instore
location generates the electronic delivery instruction on a user
interface or prints the electronic delivery instruction on a
shipping label.

REJECTION
Claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

OPINION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

4
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78, 79). This is “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.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
In rejecting the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and under the
first step of the Alice framework, the Examiner determined that the claims
are “directed to the abstract idea of scheduling substituted delivery for
shipment delays.” Final Act. 4. According to the Examiner, this is a
“certain method of organizing human activity. ” Id. at 4; see also Ans. 4.
Appellant argues claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–20 together as a group.
See Appeal Br. 9–16. We select independent claim 1 as representative for
the group. Thus, pursuant to 37 C.F.R § 41.37, claims 2, 3, 5–12, and 14–20
stand or fall with claim 1.
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

5
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “USPTO”) has published
revised guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019
Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination
procedure with respect to the first step of the Alice framework by
(1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract
idea”; and (2) clarifying that a claim is not “directed to” a judicial exception
if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception. Id. at 50. The 2019 Revised Guidance, by its terms, applies to all
applications, and to all patents resulting from applications, filed before, on,
or after January 7, 2019. Id.2
We have reviewed the eligibility of the pending claims in accordance
with the Supreme Court’s two-step framework and through the lens of the
2019 Revised Guidance, but we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
concluding that the pending claims are directed to a judicial exception
without significantly more.

Step One of the Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
The first step in the Alice framework, as mentioned above, is to
determine whether the claims at issue are “directed to” a patent-ineligible

2 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04(II) and also supersedes all versions of the
USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related
guidance issued prior to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP
(published Jan. 2018) should not be relied upon.”).
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

6
concept, e.g., an abstract idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. This first step,
as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), is a two-prong test;
in Step 2A, Prong 1, we look to whether the claim recites a judicial
exception, e.g., one of the following three groupings of abstract ideas:
(1) mathematical concepts; (2) certain methods of organizing human
activity, e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or
legal interactions; and (3) mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. If so, we next consider whether the claim includes
additional elements, beyond the judicial exception, that “integrate the
[judicial] exception into a practical application,” i.e., that 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 (“Step 2A, Prong 2”). Id. at 54–55.
Only if the claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application do we conclude that the claim is
“directed to” the judicial exception, e.g., an abstract idea.
The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a
specific improvement in relevant technology or on a process that itself
qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a
tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the Specification (including
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

7
the claim language) that the focus of claim 1 is on an abstract idea, and not
on any improvement to technology, as argued by Appellant.
The Specification is entitled “DELAYED ORDER DELIVERY
FULFILLMENT,” and states that the embodiments “pertain to order
fulfillment, logistics, and delivery techniques for items of commerce.” Spec.
¶ 1. The Specification in the Abstract section describes the invention as:
Techniques and system configurations for order tracking and
delivery fulfillment in an electronic commerce setting is
described herein. In one example, a shipment that originates
from a distribution center of a retailer is identified for delay (e.g.,
a delayed shipment in transit via a national carrier). The delayed
shipment is replaced with a substitute shipment from inventory
at an in-store location of the retailer. The substitute shipment is
selected from an in-store location of the retailer based on
proximity to the shipping destination, and is delivered via courier
or agent to meet or precede a promised delivery date. The
delayed shipment is then intercepted or redirected to the shipping
source, the in-store location, or a distribution center. Related
techniques for the management, processing, and tracking of data
and information associated with substitute shipments are further
described herein.
The claimed invention is intended to minimize delays in delivery of goods
which could stem from adverse weather conditions, delivery network
interruptions, or other factors out of the seller’s control.3

3 “Customers increasingly want more information and control over their
delivery options, especially when making gift-based orders in advance of
birthdays, holidays, or other pre-determined delivery dates. Various
processes exist to allow sellers to track the status of deliveries, and to allow
the seller to determine whether certain deliveries are likely to be delayed or
unable to meet a pre-determined delivery date. However, existing tracking
processes are typically limited to collecting information about the delayed
delivery and providing only a status update or apology to affected
customers. Such information is unlikely to satisfy an expectant customer if
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

8
To that end, claim 1 recites “[a] method for processing data in a
delayed order delivery fulfillment scenario,” comprising: (a) collecting data
for a plurality of shipments; (b) calculating, from the data for the plurality of
shipments, that a delay condition has occurred for a shipment of a first
product instance of a product, the delay condition indicating that at least one
shipment is undeliverable to a destination by a target delivery date;
(c) searching inventories of in-store locations to determine a plurality of in-
store locations that have an instance of the product stocked in inventory, and
distances from each of the plurality of in-store locations to the destination;
(d) selecting a particular in-store location of the plurality of in-store
locations that have an instance of the product stocked in inventory, the
selecting of the particular in-store location based on proximity of the
particular in-store location to the destination, the particular in-store location
having a shortest distance among the distances; (e) identifying a second
product instance stocked in inventory of the particular in-store location to
fulfill delivery of the product in a replacement shipment to the destination;
(f) creating data that identifies at least one shipment option for a substitute
delivery of the second product instance in the replacement shipment, the
substitute delivery of the second product instance scheduled to occur from
the inventory at the particular in-store location to the destination by the
target delivery date; (g) creating data including delivery instruction to trigger
performance of the substitute delivery of the second product instance in the

the order is unable to be fulfilled prior to the holiday or previously promised
delivery date. Thus, if a delivery delay or cancellation occurs, the seller may
be blamed for the failure (even if the reason for the delay is outside of the
seller's control).” Spec. ¶ 3.
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

9
replacement shipment, wherein the data including the delivery instruction to
trigger performance of the substitute delivery of the replacement shipment to
the destination indicates that the substitute delivery is to be performed via a
selected shipment option of the identified at least one shipment option; and
(h) sending a notification including an identification of the second product
instance stocked in the inventory of the particular in-store location and the
selected shipment option to the particular in-store location, (i) wherein in
response to the notification, the particular instore location generates the
delivery instruction or prints the electronic delivery instruction on a shipping
label. See Claim 1 supra.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, steps b–h recite a
method of organizing human activity because claim 1 outlines actions a
retailer would take upon determining a delay during the shipment of a
product to identify a replacement product in inventory at a location closest to
the destination, and make the necessary arrangements for delivery of the
replacement product by the target delivery date. See Spec. ¶¶ 69–70. For
example, in step (b) a retailer identifies which of the orders are at risk of not
being delivered by the target delivery date, such that delays are determined
based on an evaluation of the delay criterion relative to the projected or
promised in-hand date estimated at the time of the sale or order fulfilment.
See Spec. ¶ 29. Steps (c) and (d) recite actions taken by a retailer to search
inventories of in-store locations and distances to determine which locations
have the product in inventory and select a particular store with the shortest
distance to the destination that has the product in stock. Steps (e)–(h) recite
identifying the second product in stock, identifying a shipment option for the
delivery of the replacement shipment, providing instructions and sending a
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

10
notification for performance of the substitute delivery to the particular store
location.
Consequently, these steps involve arranging the timely delivery of an
order––which is a commercial interaction and part of sales activity, and
managing personal behavior, for example of a retailer fulfilling an order by
following rules and instructions. See Spec. ¶¶ 69–70 (describing a delayed
order replacement workflow by applying rules and instructions). Moreover,
the steps discussed above can be performed mentally using a pen and paper.
See Revised Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (Mental processes-concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluaton,
judgment, opinion”)). These steps can be performed by a retailor observing
and evaluating the inventory of a plurality of locations and determining the
closest location to the delivery destination that has the substitute product in
stock, and notifying the selected location to fulfill substitute delivery by the
targeted delivery date.
Accordingly, we conclude steps b–h recite an abstract idea.
Having concluded that claim 1 recites a judicial exception, i.e., an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong 1), we next consider whether the claim recites
additonal elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (Step 2A, Prong 2). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51.
When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to integrate the exception
into a practical application, the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception.
Id. Claim 1 may integrate the judicial exception when, for example, it
reflects an improvement to technology or a technical field. Id at 55. The
additional elements recited in claim 1 supra are italicized. These additional
elements are “electronically”; “electronic”; and “device,” all of which are
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

11
disclosed in the Specification at a high degree of generality, i.e., as generic
computer components (see Spec. ¶¶ 64, 78). For example, the Specification
indicates that such components include
a processor, memory, operating system, and user input interface
to interact, control, or operate the following data stores,
hardware-implemented modules, network and associated
devices, systems, and implementations. Specifically, the
computing system 800 may be implemented within one or a
plurality of computer system devices, at one or multiple
locations, and may be implemented in connection with features
of distributed, remote, or cloud-based processing functions.
Spec. ¶ 64. These additional elements do no more than generally link the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of
use. See Spec. 81 (describing “a communications network 1128 using a
transmission medium via the network interface device 1120 utilizing any
one of a number of well-known transfer protocols (e.g., HTTP)”).
Further, the recitation of collecting data on the respective delivery
statuses of the shipments in step (a) is mere data gathering, and printing the
delivery instruction on a shipping label in step (i) is also insignificant extra-
solution activity that does not meaningfully limit to the claim. See MPEP
§ 2106.05 (g) (“An example of post-solution activity is an element that is not
integrated into the claim as a whole, e.g., a printer that is used to output a
report of fraudulent transactions, which is recited in a claim to a computer
programmed to analyze and manipulate information about credit card
transactions in order to detect whether the transactions were fraudulent.”).
As such, we disagree with Appellant’s contention that the “claims clearly
integrate the Examiner’s alleged judicial exception (‘scheduling substituted
delivery for shipment delays’) into a practical application of technology and
an improvement in multiple technical fields.” Appeal Br. 12 (citing Spec. ¶
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

12
18); Reply Br. 4. All the improvements disclosed are either naturally
derived from automation (e.g., “uses of data to manage and automate
delivery processes”) or reflected in the abstract idea (e.g., cost reduction and
improved customer experiences) because there is no indication in the
Specification of, nor does Appellant point to, any such improvements and
how any such improvements are implemented in this process. The claimed
“computer system,” which only appears in the preamble of claim 1,
comprises a generic computer processor, but none of the steps performed in
claim 1 (besides step (h) of sending a notification to a device), require any
computing element, and thus, cannot reflect any improvement in compter
capabilities or technology.
The focus of the invention is not on an improvement in computers as
tools but on improving an abstract idea that uses the properties and
capabilities of computers as tools. Although the use of workflows may
result in cost reduction and improved customer experiences (see Appeal
Br. 12–13 (quoting Spec. ¶ 18)), they do not suggest or specifically point to
an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to
other technology or technical field and therefore these aspects of the
invention do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
See Ans. 5.
We are not apprised of any operation recited in claim 1 that invokes
any assertedly inventive programming, requires any specialized computer
hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine,
or that the claimed invention is implemented using other than generic
computer components to perform generic computer functions. See DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1256 (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt:
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

13
recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise
ineligible claim patent-eligible.”). As discussed above, step (a) and (i) add
insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (i.e., post-
solution activity), which does not meaningfully limit the claim.
We find no indication in the Specification that the claimed invention
effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state
or thing. Nor do we find anything of record that attributes an improvement
in computer technology and/or functionality to the claimed invention or that
otherwise indicates that the claimed invention integrates the abstract idea
into a “practical application,” as that phrase is used in the 2019 Revised
Guidance.4
We conclude, for the reasons outlined above, that claim 1 recites an
abstract idea, and the additional elements recited in the claim are no more
than generic components used as tools to perform the recited abstract idea.
As such, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that
provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’”) (alterations in
original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).

4 The2019 Revised Guidance references MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c) and (e) in
describing the considerations that are indicative that an additional element or
combination of elements integrates the judicial exception, e.g., the abstract
idea, into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 55. If the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application, as determined under one or more of these MPEP sections, the claim is not “directed
to” the judicial exception.
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

14
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to
an abstract idea.

Step Two of the Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Alice framework that claim 1
is directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the 2019
Revised Guidance, the second step of the Alice framework, whether claim 1
includes additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an
“inventive concept,” i.e., whether the additional elements amount to
“significantly more” than the judicial exception itself. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Besides the insignificant extra-solution activity recited in steps (a) and
(i), the only additional elements recited beyond the abstract idea are “a
computer system comprising at least one hardware processor” recited in the
preamble of claim 1, and the terms “electronically”; “electronic”; “device”
in steps (d), (g), and (h), respectively. The terms “electronic” and
“electronically” amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological
environment in which to apply a judicial exception, which do not amount to
significantly more than the exception itself. Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175, 192 (1981) (A “judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by
having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the
formula to a particular technological use.’”); see also Affinity Labs of Texas
v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The “device” in step (h)
does not amount to an inventive concept because a generic computer used to
perform a generic computer function of “sending a notification” (Final Act.
5–6; see Ans. 10 ) is well-understood, routine, or conventional — a
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

15
determination fully consistent with the Specification (see Spec. ¶¶ 64,
78–81). The remaining steps in claim 1 are directed to the abstract idea and
lack any additional elements to ensure the claim amounts to significantly
more. Thus, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do
not provide an inventive concept.
Contrary to Appellant’s contention in reference to Berkheimer
(Appeal Br. 15), the Federal Circuit, in accordance with Alice, has
“repeatedly recognized the absence of a genuine dispute as to eligibility”
where claims have been defended as involving an inventive concept based
“merely on the idea of using existing computers or the Internet to carry out
conventional processes, with no alteration of computer functionality.”
Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J.,
concurring); see also BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1291 (“BSG Tech does not
argue that other, non-abstract features of the claimed inventions, alone or in
combination, are not well-understood, routine and conventional database
structures and activities. Accordingly, the district court did not err in
determining that the asserted claims lack an inventive concept.”).
Also, contrary to Appellant’s contention (see Appeal Br. 14), neither a
finding of novelty nor a non-obviousness determination automatically leads
to the conclusion that the claimed subject matter is patent eligible. Although
the second step in the Alice framework is termed a search for an “inventive
concept,” the analysis is not an evaluation of novelty or non-obviousness,
but rather, a search for “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., 573 U.S. at
217–18. “Groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not
Appeal 2019-006791
Application 14/704,776

16
by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.” Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013). A novel and non-obvious
claim directed to a purely abstract idea is, nonetheless, patent ineligible. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90; see also. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89 (“The ‘novelty’
of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no
relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within
the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.”).
We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we
sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101,
including claims 2–3, 5–12, and 14–20 which fall with claim 1.

CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5–12, and 14–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
is AFFIRMED
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–12,
14–20
101 Eligibility 1–3, 5–12,
14–20

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