BGC Partners, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2020000611 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 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.
14/088,680 11/25/2013 Michael Sweeting 03-1070-C2 8678
63710 7590 12/16/2020
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
BARTLEY, KENNETH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3693
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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):
lkorovich@cantor.com
mcatarino@cgolaw.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL SWEETING,
HOWARD W. LUTNICK,
and JOSEPH C. NOVIELLO
____________

Appeal 2020–000611
Application 14/088,680
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, ANTON W. FETTING, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Michael Sweeting, Howard W. Lutnick, and Joseph C. Noviello
(Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of
claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellants invented a way of trading within a spread market for a
particular item. Specification para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 57, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
57. A method comprising:
[1] receiving,
by at least one processor in communication with at
least one memory, from a first user of an electronic
trading system
a first order to buy or sell an item
conditioned on an execution price of the first order
being between a best bid price and a best offer
price for the item,

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed May 7, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 1,
2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed September 6, 2019), and
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 7, 2018).
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 BCG
Partners, Inc. (Appeal Br. 3).

Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

3

in which the first order to buy or sell the item
comprises a buy/sell orientation defining
whether the first order is a bid to purchase
the item or an offer to sell the item
and
is based on selection of a virtual button
displayed on a first graphical user interface
at a first communication device of the first
user;
[2] communicating, by the at least one processor,
information about the first order to a plurality of market
participants to cause refreshing of a display on a given
graphical user interface of each of a given
communication device of the plurality of market
participants
such that the display of the given graphical user interface
displays,
simultaneously with display of the best bid
price and the best offer price for the item,
the information about the first order without
disclosing the buy/sell orientation of the first
order to the plurality of market participants,
such that the plurality of market participants
are not made aware whether the first order is
an order to buy the item or an order to sell
the item,
the plurality of market participants
comprising the first user and a second user;
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

4

[3] receiving,
by the at least one processor, from the second user
of the electronic trading system
a second order to buy or sell the item
conditioned on execution price of the second order
being between a best bid price and a best offer
price for the item,
in which the second order to buy or sell the item
comprises a buy/sell orientation that is contra to
the buy/sell orientation of the first order;
[4] responsive to receiving the second order, matching,
by the at least one processor, at least a portion of the first
order with at least a portion of the second order;
and
[5] responsive to matching at least a portion of the first
order with at least a portion of the second order, causing,
by the at least one processor,
a trade to be executed
for at least a portion of the first order against at
least a portion of the second order
at a price between a best bid price and a best offer
price for the item.
Claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
as lacking a supporting written description within the original disclosure.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

5

ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of written description matter turn primarily on whether the
Specification supports the claim limitations.
ANALYSIS
Claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more
STEP 13
Claim 57, 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 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

3 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 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

6

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.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 57 recites receiving, communicating, matching, and executing order
data. Communicating data is transmitting data. Matching data is
rudimentary data analysis. Executing order data is conventional data
processing. Thus, claim 57 recites receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and
processing data. None of the limitations recites technological
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

7

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 57 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
include (1) mathematical concepts4, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity5, and (3) mental processes6. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 57 recites the concept of
managing commercial security trading. Specifically, claim 57 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to trade securities
at a price determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying
certain data. The advice to trade securities at a price determined by certain
condition parameters and without displaying certain data involves
commercial trading, which is an economic act, and receiving order

4 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).
5 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).
6 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 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

8

information, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 57 recites “causing . . . a trade to be
executed,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
making commercial trades. Similarly, claim 1 recites “receiving . . . a
second order,” which is also characteristic of commercial trading.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to matching and
executing received buy/sell orders at a price between a best bid and best
offer price. Final Act. 6.
The preamble to claim 57 does not recite what it is to achieve, but the
steps in claim 57 result in managing commercial security trading by trading
securities at a price determined by certain condition parameters and without
displaying certain data absent any technological mechanism other than a
conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1 and 3 recite receiving data.
Limitations 2, 4, and 5 recite generic and conventional transmitting,
analyzing, and processing of trading data, which advise one to apply generic
functions to get to these results. Although limitation 1 recites “selection of a
virtual button displayed on a first graphical user interface,” this is within the
actual limitation of receiving order data. The recited selection is an
aspirational recitation of how a buy or sell selection is made prior to the
actual receiving limitation.
The limitations thus recite advice for trading securities at a price
determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying certain
data. To advocate trading securities at a price determined by certain
condition parameters and without displaying certain data is conceptual
advice for results desired and not technological operations.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

9

The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
trading within a spread market for a particular item. Thus, all this intrinsic
evidence shows that claim 57 recites managing commercial security trading.
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
trade transactions is a form of commercial interaction. The concept of
managing commercial security trading by trading securities at a price
determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying certain
data is one idea for controlling such a transaction. The steps recited in claim
57 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. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (data assisting financial security
traders).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, transmitting,
analyzing, and processing 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 57, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior
cases, uses generic computer technology to perform data reception,
transmission, analysis, and processing and does not recite an improvement to
a particular computer technology. See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

10

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 57 recites receiving, transmitting,
analyzing, and processing data, and not a technological implementation or
application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 57 recites
managing commercial security trading by trading securities at a price
determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying certain
data, 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 57 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.7
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

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

11

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 1 and 3 are pure data gathering
steps. Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Step 2
recites basic conventional data operations such as generating, updating, and
storing data. Steps 4 and 5 recite generic computer processing expressed in
terms of results desired by any and all possible means and so present no
more than conceptual advice. Although limitation 1 recites “selection of a
virtual button displayed on a first graphical user interface,” this is within the
actual limitation of receiving order data. The recited selection is an
aspirational recitation of how a buy or sell selection is made prior to the
actual receiving limitation. 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 57 simply recites the concept of
managing commercial security trading by trading securities at a price
determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying certain
data 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.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

12

Claim 57 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 equipment8 and parameters that might be applied using this concept
and the particular steps such conventional processing would entail based on
the concept of managing commercial security trading by trading securities at
a price determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying
certain data under different scenarios. It does not describe any particular
improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim 57 at issue
amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply managing
commercial security trading by trading securities at a price determined by
certain condition parameters and without displaying certain data 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

8 The Specification describes using personal computers, laptop computers,
mainframe computers, dumb terminals, data displays, Internet browsers,
Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), two-way pagers, wireless terminals,
portable telephones. Spec. para. 32.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

13

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 57 is directed to achieving the result of
managing commercial security trading by advising one to trade securities at
a price determined by certain condition parameters and without displaying
certain data, 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 57 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
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

14

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).
“[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 receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and processing data
amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of the most basic
functions of a computer. Although limitation 1 recites “selection of a virtual
button displayed on a first graphical user interface,” this is within the actual
limitation of receiving order data. The recited selection is an aspirational
recitation of how a buy or sell selection is made prior to the actual receiving
limitation. In any event, no implementation details for the generic recited
button are provided or recited. 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
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

15

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 57 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-transmission-
analysis-processing 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 57 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 57 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

16

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.
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 security trading by advising one to
trade securities at a price determined by certain condition parameters and
without displaying certain data, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 6–23 and Answer 4–17, 23–
24 and reach similar legal conclusions. The Reply Brief does not respond to
the Examiner’s responses in the Answer. We add the following observations
to the Examiner’s responses.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

17

Appellant argues that the asserted claims are akin to the claims
found patent-eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. 773
F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Appeal Br. 12. In DDR Holdings, the Court
evaluated the eligibility of claims “address[ing] the problem of retaining
website visitors that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning
of Internet hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from
a host’s website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement and activating a
hyperlink.” Id. at 1257. There, the Court found that the claims were patent
eligible because they transformed the manner in which a hyperlink
typically functions to resolve a problem that had no “pre-Internet
analog.” Id. at 1258. The Court cautioned, however, “that not all claims
purporting to address Internet-centric challenges are eligible for patent.”
Id. For example, in DDR Holdings the Court distinguished the patent-
eligible claims at issue from claims found patent-ineligible in
Ultramercial. See id. at 1258–59 (citing Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715–
16). As noted there, the Ultramercial claims were “directed to a specific
method of advertising and content distribution that was previously
unknown and never employed on the Internet before.” Id. at 1258
(quoting Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715–16). Nevertheless, those claims
were patent ineligible because they “merely recite[d] the abstract idea of
‘offering media content in exchange for viewing an advertisement,’ along
with ‘routine additional steps such as updating an activity log, requiring a
request from the consumer to view the ad, restrictions on public access, and
use of the Internet.’” Id.
Appellant’s asserted claims are analogous to claims found ineligible
in Ultramercial and distinct from claims found eligible in DDR Holdings.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

18

The ineligible claims in Ultramercial recited “providing [a] media product
for sale at an Internet website;” “restricting general public access to said
media product;” “receiving from the consumer a request to view [a]
sponsor message;” and “if the sponsor message is an interactive message,
presenting at least one query to the consumer and allowing said consumer
access to said media product after receiving a response to said at least one
query.” 772 F.3d at 712. Similarly, Appellant’s asserted claims recite
receiving, transmitting, analyzing, and processing data. This is precisely
the type of Internet activity found ineligible in Ultramercial.
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. 13. 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 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.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

19

Appellant cites to Trading Technologies International, Inc. v.
CQG, Inc., 875 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Appeal Br. 14. First,
this case is non-precedential and two related precedential cases with user
interfaces had the claims held ineligible. Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019) and Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG
LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Second, the claims do not recite and
the Specification does not describe structure associated with the interface,
only data content. In Trading Technologies, in response to a similar
argument that the claims “provide a particular graphical user interface that
improves usability, visualization, and efficiency,” the Court determined that
“the 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 at 1384–85
(citations omitted). Similarly here the claims are not focused on an
interface, but on providing information to users in a way that helps them
process information more quickly, not on improving computers or
technology and the tool for presentation is a generic computer.

Claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) as lacking a
supporting written description within the original disclosure
As to Appellant’s Appeal Brief arguments, we adopt the Examiner’s
determinations and analysis from Final Action 24–25 and Answer 17–23 and
reach similar legal conclusions. The Reply Brief does not respond to the
Examiner’s responses in the Answer. We add the following observations to
the Examiner’s responses.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

20

Appellant’s arguments at Appeal Brief 20 is entirely conclusory. As
to claim 41, having transcribed Specification paragraphs 45 and 50–52,
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill would take from them support for
the claim limitation of “communicate information ... to cause refreshing of a
display... such that the display of the given graphical user interface displays,
simultaneously with the display of the best bid price and the best offer price
... the information about the first order.” But those Specification paragraphs
only describe displaying and redisplaying an identifier. The redisplay is
described as occurring when a midprice order is available for trade. To
refresh connotes updating all page data present.9 Thus, simply describing
generic redisplay of a discrete data item does not suggest refreshing data.
As to claim 62, having transcribed Specification paragraph 52,
Appellant argues that one of ordinary skill would take from them support for
the claim limitation of “a selected portion of the information ... in which the
selected portion is determined in accordance with a specified display
condition for selectively controlling displaying given information about a
given order.” But Appellant does not describe how or why one of ordinary
skill would do so.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 under 35 U.S.C.

9 To refresh is to update (the information displayed on a screen), as to reflect
the most recent changes to a webpage being viewed. American Heritage
Dictionary https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=refresh Last
viewed December 2, 2020.
Appeal 2020-000611
Application 14/088,680

21

§ 112(a) as lacking a supporting written description within the original
disclosure is proper.
CONCLUSION

The rejection of claims 41–53, 55–60, and 62 is affirmed reversed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
41–53, 55–60,
62
101 Eligibility 41–53, 55–60,
62

41–53, 55–60,
62
112(a) Written
Description
41–53, 55–60,
62

Overall Outcome 41–53, 55–60,
62

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