Brian N. Slack et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 11, 2019

13303712 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 11, 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.
13/303,712 11/23/2011 Brian N. Slack 11-0412-US-NP 1052
63759 7590 10/11/2019
DUKE W. YEE
YEE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
P.O. BOX 190809
DALLAS, TX 75219
EXAMINER
REFAI, RAMSEY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3668
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patentadmin@boeing.com
ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN N. SLACK, DOUGLAS JAMES DWYER,
SAMUEL CHUN-HO KWOK, and ERIC L. NICKS
____________

Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before ANTON W. FETTING, MICHAEL C. ASTORINO, and
BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Brian N. Slack, Douglas James Dwyer, Samuel Chun-Ho Kwok, and
Eric L. Nicks (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final
rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13–20, and 22–25, the only claims pending
in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant
to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a way of managing parts. Specification
para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. An aircraft manufacture or maintenance system using an
aircraft part management system, the aircraft manufacture or
maintenance system comprising:
[1] equipment configured to manufacture or maintenance
aircraft using a particular aircraft part from a group of aircraft
parts;
[2] a warranty database in communication with a computer
system;
[3] a part manager located on the computer system,
the part manager configured to

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed December 12, 2017) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February
22, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 25, 2018),
and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed September 15, 2017).
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 The
Boeing Company of Chicago, Illinois (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

3

[3.1] cause a processor of the computer system to receive
a request for a selected aircraft part and select the
particular aircraft part from the group of aircraft parts in
an inventory of aircraft parts that meets the request for
the selected aircraft part,
[3.2] the selecting a particular aircraft part based on
warranty periods identified from the warranty database
for the group of aircraft parts in response to receiving the
request from a user at a graphical user interface,
[3.3] the selecting determined by a calculation to
maximize warranty coverage for the particular aircraft
part,
and
[4] wherein the equipment is further configured to use the
particular aircraft part in manufacturing the aircraft or
performing maintenance on the aircraft,
[5] wherein the graphical user interface is in communication
with the part manager and the graphical user interface is
configured to provide a user with access to the part manager as
part of manufacturing the aircraft or performing maintenance on
the aircraft.
Claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13–20, and 22–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
ISSUE
The issue of eligible subject matter turns primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
ANALYSIS
CLAIM CONSTRUCTION
We first construe “equipment configured to manufacture or
maintenance aircraft using a particular aircraft part from a group of aircraft
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

4

parts,” and “the equipment is further configured to use the particular aircraft
part in manufacturing the aircraft or performing maintenance on the aircraft”
in claim 1. The Specification describes a parts manager. It does not
describe a system or process for physically assembling or disassembling
(maintaining) aircraft. The closest the Specification comes is “warranty
periods may be identified for parts used during component and subassembly
manufacturing 906 and system integration 908” (Spec. para. 117) and “use
of a number of the different illustrative embodiments may substantially
expedite the assembly of and/or reduce the cost of aircraft 1000” (Spec.
para. 119). The first only describes determining a warranty period for parts
already selected, and is therefore outside the scope of the claims and does
not describe assembly or disassembly as verbs, but only as adjectival
modifiers to parts. The second only describes what might be expedited
outside the scope of the claims, and only describes expediting some
assembly at some future time with no description of actual assembly or how
such is performed.
Thus, to say “using a particular aircraft part” or “configured to use the
particular aircraft part” cannot mean physical incorporation during an
assembly or disassembly. Instead, the word “use” in these limitations is
supported by “aircraft manufacturer 104 also may use part management
system 118 when manufacturing, refurbishing, or otherwise modifying
aircraft 178.” Spec. para. 56. To use a part then means to select a part for
subsequent application. As the Specification does not describe using parts in
physical assembly and disassembly, but does describe using parts in the
sense of selecting them for purpose of later assembly or disassembly
(outside the scope of the claim), we construe these limitations accordingly.
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

5

Thus, “equipment configured to manufacture or maintenance aircraft using a
particular aircraft part” is construed as including equipment that provides the
hardware support for the part manager software, which is used when
selecting parts for manufacturing and refurbishing, i.e., a generic computer.
“The equipment is further configured to use the particular aircraft part in
manufacturing the aircraft or performing maintenance on the aircraft” is
construed as the equipment is configured to select the particular aircraft part
for use in manufacturing the aircraft or performing maintenance on the
aircraft.
The graphical user interface in the final wherein clause of claim 1
(limitation 5) is not recited as being part of the claim structure. It is
introduced in limitation 3.2 which only recites a graphical user interface
somewhere else as the source of request data later received by the parts
manager. In particular, claim 1 does not recite or even imply that the
graphical user interface is part of limitation 1 equipment. Limitation 5
recites the graphical user interface as being in communication with the part
manager and being configured to provide access to the part manager. Both
of these capacities are implied by limitation 3.2 and so add nothing
substantive to the claim. Thus, the recital of a graphical user interface in
limitation 5 is aspirational and not a structural limitation of claim 1. Instead,
limitation 5 is construed as a limitation on the capacity of the part manager
to communicate and therefore provide access with something outside the
scope of the claim, an example of which would be a graphical user interface.
As to the final limitation in method claim 11, “completing
manufacturing of the aircraft or performing maintenance of the aircraft using
the equipment by using the particular aircraft part,” again the Specification
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

6

does not describe completing manufacturing. Appellant tellingly does not
cite support for this limitation in the Brief. App. Br. 5. At best, this is no
more than generic advice to perform a known activity by known methods,
i.e., a disembodied concept unsupported by the originally filed disclosure,
which we construe as such.
STEP 13
Claim 1, as a system 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.
Although claim 1 and its dependent claims are structural claims, the
structural components are (1) equipment configured to manufacture or
maintenance aircraft using a particular aircraft part from a group of aircraft
parts, which encompasses a generic computer to select that part, (2) a
database, and (3) a parts manager that is further recited as a software module
on the generic computer. The software module is in turn recited as
performing method steps, and so the structural claims
are no different from . . . 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 Corp., Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Intl, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). As
a corollary, the claims are not directed to any particular machine.

3 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 FR 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

7

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 that is “sufficient to ensure
that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a
patent upon the [ineligible concept] itself.”
Alice 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citations omitted, alterations in original) (citing
Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, 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 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 at 54. If the claims are directed to a
judicial exception, then finally determining whether the claims provide an
inventive concept, because the additional elements recited in the claims
provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

8

STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that system
claim 1 recites receiving a request for a part and selecting data representing
that part based on warranty data. Both are recited as using a graphic user
interface, which implies display. Selection is rudimentary data analysis.
Thus, claim 1 recites receiving, analyzing, and displaying data. None of the
limitations recite technological implementation details for any of these steps,
but instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 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 1 recites the concept of

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 Am., 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 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

9

managing parts. Specifically, claim 1 recites operations that would
ordinarily take place in advising one to select a part for use in manufacturing
based on warranty data. The advice to select a part for use in manufacturing
based on warranty data involves manufacturing, which is an economic act,
and management, which is an act ordinarily performed in the stream of
commerce. For example, claim 1 recites “manufacture or maintenance
aircraft,” which is an activity that would take place whenever one is
manufacturing in commerce. Similarly, claim 1 recites “receive a request
for a selected aircraft part and select the particular aircraft part,” which are
also characteristics of choosing inventory for use in manufacturing.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to managing parts,
i.e., general administration over inventory, as contrasted with causing
physical movement or alteration of inventory. Final Act. 4, referring to our
prior Decision mailed May 23, 2016, at 8.
The preamble to claim 1 recites that it is an aircraft manufacture or
maintenance system using an aircraft part management system. The steps
performed in claim 1 result in selecting parts absent any technological
mechanism other than a conventional computer for doing so. The structural
components in claim 1 are a generic computer with a database and a
software module. No algorithmic structure for the software module is
recited. Thus, claim 1 is defined by its steps and not its structure.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–3 again recite generic
computer structure. Limitation 3.1 recites generic data reception and
limitations 3.2 and 3.3 recite generic analysis in the form of data selection.
Limitations 4 and 5 recite characteristics implied by the steps, viz. the
equipment has the capacity to be used in manufacturing aircraft (which it
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

10

does by selecting parts), and has the capacity to receive data from a
graphical user interface somewhere (which a generic computer would have).
The limitations thus, recite advice for selecting a part for use in
manufacturing based on warranty data. To advocate selecting a part for use
in manufacturing based on warranty data is conceptual advice for results
desired and not technological operations. To recite generic computer
components does not add to the abstraction of the claims otherwise.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
managing parts. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 is
directed to managing parts. 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 parts for
manufacturing is simply administration of manufacturing, which is a
commercial interaction. The concept of managing parts by selecting a part
for use in manufacturing based on warranty data is one idea for such
selection criteria. The steps recited in claim 1 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. Credit Acceptance Corp. v.
Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (2017) (Selection of parts from
inventory).
Alternately, this is an example of concepts performed in the human
mind as mental processes because the steps of receiving, analyzing, and
displaying data mimic human thought processes of observation, evaluation,
judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the data
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

11

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 1, unlike the claims found non-abstract in prior cases, uses
generic computer technology to perform data reception, analysis, and display
and does not recite an improvement to a particular computer technology.
See, e.g., McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1314–15 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (finding claims not abstract because they “focused
on a specific asserted improvement in computer animation”). As such,
claim 1 is directed to receiving, analyzing, and displaying data, and not a
technological implementation or application of that idea.
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 is directed
to managing parts by selecting a part for use in manufacturing based on
warranty 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 1 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.”

7 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

12

Thus, an invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply
because it involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of
such concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said,
remain eligible for patent protection.
Accordingly, in applying the § 101 exception, we must
distinguish between patents that claim the “ ‘buildin[g]
block[s]’ ” of human ingenuity and those that integrate the
building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted, alterations in original).
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. Step 3.1 is pure data gathering.
Limitations describing the nature of the data do not alter this. Steps 3.2–3.3
recite generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by
any and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice.
All purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing parts by selecting a part for use in manufacturing based on
warranty 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.
Claim 1 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 36 pages of specification spell out
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

13

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 parts by selecting a part for use in
manufacturing based on warranty data under different scenarios. They do
not describe any particular improvement in the manner a computer
functions. Instead, claim 1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more
than an instruction to apply managing parts by selecting a part for use in
manufacturing based on warranty 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 reflect an improvement in the functioning of a
computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, applies
or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for
a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial exception with, or uses
a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture
that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation or reduction of a
particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or uses the judicial
exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that
the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize
the exception.
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
managing parts by advising one to select a part for use in manufacturing

8 The Specification describes server computer, a client computer, or some
other device capable of storing and transmitting program code. Spec. para.
106.
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

14

based on warranty 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 1 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.
[T]he 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 “implemen[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption
concern that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the
ubiquity of computers, wholly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of “additional
featur[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, alterations in original).
“[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.
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

15

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, analyzing, and displaying data amounts to electronic
data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All
of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer
activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec.
Power Grp. v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Also see
In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 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 are used in some unconventional manner nor do any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend they invented any of
these activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic
computer to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated
upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited
to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make
the collection and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v.
InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The structural
components are a generic computer enclosing a database and software,
which is equally generic.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis-display
is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC,
772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting,
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

16

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 1 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 1 is representative. The other independent system claim 22 is
substantially similar at least as regards this analysis. The remaining system
claims merely describe process parameters. We conclude that the system
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to
the practical application of that concept.
Method claim 11 is substantially similar and omits the structural
components. The one limitation that does not have an analog in the system
claims is the final limitation of “completing manufacturing of the aircraft or
performing maintenance of the aircraft using the equipment by using the
particular aircraft part.” As we determine supra in construing this limitation,
however, at best, this is no more than generic advice to perform a known
activity by known methods, i.e., a disembodied concept unsupported by the
originally filed disclosure, which we construe as such. Such advice does not
recite technological implementation details and is not sufficient to convert
the abstract into the non-abstract.
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

17

Nor does the claims’ recitation of “present[ing] [offers] to
potential customers” and “gathering . . . statistics generated
during said testing about how the potential customers
responded to the offers” provide a meaningful limitation on
the abstract idea. These processes are well understood, routine,
conventional data-gathering activities that do not make the
claims patent eligible. . . . Like the claims in Mayo, which
added only the routine steps of administering medication and
measuring metabolite levels for the purposes of determining
optimal dosage, here the addition of steps to test prices and
collect data based on customer reactions does not add any
meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362 (2015).
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 parts by selecting a part for use in
manufacturing based on warranty data, without significantly more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the claimed
invention does not seek to preempt the idea of considering warranties in
selecting parts.” App. Br. 8. “Where a patent’s claims are deemed only to
disclose patent ineligible subject matter under the Mayo [/Alice] framework,
as they are in this case, preemption concerns are fully addressed and made
moot.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015).
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

18

We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the Patent Office
ignores critical words in the claim such as ‘determined by a calculation to
maximize warranty’ for a ‘particular aircraft part’ and to use the particular
part with the longest warranty period (i.e., the maximized warranty) in
manufacturing and maintenance.” App. Br. 8. Calculating a maximum
warranty period for a particular part is a mathematical algorithm, yet another
abstract idea. Using a part with the longest warranty period is conceptual
advice devoid of technological implementation details.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claim as a
whole must be considered. Id. The analysis supra does so.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claimed
invention cannot use a generic computer. Id. at 9. The Specification
supports our determination. See footnote 8 supra.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that “the ‘parts
manager’ solves a problem arising specifically in the realm of computer
networks.” Id. The parts manager selects parts according to the plain
meaning of the claims. This arises in the realm of computer networks only
in the sense that is the context for performing the selection. “The Supreme
Court and this court have repeatedly made clear that merely limiting the
field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological
environment does not render the claims any less abstract.” Affinity Labs of
Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Parts
selection for parts whose technical parameters are already determined, as in
the claims, remains fundamentally an administrative rather than technical
problem. We know the technical parameters are already determined because
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

19

the claim recites the selection is one that “meets the request for the selected
aircraft part.” Claim 1, limitation 3.1.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the claims are
analogous to those in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). App. Br. 9–11. The claims differ from those found patent
eligible in Enfish, where the claims were “specifically directed to a self-
referential table for a computer database.” 822 F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed.
Cir. 2016). The claims thus were “directed to a specific improvement to
the way computers operate” rather than an abstract idea implemented on
a computer. Id. at 1336. Here, by contrast, the claims are not directed
to an improvement in the way computers operate. Though the claims
purport to accelerate the process of parts selection and provide more
accurate warranty selection, our reviewing court has held that speed and
accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general
purpose computer “do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the
claimed subject matter.” Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co.
of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Instead, the claims
are more analogous to those in FairWarning, 839 F.3d 1089, wherein
claims reciting “a few possible rules to analyze audit log data” were found
directed an abstract idea because they asked “the same questions
(though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous
situations detecting fraud have asked for decades.” FairWarning, 839
F.3d at 1094, 1095.
Appeal 2018-003706
Application 13/303,712

20

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–8, 10, 11, 13–20, and 22–25 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more is proper.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–8, 10, 11, 13–20,
22–25
101 Eligibility 1–8, 10, 11, 13–20,
22–25

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