CA, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 18, 2020

2019003395 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 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.
15/083,666 03/29/2016 Erhan Giral 106861-4448 3825
121312 7590 12/18/2020
Foley & Lardner LLP/ Broadcom Corporation
3000 K Street N.W
Suite 600
Washington, DC 20007-5109
EXAMINER
KLICOS, NICHOLAS GEORGE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2142
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/18/2020 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):
cmckenna@foley.com
ipdocketing@foley.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD

Ex parte ERHAN GIRAL, MARK JACOB ADDLEMAN, and
COREY ADAM COHEN

Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666
Technology Center 2100

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, and 15–20.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as CA,
Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
March 29, 2016 (“Spec.”), the Final Rejection mailed August 31, 2018
(“Final Act.”), the Appeal Brief filed November 30, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”),
the Examiner’s Answer mailed January 31, 2019 (“Ans.”), and the Reply
Brief filed March 25, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

2
INVENTION
The present invention relates to “multi-perspective application
structure and performance analysis” that differentiates application
components into component sets based on having values in common for a
first attribute, and determines “[a] first attribute based perspective of the
application . . . the first attribute based perspective compris[ing] a graphical
container for each of the first plurality of sets of components and graphical
connections between the graphical containers corresponding to the
dependencies among the first plurality of sets of components.” Spec. ¶ 1,
Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced
below.
1. A method comprising:
displaying, via a user interface, a graphical depiction of a
dependency graph created from at least one execution of an
application, wherein the graphical depiction depicts a plurality
of components of the application and dependencies among the
plurality of components;
in response to selection of a first attribute of a plurality of
attributes, differentiating the plurality of components into a first
plurality of sets of the plurality of components based, at least in
part, on having values in common for the first attribute;
determining dependencies among the first plurality of
sets of components based, at least in part, on the dependencies
among the plurality of components; and
updating the graphical depiction to a first attribute based
perspective of the dependencies of the application, wherein the
first attribute based perspective comprises a graphical container
for each set of the first plurality of sets of components and
graphical connections between the graphical containers
corresponding to the dependencies among the first plurality of
sets of components and wherein updating the graphical
depiction comprises updating the graphical depiction to
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

3
graphically rearrange the plurality of components to be within
the graphical containers based on the differentiating.
Appeal Br. 23 (Claims App.).

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Wookey US 2011/0258619 A1 Oct. 20, 2011
Basak US 2012/0072887 A1 Mar. 22, 2012
Vigneras et al. US 2014/0068049 A1 Mar. 6, 2014

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, and 15–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 5–6.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11–13, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Basak in view of Vigneras.
Final Act. 7–11.
Claims 5–7 and 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Basak, Vigneras, and Wookey. Final Act. 12–13.

OPINION
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Patent eligibility under § 101 is a question of law that may contain
underlying issues of fact. “We review the [Examiner’s] ultimate conclusion
on patent eligibility de novo.” Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896
F.3d 1335, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (citing Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d
1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); see also SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

4
Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Whether a claim is drawn
to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.”);
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we review the Examiner’s § 101 determinations concerning
patent eligibility under this standard.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to
the concept of intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to
mitigate settlement risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010) (“Claims 1 and 4 in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept
of hedging, or protecting against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

5
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191
(1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267–68 (1853))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
USPTO Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“Guidance”).3 Under
the Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:

3 The Office issued a further memorandum on October 17, 2019 (“October
2019 Memorandum”) clarifying guidance of the January 2019 Memorandum
in response to received public comments. See
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.
pdf. Moreover, “[a]ll USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

6
(1) (see Guidance at 54, Step 2A–Prong 1) any judicial
exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e.,
mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) (see Guidance at 54–55, Step 2A–Prong 2) additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance at 56, Step 2B.

ANALYSIS
At the outset, we determine that the claims are directed to statutory
categories. See Guidance at 53. Claims 1 and 3–8 are directed to methods,
claims 9, 11, and 12 are directed to articles of manufacture, and claims 13
and 15–20 are directed to systems. See Appeal Br. 23–28 (Claims App.).
Thus, the pending claims are directed to recognized statutory categories
of § 101. We next turn to Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Guidance to determine
whether the claims recite a judicial exception. See Guidance at 54.

management, expected to follow the guidance.” Guidance at 51; see also
October 2019 Memorandum at 1.
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

7
Step 2A, Prong 1: “recites a judicial exception”
The Examiner determines that claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, and 15–20 are
not patent eligible as they are directed to a judicial exception without
reciting significantly more. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–6. Specifically, the
Examiner determines that claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, and 15–20 are directed to
a method of mapping dependencies in various applications. This
concept is not meaningfully different than those concepts
identified by the courts to be abstract, including collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis (See Electric Power Group v. Alstom[)].
. . . Moreover, the claimed invention appear[s] to be something
that can be performed by “head and hand” (See Gottschalk v.
Benson), or with “pen and paper” (See CyberSource v. Retail
Decisions). . . . For example, a user could simply draw out these
maps and graphs, to include whatever components may be part
of a project.

Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 5 (“A user could simply draw out these
dependency graphs to include whatever components they desire that may be
part of a project. . . . If something is updated, the user can go back and
update that particular data point in the hand-drawn graph.”).
Appellant argues independent claims 1, 9, and 13 together. Appeal
Br. 7–11; Reply Br. 3, 5. As a result, we select independent claim 1 as the
representative claim and address Appellant’s arguments thereto. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Independent claims 9 and 13 stand or fall with
claim 1. Id.
Appellant argues the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but
instead “recite an improvement to computer technology, in particular
application performance management.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant alleges the
claims do not recite a mental process because
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

8
creating a graphical depiction of a dependency graph resulting
from an execution of an application which displays application
components and dependencies among the components cannot
practically be performed in the human mind, as the dependencies
among components are determined based on at least one
execution of the application.

Reply Br. 4; see also Appeal Br. 7–8. Appellant also argues that likening
Appellant’s claims to the claims in Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A.,
830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), as the Examiner has done, mischaracterizes
and discounts various limitations in Appellant’s claims. Appeal Br. 8–10.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that claim 1 does not recite
an abstract idea, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
claim recites an abstract idea. Final Act. 5; Ans. 4–5.
For Step 2A, Prong 1, of the Guidance, we agree with the Examiner
and find that particular portions of claim 1 recite elements that fall within the
abstract idea grouping of mental processes. See generally Ans. 5
(“Appellant’s claim language can be performed by ‘head and hand’ or with
‘pen and paper’”); Final Act. 5. Specifically, claim 1 sets forth a process
performable in the human mind or with pen and paper, the process collecting
information (providing the claimed “graphical depiction of a dependency
graph created from at least one execution of an application, wherein the
graphical depiction depicts a plurality of components of the application and
dependencies among the plurality of components”), analyzing the
information (the claimed “in response to selection of a first attribute of a
plurality of attributes, differentiating the plurality of components into a first
plurality of sets of the plurality of components based, at least in part, on
having values in common for the first attribute” and “determining
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

9
dependencies among the first plurality of sets of components based, at least
in part, on the dependencies among the plurality of components”), and
providing results of the collection and analysis (the claimed “updating the
graphical depiction to a first attribute based perspective of the dependencies
of the application” with “the first attribute based perspective compris[ing] a
graphical container for each set of the first plurality of sets of components
and graphical connections between the graphical containers corresponding to
the dependencies among the first plurality of sets of components,” the
updating comprising updating the depiction “to graphically rearrange the
plurality of components to be within the graphical containers based on the
differentiating”). See generally Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 5. These steps of claim
1 do not require creating or updating dependency graphs for an application
with “thousands of components across a distributed system,” or monitoring
“permutations from thousands of components at least some of which can
have hundreds of monitored attributes” (as Appellant argues, see Appeal Br.
7 (emphases added)). Rather, claim terms are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretation, as understood by those of ordinary skill in the art
and taking into account whatever enlightenment may be had from the
Specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). “In the
patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable
interpretations . . . limitations are not to be read into the claims from the
specification.” In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
(citations omitted). Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 1
requires (i) analyzing a dependency graph depicting “a plurality of” (which
may include as few as two or three) components of an application and
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

10
dependencies among these components,4 (ii) grouping the components into
“a first plurality of” (which may include as few as two or three) sets based
on one attribute (“a first attribute”), (iii) determining dependencies among
the sets, and (iv) updating a graphical depiction to illustrate a new graph
perspective that includes a graphical container for each set, graphically
rearranged components within their respective containers, and graphical
connections between the containers corresponding to the sets’ dependencies.
See Appeal Br. 23 (claim 1). Although claim 1 recites “displaying, via a
user interface” the graphical depiction, the underlying operations recited in
the claim are acts that could be performed mentally and by pen and paper
(without the use of a computer-controlled interface or other machine), on
existing data that was previously created and made available (e.g., from a
past execution of an application). See generally Ans. 4–5. As the Examiner
explains
A user could simply draw out these dependency graphs to include
whatever components they desire that may be part of a project.
In systems and information engineering, various factors or
components can be listed and drawn with a system interview, as
well as what components belong to which sub-system (or which

4 The claimed “displaying” (of “a graphical depiction of a dependency graph
created from at least one execution of an application, wherein the graphical
depiction depicts a plurality of components of the application and
dependencies among the plurality of components”) does not require
executing the application. Rather, “from at least one execution of an
application” designates retrieval of existing information—which is
preliminary data-gathering and extra-solution activity providing data for the
method step. Thus, the claimed “displaying” step uses existing data,
previously made available/gathered from a past execution of the application.
Data gathering is a classic example of insignificant extra-solution activity.
See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363–64
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (addressing insignificant pre-solution activity).
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

11
ones are shared between multiple sub-systems). This can all be
performed on a whiteboard or other drawing medium, like pen
and paper. More specifically, the broad language of the claims
does not lend itself to an improvement of the GUI [graphical user
interface] itself. The claim language merely determines and
graphs data points. If something is updated, the user can go back
and update that particular data point in the hand-drawn graph.

Ans. 5.
Our reviewing court has concluded that mental processes include
similar concepts of collecting, analyzing, and outputting data. See
Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (the Federal Circuit held “the concept of . . . collecting data,
. . . recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and . . . storing that
recognized data in a memory” ineligible); Electric Power Grp., 830 F.3d at
1353 (merely selecting information, by content or source, for collection,
analysis, and display does nothing significant to differentiate a process from
ordinary mental processes). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1
recites an abstract idea of a mental process.
Having determined that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (a mental
process) identified in the Guidance, we turn to Step 2A, Prong 2, of the
Guidance to determine whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical
application. See Guidance at 54–55.
Step 2A, Prong 2: “does not integrate that exception into a
practical application”

The Examiner asserts “[u]nlike the claims in Enfish, [Appellant’s]
claims . . . in no way offer a specific improvement upon the technology itself
and are merely using a generic user interface to implement a feature that
does not necessarily require any computer technology (e.g. broadly graphing
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

12
data).” Ans. 5 (citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed.
Cir. 2016)). The Examiner also finds Appellant’s “claimed solution is . . .
not necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of GUI[]s or computer technology.”
Id. (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.
2014)). We agree.
Under Revised Step 2A, Prong 2 of the Guidance, we recognize that
claim 1 includes additional elements such as “a user interface” for
“displaying.” The other independent claims (9 and 13) include additional
elements such as “a processor,” “a machine-readable medium,” and “non-
transitory machine-readable storage media.” Furthermore, our review of
Appellant’s Specification finds that the terms “user interface,” “processor,”
“machine-readable medium,” and “non-transitory machine-readable storage
media” are nominal. Appellant’s Specification indicates that the “user
interface,” “processor,” “machine-readable medium,” and “non-transitory
machine-readable storage media” (see Spec. ¶¶ 42, 44, 164–166, 169, 171)
of claims 1, 9, and 13 do not recite specific types of additional elements or
their operations. As a result, these additional elements are not enough to
distinguish the steps of claim 1 (and the operations of claims 9 and 13) from
describing a mental process. See SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n,
601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“In order for the addition of a
machine to impose a meaningful limit on the scope of a claim, it must play a
significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, rather
than function solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be
achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for
performing calculations.”).)
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

13
Appellant argues claim 1 is not directed to a mental process because
creating a graphical depiction of a dependency graph resulting
from an execution of an application which displays application
components and dependencies among the components cannot
practically be performed in the human mind, as the dependencies
among components are determined based on at least one
execution of the application.

Reply Br. 4 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive
because claim 1 does not require executing the application as part of the
displaying step. Claim 1 also does not require an application’s execution to
produce the dependency graph or create the graphical depiction of
application components and dependencies. Claim 1 merely requires
displaying a graphical depiction that “depicts a plurality of components of
the application and dependencies among the plurality of components,” the
graphical depiction being “of a dependency graph created from at least one
execution of an application”—which does not preclude manually generating
(e.g., by pen and paper) the claimed graph/graphical depiction from existing
data previously made available by a past execution of an application. See
generally Ans. 5; Final Act. 5. The recitation “created from at least one
execution of an application” is merely a retrieval of existing, gathered
information, which is preliminary data-gathering and extra-solution activity.
That is, the claimed “displaying” uses existing, previously provided data,
and the recited extra-solution activity and data-gathering does not help
integrate the method into a practical application of the abstract idea. See
OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363–64 (addressing insignificant pre-solution
activity); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

14
make an otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory’” (alterations in original)
(quoting In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840 (Fed. Cir. 1989))); Guidance at 55
(identifying “add[ing] insignificant extra-solution activity to the” abstract
idea as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a
practical application).
Appellant also argues claim 1 recites additional elements that
integrate a judicial exception into “a practical application of application
performance management” because the claim is directed to “determining
and presenting via a GUI multiple perspectives of application component
dependencies” and
[d]etermining and displaying attribute-based perspectives of
dependencies among application components facilitates analysis
of applications and diagnosis of problems which may occur in or
between components, such as during root cause analysis. The
claims are thus directed to improvements in application
performance management by providing a unique method of
visualizing different perspectives of dependencies between
application components for analysis of applications.

Reply Br. 4–5; see also Appeal Br. 7–8.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive because the limitations
recited in claim 1 do not perform “root cause analysis” or “application
performance management,” and do not diagnose “problems which may
occur in or between components” as Appellant argues. See id. The
limitations recited in claim 1 merely produce and display two graphical
depictions—a graphical depiction of a dependency graph of an application’s
components and dependencies, and an updated graphical depiction (“first
attribute based perspective”) of the components rearranged within graphical
containers/boxes (see Spec. Fig. 9). Thus, claim 1 analyzes data to produce
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

15
and display two graphs, however, the claim fails to capture how the claim
would provide “a concrete improvement to computer technology” or
“improvements in application performance management by providing a
unique method of visualizing different perspectives of dependencies
between application components for analysis of applications” (see Appeal
Br. 7 and Reply Br. 4–5). The claim changes a display to show an updated
graphical depiction, but the claim does not specify how the displayed
updated depiction might be used (or for what purpose it might be useful).
The claim also does not specify any characteristics of the claimed “first
attribute,” and provides no technical details for how the claimed “attribute
based perspective” would “dramatically increase the efficiency of
performance management” or “facilitate[] analysis of applications and
diagnosis of problems which may occur in or between components, such as
during root cause analysis.” See Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 4.
We are thus unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments regarding Enfish.
See Appeal Br. 7 (citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335). Enfish’s data storage and
retrieval method and system recite a “self-referential table . . . [for a
computer database] [which] is a specific type of data structure designed to
improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory.” Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1336, 1339. In contrast to Enfish, Appellant’s claim 1 does not
evidence a technological effect or improvement, or a specific improvement
to the way computers store and retrieve data in memory. See Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1336, 1339; Ans. 5. Claim 1’s “first attribute” and “first attribute
based perspective of the dependencies of the application” are broadly
claimed, and do not evidence a particular improvement or a technological
effect produced by updating the graphical depiction based on that attribute.
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

16
Appellant also asserts, analogizing to Core Wireless and Data Engine
Technologies, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea but “to a
specific technique for presenting application component dependencies [that]
improves a user interface for application performance management to allow
visualizations of dependencies from different perspectives.” Appeal Br. 10–
11 (citing Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 880 F.3d
1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018); Data Engine Technologies LLC v. Google LLC, 906
F.3d 999 (2018)); see also Reply Br. 5. We disagree, and distinguish the
Core Wireless and Data Engine Technologies cases from the instant claims.
Claim 1 is not analogous to the claims in Core Wireless and Data
Engine Technologies. The Federal Circuit determined that “[t]he asserted
claims in [Core Wireless] are directed to an improved user interface for
computing devices,” particularly “those with small screens,” by “bringing
together ‘a limited list of common functions and commonly accessed stored
data,’ which can be accessed directly from the main menu.” Core Wireless,
880 F.3d at 1362–63. Core Wireless explains that, “[a]lthough the generic
idea of summarizing information certainly existed prior to the invention,
these claims are directed to a particular manner of summarizing and
presenting information in electronic devices” that “restrains the type of data
that can be displayed in the summary window” and is different from
“conventional user interface methods to display a generic index on a
computer.” Id. More particularly, the claims in Core Wireless require “‘an
application summary that can be reached directly from the menu,’ specifying
a particular manner by which the summary window must be accessed,” the
“summary window list[ing] a limited set of data, ‘each of the data in the list
being selectable to launch the respective application and enable the selected
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

17
data to be seen within the respective application,’” and the summary window
“displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-launched state.”
Id. In Data Engine Technologies, the Federal Circuit determined that claim
12 (of US Patent 5,590,259) is “directed to a specific method for navigating
through three-dimensional electronic spreadsheets,” thereby “implementing
an improvement in electronic spreadsheet functionality.” Data Engine
Technologies, 906 F.3d at 1007–08, 1011. In particular,
[Data Engine’s] claim recites specific steps detailing the method
of navigating through spreadsheet pages within a three-
dimensional spreadsheet environment using notebook tabs. The
claim requires displaying on a screen display a row of
spreadsheet page identifiers along one side of the first
spreadsheet page, with each spreadsheet page identifier being a
notebook tab. The claim requires at least one user-settable
identifying character to label the notebook tab and describes
navigating through the various spreadsheet pages through
selection of the notebook tabs. The claim further requires a
formula that uses the identifying character to operate on
information spread between different spreadsheet pages that are
identified by their tabs. The claimed method does not recite the
idea of navigating through spreadsheet pages using buttons or a
generic method of labeling and organizing spreadsheets. Rather,
the claims require a specific interface and implementation for
navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using
techniques unique to computers.

Id. at 1008–09.
In contrast to Core Wireless and Data Engine Technologies,
Appellant’s claim 1 does not provide an improved user interface for
accessing and displaying data, or a specific interface for navigating data
structures (e.g., spreadsheets) using techniques unique to computers. Rather,
Appellant’s claim 1 uses a generic user interface to display data (a graphical
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

18
depiction of a dependency graph, and an updated graphical depiction of the
graph). Ans. 5–6. Although Appellant argues the claimed “technique for
presenting application component dependencies improves a user interface
for application performance management to allow visualizations of
dependencies from different perspectives” (see Appeal Br. 11), claim 1 does
not evidence an improvement to a display interface, such as, e.g., “a
particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic
devices” that “restrains the type of data that can be displayed” and is
different from “conventional user interface methods.” See Core Wireless,
880 F.3d at 1362–63. Claim 1 recites a generic method of summarizing and
grouping data for display in a dependency graph that is drawn based on
generically claimed “attributes.” Ans. 5–6.
Appellant further asserts claim 1 is patent-eligible because the
claimed “[u]pdating dependency graphs displayed on a GUI to depict
dependencies among sets of components having attribute values in common
provides a specific improvement over prior systems which lack the feature of
displaying attribute-based perspectives of component dependencies.” Reply
Br. 5 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, as it
improperly conflates the test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 with the separate tests for
35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See, e.g., Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial L.L.C.,
818 F.3d 1369, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“under the Mayo/Alice framework, a
claim directed to a newly discovered law of nature (or natural phenomenon
or abstract idea) cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the
inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility.”). With respect to
Appellant’s alleged “improvement over prior systems which lack the feature
of displaying attribute-based perspectives of component dependencies” (see
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

19
Reply Br. 5), we further note the Examiner has identified at least one prior
system that displays attribute-based perspectives of component dependencies
(see Basak, ¶¶ 25, 30, Fig. 2; Ans. 6).
Appellant also argues “patent eligibility of the present claims is
supported by the fact that the claims do not purport to monopolize or
preempt every potential solution to the problem of generating multiple
perspectives and views of dependency graphs depicting dependencies among
application components based on transaction trace data.” Appeal Br. 10.
This argument does not persuade us of Examiner error. Although
preemption may denote patent ineligibility, its absence does not demonstrate
patent eligibility. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d
1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For claims covering a patent-ineligible
concept, preemption concerns “are fully addressed and made moot” by an
analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework. Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v.
Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Accordingly, under Step 2A, Prong 2, we find claim 1, and grouped
independent claims 9 and 13, do not recite “additional elements that
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application,” and are directed
to an abstract idea in the form of a mental process. Guidance at 52, 54; see
also MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h). Therefore, we proceed to Step 2B,
The Inventive Concept.
Alice/Mayo—Step 2 (Inventive Concept)
Step 2B identified in the Revised Guidance

Step 2B of the Alice two-step framework requires us to determine
whether any element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient
to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

20
exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221; see also Guidance at 56. As discussed
above, claim 1 includes additional elements such as a “user interface.” We
agree with the Examiner’s findings that the additional elements of claim 1
(and those of claims 9 and 13, including “a processor,” “a machine-readable
medium,” and “non-transitory machine-readable storage media”), when
considered individually and in an ordered combination, correspond to
nothing more than generic and well-known components used to implement
the abstract idea. See Final Act. 3, 6. In other words, we find that the
additional elements, as claimed, are well-understood, routine, and
conventional and “behave exactly as expected according to their ordinary
use.” See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 615 (Fed.
Cir. 2016); Final Act. 3, 6. Thus, implementing the abstract idea with these
generic and well-known components “fail[s] to transform that abstract idea
into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that claim 1, and grouped claims 9 and 13, do not
provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Therefore, because claim 1, and grouped independent claims 9 and 13
are directed to the abstract idea of a mental process, and do not provide
significantly more than the abstract idea itself, we agree with the Examiner
that claims 1, 9, and 13 are ineligible for patenting. We therefore affirm the
Examiner’s § 101 rejection of claims 1, 9, and 13, and dependent claims 3–
8, 11, 12, and 15–20 not separately argued. Appeal Br. 7; Reply Br. 5.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellant contends Basak does
not teach or suggest “in response to selection of a first attribute of a plurality
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

21
of attributes, differentiating the plurality of components into a first plurality
of sets of the plurality of components based, at least in part, on having
values in common for the first attribute,” as claimed. Appeal Br. 14–17;
Reply Br. 6–8. Particularly, Appellant argues although Basak determines
dependencies between software components or applications, (i) “Basak fails
to disclose creating additional perspectives of the resulting dependency map
based on differentiating components into sets based on attribute values
shared by groups of components,” (ii) “Basak fails to disclose grouping
components into sets based on having values in common for a selected
attribute,” and (iii) Basak does not provide “detail of how this information
[(collected from an application)] may be used to determine the attribute-
based groups of components.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 6–7.
Appellant also argues the combination of Basak and Vigneras does
not teach “updating the graphical depiction to a first attribute based
perspective of the dependencies of the application,” the updating performed
“based on the differentiating” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17–20. In
particular, Appellant argues “[t]he Office has incorrectly reduced the
attribute-based perspectives recited in claim 1 to initially creating a
dependency digraph [in Basak],” which is “inconsistent with claim 1 as a
whole, as claim 1 recites in the first element displaying a graphical depiction
of a dependency graph which has already been created.” Appeal Br. 18. As
such, Appellant argues Basak’s “dependency digraph is not an attribute-
based perspective[, r]ather, it is only a dependency digraph reflective of
collected dependency data.” Id. (emphasis added) (citing Basak ¶¶ 56–57,
66–73). With respect to Vigneras, Appellant argues
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

22
Vigneras discloses updating the dependency chart based on a
particular set of dependency rules. The resulting updated
dependency chart depicts nothing more than dependencies
among components based on the dependency rules. The Office
has read the features of claim 1 which recite updating the
graphical depiction based on differentiating as merely reciting
updating a graph without acknowledging that the components are
rearranged specifically based on the differentiating. The manner
in which the components are rearranged when updating the
graphical depiction is contingent on a previous step of
differentiating the components into sets. Vigneras fails to
disclose anything which could be construed as differentiating
components or rearranging components based on differentiating.

Appeal Br. 19.
We do not agree with Appellant’s arguments. Instead, we agree with
the Examiner’s findings. Final Act. 7–9; Ans. 6–8. At the outset, we note
Appellant mischaracterizes the Examiner’s rejection when Appellant argues
(regarding Basak’s “digraph”) that
[t]he Office has incorrectly reduced the attribute-based
perspectives recited in claim 1 to initially creating a dependency
digraph, which is an interpretation of the claim inconsistent with
claim 1 as a whole, as claim 1 recites in the first element
displaying a graphical depiction of a dependency graph which
has already been created.

See Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added). The Examiner’s rejection relies on
Basak’s graphical representation—that includes Basak’s displayed
dependency maps—for the claimed “attribute based perspective of the
dependencies of the application.” See Final Act. 8–9 (referencing
“[Basak’s] graphical containers for the different vertices that can be used to
connect components of the applications, including various vertices when
creating a graphical representation”) (citing Basak ¶¶ 57, 71–73, Figs. 1–4);
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

23
Ans. 6–7 (“Basak has been cited to teach the dependency maps and the
relations of the components”) (citing Basak ¶¶ 20–28, 30–33). The rejection
also relies on Basak’s displayed dependency maps for the claimed “graphical
depiction of a dependency graph.” See Final Act. 7–8 (referencing
“[Basak’s] dependency map with various levels of detail showing
dependencies between the software components”) (citing Basak ¶¶ 20–21,
24–25, 31–33, Figs. 1–4); Ans. 6–7. Basak dependency maps (see Basak
Figs. 2–4) are created from the digraph data structure referenced by
Appellant in the Appeal Brief (see Appeal Br. 18). In particular, Basak
discloses:
manager 120 may aggregate that data to form a directed graph
(“digraph”) that represents dependencies between the software
components as the software components process the
transactions. For example, the digraph may have vertices that
represent the components and edges that represent the
dependencies between the components. A dependency map may
then be displayed on a display screen such as user interface 122
based on the digraph. The dependency map shows dependencies
as the transactions are processed. . . .
Manager 120 . . . aggregate[s] the dependency data to form
a digraph and display one or more dependency maps based on
the digraph.

Basak ¶¶ 24, 33. We agree with the Examiner that Basak’s displayed
dependency maps teach the claimed “graphical depiction of a dependency
graph” and “attribute based perspective of the dependencies of the
application.” Final Act. 7–9; Ans. 6–7.
We further agree with the Examiner that Basak’s grouping of software
components based on common features and properties identified from
runtime data and dependency data teaches “in response to selection of a first
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

24
attribute of a plurality of attributes, differentiating the plurality of
components into a first plurality of sets of the plurality of components based,
at least in part, on having values in common for the first attribute” as recited
in claim 1. See Final Act. 8 (citing Basak ¶¶ 20–23, 25–28, 30, Fig. 1); Ans.
6–7. For example, Basak groups software components based on a “common
shared goal” (see Basak ¶ 30) and based on common “properties” identified
from runtime data and dependency data (see Basak ¶¶ 33, 38, 57, 59). As
the Examiner finds, Basak’s features and properties common between
software components are commensurate with attributes as claimed and with
the broad description of attributes in Appellant’s Specification. Ans. 6–7;
Final Act. 8. Appellant’s Specification does not provide an explicit and
exclusive definition of the claimed term “attributes,” and merely provides
discussion of non-limiting examples of the term. Ans. 6; see Spec. ¶¶ 40,
113, 124, 142–145, 149–150, 156.5 Thus, we agree with the Examiner that a
“common vertex” (such as web service 109 whose connection is shared
between components of applications A and B in Basak’s Figure 2) evidences
the existence of components having “values in common for [a] first
attribute” as claimed—because the components’ transactions have a shared
element (the common vertex). Ans. 6–7 (citing Basak ¶¶ 20–28, 30–33,

5 Appellant’s Specification explains “[a]ttributes of application components
can include the application to which they are associated. . . . the host on
which the component is executing,” “a type” (“[f]or example, an application
component can be a business transaction, a front end, a back end, a database,
etc.”), “the owner of the application component,” “the operational tier it [the
component] belongs to, technology it was built on, geographic location from
which the component is being executed,” “type of compiler, type of
programming language, type of operating system, etc.” Spec. ¶¶ 40, 113,
156.
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

25
Figs. 1–4); Final Act. 8; see Basak ¶¶ 22, 25, 54 (describing role of web
service/external vertex 109). Appellant opposes the Examiner’s findings,
arguing that
The external vertex [in Basak] is merely a generic term
describing components which may not be of interest to a user and
is not equivalent to the attributes described in the present
Application—in fact, the external vertex itself represents a
component, and therefore cannot logically be construed as
corresponding to an attribute of a component. It is clear upon
comparison of Figure 10 of the present Application and Figure 2
of Basak (emphasis of external vertex added) that the external
vertex exhibits no similarity to the attributes of the present
Application by which components are differentiated for
displaying, such as ownership.

Appeal Br. 16 (emphases added). Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive
because Appellant’s claimed “attributes” are broad. In addition, claim 1
does not recite or require an attribute of “ownership,” and does not preclude
an “external vertex [that] itself represents a component” from the claimed
“plurality of attributes.”
Appellant also argues “Basak merely discloses collecting information
from the application and does not provide any further detail of how this
information may be used to determine the attribute-based groups of
components.” Reply Br. 7–8 (emphasis added). Appellant’s argument
belies Basak’s paragraphs 30, 57, 59, and 60, which describe grouping
components based on various attributes (common shared goal, components’
properties, and components’ transactions being part of the same Business
Service):
[A]nother possibility is to display a dependency map 200 for a
Business Service, which may be composed of several
Transactions interacting with each other to accomplish a
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

26
common shared goal. As one example, BTA1 and BTA2 may be
part of the same Business Service. The summary of a Business
Service may be the union of all vertices and edges included in
BTA1 and BTA2. . . .
[V]ertices may have various properties such as, “type,”
“abstraction level,” and “hierarchy level.” . . .
A Dependency Map Vertex may represent a collection of similar
Physical Vertices. The Physical Vertices may be grouped
together on the basis of vertex ownership and properties (such
as, category, hierarchy level, abstraction level, type and
name). . . .
The user may request that the dependency data be shown from
the perspective of a certain application or transaction.

See Basak ¶¶ 30, 57, 59, 60 (emphases added). In view of Basak’s
teachings, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Basak groups
components based on common features and properties, thereby teaching the
claimed “differentiating the plurality of components” into “sets of the
plurality of components based, at least in part, on having values in common
for the first attribute.”
We further agree with the Examiner that (i) Basak’s graphical
representation, which include Basak’s displayed dependency maps, teaches
the claimed “attribute based perspective of the dependencies of the
application” generated “based on the differentiating,” and (ii) Vigneras
teaches that it was known to dynamically update graphs and rearrange
nodes. See Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 7–8. Appellant argues Basak’s “digraph is
not an attribute-based perspective.” Appeal Br. 18. As discussed supra, the
Examiner finds Basak’s dependency map (illustrated in, e.g., Fig. 2) teaches
the claimed attribute based perspective. Appellant contends Basak’s Figure
2 is markedly different from the ownership-based perspective shown in
Appellant’s Figure 10. Appeal Br. 16–17. However, Appellant’s Figure 9
Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

27
(illustrating an application-based perspective, see Spec. ¶ 124) illustrates an
attribute based perspective similar to that shown in Basak’s Figure 2 (in
which components are grouped based on application association and
relationships to a common transactional vertex 109). See Spec. Fig. 9;
Basak Fig. 2.
Appellant also argues “[a]dding data to a container [in Basak’s
digraph] during initial processing of dependency data is not adding sets of
application components, for which dependencies have already been
determined, to containers for creating an attribute-based perspective,” as
claimed. Appeal Br. 18. We remain unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument
because Basak’s digraph data structure differentiates vertices (software
components) based on vertex properties, with grouped vertices illustrated in
a “dependency map . . . displayed on a display screen such as user interface
122 based on the digraph.” See Basak ¶¶ 24, 57–59, 71–73; Final Act. 8–9.
Basak’s dependency map (attribute based perspective) displays graphical
containers for grouped components (component sets), as required by claim
1. See Basak Fig. 2 (illustrating application components arranged within
graphical containers/boxes); Final Act. 9.
We therefore agree with the Examiner that Basak displays an attribute
based perspective comprising graphical containers and graphical
connections, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 8–9.
Therefore, for all the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of independent claim 1, independent claims
9 and 13 argued for the same reasons as claim 1, and claims 3–8, 11, 12, and
15–20 argued for their dependency. Appeal Br. 17, 20; Reply Br. 8.

Appeal 2019-003395
Application 15/083,666

28
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, and 15–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–9, 11–13, and 15–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11–
13, 15–20
101 1, 3–9, 11–13,
15–20

1, 3, 4, 8,
9, 11–13,
15, 16, 20
103 Basak,
Vigneras
1, 3, 4, 8, 9,
11–13, 15, 16,
20

5–7, 17–19 103 Basak,
Vigneras,
Wookey
5–7, 17–19
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–9, 11–13,
15–20

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