Cantor Index, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2020

14179783 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 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.
14/179,783 02/13/2014 Adam Burgis 03-6146-C3 8525
63710 7590 03/18/2020
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
03/18/2020 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):
lkorovich@cantor.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
phowe@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ADAM BURGIS and LEWIS C. FINDLAY
___________

Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, ERIC B. CHEN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41.
Claims 2, 6, 20, 24, 37, and 38 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to managing trading orders, including
receiving requests to place orders to trade products, the request being made
using accounts having current balances and determining risk values for the
orders. (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter, with bracketing added and with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method, comprising:
[i] generating, by at least one processor, data representing
a plurality of products, wherein each product represents a sports
bet related to one or more sporting events;
[ii] generating, by the at least one processor, a buy queue
and a sell queue to receive respective orders in a memory;
[iii] generating, by the at least one processor, a decision
matrix in the memory;
[iv] broadcasting, by the at least one processor, the data
representing the plurality of products to a plurality of computer
devices;

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 Cantor
Index, LLC. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

3
[v] receiving via a communications network, by the at
least one processor, a request to place a first order for a first
product of the plurality of products;
[vi] responsive to receiving the request, comparing, by
the at least one processor, a risk value for the first order to a
balance in an account associated with the first order;
[vii] utilizing, by the at least one processor, the decision
matrix to determine whether to approve the first order based at
least in part on comparing the risk value for the first order to the
the [sic] balance in the account;
[viii] inserting, by the at least one processor, the first
order in the buy queue or the sell queue;
[ix] broadcasting via the communications network by the
at least one processor an indication of the first order to the
plurality of computer devices;
[x] receiving via the communications network, by the at
least one processor, a request to place a second order for the
first product of the plurality of products;
[xi] inserting, by the at least one processor, the second
order in the buy queue or the sell queue;
[xii] broadcasting by the at least one processor via the
communications network to the plurality of computer devices
an indication of the second order;
[xiii] receiving via the communications network, by the
at least one processor, a request to place a third order for the
first product of the plurality of products;
[xiv] inserting, by the at least one processor, the third
order in the buy queue or the sell queue;
[xv] broadcasting, by the at least one processor, via the
communications network to the plurality of the computer
devices an indication of the third order;
[xvi] matching, by the at least one processor, any of the
first order, the second order, and the third order to each other,
wherein the second order and the third order are on an opposite
side of the first order;
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

4
[xvii] executing, by the at least one processor, at least
partially the first order;
[xviii] executing, by the at least one processor, at least
partially the second order; and
[xix] executing, by the at least one processor, at least
partially the third order.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor
regards as the invention.

OPINION
We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 8–12) that
independent claims 1 and 19 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner determined that “[c]laims 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23, 25–36,
and 39–41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
or an abstract idea) without significantly more.” (Final Act. 9.) In
particular, the Examiner determined the following:
These steps describe the concept of sport betting on sporting
events using orders. This corresponds to concepts identified as
abstract ideas by the courts, such as intermediate settlement in
Alice, risk hedging in Bilski, and gaming in In re Smith . . . .
All of these concepts relate to concepts in the economy and
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

5
commerce and therefore as claimed is a fundamental economic
practice.
(Id. at 10.) Moreover, the Examiner determined that “[t]he claims recite
additional limitations of computer devices, processor, and communications
network, and memory” and “[t]he computer components are recited at a high
level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions
routinely used in computer applications” (id. at 11) with a citation to
pages 14 and 51–52 of Appellant’s Specification (Ans. 10–11). We agree
with the Examiner’s determinations and ultimate conclusion that the claims
are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
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. 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. Id. 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.”).
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

6
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, 67 (1972)). Concepts
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 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, . . . and this principle cannot be circumvented by
attempting to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological
environment.” Id. at 191 (citing Benson and Flook); see also, e.g., id. at 187
(“It is now commonplace that an application of a law of nature or
mathematical formula to a known structure or process may well be deserving
of patent protection.”).
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

7
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 (citation 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.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY
GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019); see also USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, 84 Fed. Reg. 55942 (Oct. 17, 2019).
Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(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) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. 2019)).
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
are not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

8
(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 84 Fed. Reg. 56.

Are the claims at issue directed
to a patent-ineligible concept?
Step One
Claim 1 is a method claim, which falls within the “process” category
of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Likewise, claim 19 is a system claim, which falls within
the “manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, claims 1 and 19
fall within one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter
identified by 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, claims 1 and 19 fall within one of
the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35
U.S.C. §101.
Although claims 1 and 19 fall within the statutory categories, we must
still determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception,
namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 216. Thus, we must
determine whether the claims recite a judicial exception and whether the
exception is integrated into a practical application. See 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–
55. If a claim recites a judicial exception without integrating the judicial
exception into a practical application, the claim is directed to a judicial
exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test. See id.

Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites the following limitations: “[i] generating
. . . data representing a plurality of products, wherein each product
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

9
represents a sports bet related to one or more sporting events,” “[ii]
generating. . . a buy queue and a sell queue to receive respective orders,”
“[iv] broadcasting . . . the data representing the plurality of products” “[v]
receiving . . . a request to place a first order for a first product of the plurality
of products,” “[viii] inserting . . . the first order in the buy queue or the sell
queue,” “[ix] broadcasting . . . an indication of the first order,” “[x] receiving
. . . a request to place a second order for the first product of the plurality of
products,” “[xi] inserting . . . the second order in the buy queue or the sell
queue,” “[xii] broadcasting . . . an indication of the second order,” “[xiii]
receiving . . . a request to place a third order for the first product of the
plurality of products,” “[xiv] inserting . . . the third order in the buy queue or
the sell queue,” “[xv] broadcasting . . . an indication of the third order,”
“[xvi] matching . . . any of the first order, the second order, and the third
order to each other, wherein the second order and the third order are on an
opposite side of the first order,” “[xvii] executing . . . at least partially the
first order,” “[xviii] executing . . . at least partially the second order,” and
“[xix] executing . . . at least partially the third order.” Such limitations,
given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite a patent-ineligible
abstract idea of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic
practice). See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (a “fundamental economic
practice” is an abstract idea); see also In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818 (claims
“directed to rules for conducting a wagering game, compare to other
‘fundamental economic practice[s]’ found abstract by the Supreme Court”).
For example, such limitations of claim 1 implement the fundamental
economic practice of bookmaking offered in casinos that operate a
sportsbook (or a bookmaker). In particular, bookmaking is the gambling
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

10
practice of determining odds, receiving bets from sports bettors, and paying
off bets on the outcome of sporting events. Moreover, one goal of the
bookmaker is maintain a balanced book by adjusting the odds such that
bettors are competing against one another.
In addition, claim 1 recites the following limitations: “[iii] generating
. . . a decision matrix,” “[vi] responsive to receiving the request, comparing,
. . . a risk value for the first order to a balance in an account associated with
the first order,” and “[vii] utilizing . . . the decision matrix to determine
whether to approve the first order based at least in part on comparing the risk
value for the first order to the . . . balance in the account.” Such limitations
also recites a patent-ineligible abstract idea of organizing human activity
(e.g., fundamental economic practice). See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20.
For example, such limitations of claim 1 are a fundamental economic
practice of conducting a credit inquiry for individual bettors. For example,
the “Background of the Invention” section, Appellant’s Specification
acknowledges the following:
To establish an account with an online gambling service,
a user typically completes an account application, which must
be approved by the online gambling service. For a deposit
account, the user typically completes an online account
application and funds the account through a credit card
transaction with the online gambling service or by physically
mailing a check, cash, or similar payment to the online
gambling service. For a credit account, the user may be
required to mail particular items, such as a credit card or bank
statement for example, to the online gambling service in order
for the gambling service to determine whether to approve the
account application.
(Spec. 2:10–18 (emphasis added).)
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

11
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Claim 19 recites
limitations similar to those discussed with respect to claim 1. Thus, claim 19
also recites a judicial exception.

Step 2A, Prong Two
Because claims 1 and 19 recite a judicial exception, we next
determine if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations: “[i] generating, by at least
one processor, data representing a plurality of products,” “[ii] generating, by
the at least one processor, a buy queue and a sell queue to receive respective
orders in a memory,” “[iii] generating, by the at least one processor, a
decision matrix in the memory,” “[iv] broadcasting, by the at least one
processor, the data representing the plurality of products to a plurality of
computer devices,” “[v] receiving via a communications network, by the at
least one processor, a request to place a first order for a first product of the
plurality of products,” “[vi] responsive to receiving the request, comparing,
by the at least one processor, a risk value for the first order to a balance in
an account associated with the first order,” “[vii] utilizing, by the at least one
processor, the decision matrix to determine whether to approve the first
order,” “[viii] inserting, by the at least one processor, the first order in the
buy queue or the sell queue,” “[ix] broadcasting via the communications
network by the at least one processor an indication of the first order to the
plurality of computer devices,” “[x] receiving via the communications
network, by the at least one processor, a request to place a second order for
the first product of the plurality of products,” “[xi] inserting, by the at least
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

12
one processor, the second order in the buy queue or the sell queue,” “[xii]
broadcasting by the at least one processor via the communications network
to the plurality of computer devices an indication of the second order,”
“[xiii] receiving via the communications network, by the at least one
processor, a request to place a third order for the first product of the plurality
of products,” “[xiv] inserting, by the at least one processor, the third order in
the buy queue or the sell queue,” “[xvii] executing, by the at least one
processor, at least partially the first order,” “[xviii] executing, by the at least
one processor, at least partially the second order,” and “[xix] executing, by
the at least one processor, at least partially the third order” (emphases
added).
The recited additional elements, including “processor,” “memory,”
“computer devices,” and “communications network” are merely a tools for
performing the recited abstract idea. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d
1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he claims are directed not to an
improvement in cellular telephones but simply to the use of cellular
telephones as tools in the aid of a process focused on an abstract idea.”).
Appellant argues “[t]he Examiner fails to identify the claimed concept
as set forth or described in the claims,” but “[i]nstead, the Final Action
oversimplifies the claims by looking at them generally without any claim
analysis about specific requirements recited in the claims.” (Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis omitted).) Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner has
identified the appropriate judicial exception as “certain methods of
organizing human activity,” in particular, fundamental economic practices,
and the Examiner has sufficiently explained how the claimed concepts of
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

13
independent claim 1 are similar to appropriate Supreme Court decision (i.e.,
Alice).
Appellant further argues that similar to McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016), “the instant claims do
recite a ‘set of rules . . . that improve computer related technology by
allowing the computer to perform a function not previously performable by a
computer’” and “[a]n improvement to the operation of the computer per se is
not required.” (Appeal Br. 10 (emphases omitted).) In particular, Appellant
argues the following:
The specification describes that each approved trading
order 152A and/or 152B is placed in a respective queue 144 and
that buy orders may be matched to sell orders. The
specification also describes that the decision matrix may
determine whether to approve the first order based at least in
part on comparing the risk value for the first order to the
balance in the account. Thus, not only do the claimed
operations recite rules that allow the computer to perform a new
function, but also one of ordinary skill would appreciate that the
claimed features reduce the number of transactions over the
network.
(Id. at 11 (emphases omitted).) However, Appellant has not adequately
explained why the claim “purport[s] to improve the functioning of the
computer itself” or “any other technology or technical field.” Alice, 573
U.S. at 225. In particular, Appellant has not explained how “buy orders may
be matched to sell orders” and “approve the first order based at least in part
on comparing the risk value” improves the function of a computer or other
technology.
Accordingly, claim 1 does not recite additional elements that integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 19 recites similar
additional limitations.
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

14
Is there something else in the claims
that ensures that they are directed to significantly
more than a patent ineligible concept?
Step 2B
Because claims 1 and 19 are directed to a judicial exception, we next
determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or
combination of elements, that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed
to significantly more than a judicial exception.
Claim 1 is a method claim, which includes the additional elements of
a “processor,” a “memory,” “computer devices,” and a “communications
network.” System claim 18 recites similar additional elements.
With respect to the claimed additional elements, Appellant’s
Specification discloses the following:
According to another embodiment, a system for
managing orders is provided. The system [10] includes a
memory and a processor. The memory is operable to store an
account. The processor is operable to receive a request to place
a first order to trade a first product, the request being made
using the account. . . . The processor is further operable to
determine a risk value for the first order based at least in part on
the first product. The processor is operable to determine
whether to approve the first order based at least in part on the
risk value determined for the first order and one or more of the
current balances for the account, and if the first order is
approved, to place the first order.
(Spec. 3:10–18.)
FIGURES 1A and 1B illustrate one embodiment of a
system 10 that facilitates establishing accounts used for
performing any suitable financial transaction. System 10
includes a communications network 100, one or more clients
104, one or more credit verification entities 106, and a trading
platform 20. Trading platform 20 includes one or more servers
108, one or more operator terminals 110, a communications
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

15
network 112 and a trading engine 114. Other architectures and
components of system 10, including various architectures and
components of trading platform 20, may be used without
departing from the scope of this disclosure.
(Spec. 9:3–10 (emphasis added).)
Servers 108 are generally operable to provide an
interface between clients 104 and trading platform 20. One or
more servers 108 may be web application servers or processors
operable to allow users of clients 104 to participate in trading
platform 20 via the Internet using a standard user interface
language such as, for example, the HyperText Markup
Language (HTML). One or more servers 108 may be separate
from or integral with trading engine 114. In addition, in some
embodiments, one or more servers 108 may be physically
distributed such that each server 108, or multiple instances of
each server 108, may be located in a different physical location
geographically remote from each other and/or from trading
engine 114. In other embodiments, one or more servers 108
may be combined and/or integral to each other. One or more
servers 108 may be implemented using a general purpose
personal computer (PC), a Macintosh, a workstation, a UNIX-
based computer, a server computer, or any other suitable
processing device.
(Spec. 14:16–28 (emphasis added).)
Trading engine 114 may comprise a central processing
unit (CPU) associated with an operating system that executes
instructions and manipulates information in accordance with
the operation of trading platform 20. The CPU of trading
engine 114 maintains and executes instructions to implement
the various features and functionalities associated with core
servers 120 and database server 122, such as the functionalities
provided by the various function modules 126 described above.
Although the various components of trading engine 114 are
illustrated as separate servers and modules, it should be
understood that any suitable number and combination of
servers, modules may, or processors be used to perform the
various features and functionality of trading engine 114.
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

16
(Spec. 51:28 to 52:6 (emphasis added).)
Clients 104 may comprise computer systems that include
appropriate input devices, output devices, mass storage media,
processors, memory, or other components for receiving,
processing, storing, and/or communicating information with
other components of system 10. As used in this document, the
term “computer” is intended to encompass a personal computer,
workstation, network computer, wireless data port, wireless
telephone, personal digital assistant (PDA), cellular telephone,
one or more processors within these or other devices, or any
other suitable processing device. It will be understood that any
number of clients 104 may be coupled to communications
network 100. Clients 104 are generally operated by users to
trade products, such as betting products 150, for example, using
trading platform 20.
(Spec. 10:12–22.)
The generalized functional terms by which the additional elements are
described reasonably indicate that Appellant’s Specification discloses: (i) a
conventional “processor” (e.g., central processing unit for trading engine
114); (ii) conventional “memory” (e.g., memory for system 10); (iii)
conventional “computer devices” (e.g., clients 104 or servers 108); and (iv)
conventional “communications network” (e.g., communications network
100).
Moreover, Figures 1A of Appellant’s Specification illustrates system
10, which includes communications network 100, clients 104, and trading
platform 20. Figure 1B further illustrates that trading platform 20 includes
servers 108, operator terminals 110, communications network 112 and
trading engine 114. Accordingly, Figures 1A and 1B illustrate that the CPU
of trading engine 114, the memory for system 10, clients 104, and
communications network 100 function cooperatively as an ordered
combination.
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

17
Appellant argues “the lack of prior art rejections in the Final Action
indicates that the claims recite a function that a computer could not
previously perform.” (Appeal Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).) However,
Appellant improperly conflates the requirements for eligible subject matter
with the independent requirements of novelty and non-obviousness. “The
‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is
of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls
within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Diehr,
450 U.S. at 188–89.
Appellant also argues that the “analysis of the Final Action fails to
meet the [Berkenheimer] guidelines.” (Appeal Br. 12.) As articulated by the
Federal Circuit, “[w]hether something is well-understood, routine, and
conventional to a skilled artisan at the time of the patent is a factual
determination.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2018). Moreover, such factual determination can be based upon disclosures
in the Specification. Id. (“The improvements in the specification, to the
extent they are captured in the claims, create a factual dispute regarding
whether the invention describes well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities, so we must analyze the asserted claims and determine whether
they capture these improvements (citations omitted).”). Contrary to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner cited to pages 14 and 51–52 of
Appellant’s Specification as evidence that the claimed additional elements
are “well-understood, routine, and conventional,” pursuant to Berkheimer.
(Ans. 9–10.)
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

18
Thus, claims 1 and 19 do no more than require generic, purely
conventional computer elements, as an ordered combination, performing
generic computer functions, rather than improve computer capabilities.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that claims 1 and 19 are directed
towards patent-ineligible subject matter.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claims 3–5, 7–18, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41 depend
from claims 1 and 19, and Appellant has not presented any additional
substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we sustain
the rejection of claims 3–5, 7–18, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101, for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claims 1
and 19.

§ 112(b) Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Br. 13) that the
limitation “generating, by at least one processor, data representing a plurality
of products,” as recited in independent claim 1 is not indefinite under 35
U.S.C. § 112(b).
The Examiner found that claim 1 recites “‘generating . . . data
representing . . . products . . .’ where it is indefinite as to the purpose of the
generated data as nothing is done with the ‘data’ in the claim.” (Final
Act. 16.) We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Independent claim 1 recites “[i] generating, by at least one processor,
data representing a plurality of products, wherein each product represents a
sports bet related to one or more sporting events” (emphasis added).
Claim 1 further recites “[iv] broadcasting, by the at least one processor, the
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

19
data representing the plurality of products to a plurality of computer
devices” and “receiving via a communications network . . . a request to place
a first order for a first product of the plurality of products” (emphases
added). In other words, claim 1 recites that the “data representing a plurality
of products . . . represents a sports bet” is broadcasted “to a plurality of
computer devices” and orders are placed for such “plurality of products.”
Thus, in the context of the entire claim, the “data” represents sports bets,
which are broadcasted to computer devices such that orders are placed for
such sports bets.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “the
next operation recited in the claims is ‘receiving via a communications
network, by the at least one processor, a request to place a first order for a
first product of the plurality of products’” and “[o]ne of ordinary skill would
understand that the broadcasted data regarding the plurality of products is
received by some remote computer and the remote computer subsequently
sends a first order for a product described in the broadcast.” (Appeal Br. 13
(emphasis omitted).)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the limitation
“generating, by at least one processor, data representing a plurality of
products” is indefinite.
We are also persuaded by Appellant’s arguments (Appeal Br. 13) that
the limitations “broadcasting, by the at least one processor, the data
representing the plurality of products to a plurality of computer devices” and
“broadcasting via the communications network by the at least one processor
an indication of the first order to the plurality of computer devices,” as
recited in independent claim 1, are not indefinite under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b).
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

20
The Examiner found that “[c]laim 1 broadcasts to a plurality of
computer devices data and an indication of first, second, and third order
indications where it is indefinite as to broadcasting” and “[n]othing is done
with the broadcasted data or order indicators.” (Final Act. 16.) We do not
agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Independent claim 1 recites: “[i] generating . . . data representing a
plurality of products, wherein each product represents a sports bet related to
one or more sporting events,” “[v] receiving via a communications network,
. . . a request to place a first order for a first product of the plurality of
products,” and “[viii] inserting . . . the first order in the buy queue or the sell
queue” (emphases added). Claim 1 further recites “[ix] broadcasting via the
communications network . . . an indication of the first order to the plurality
of computer devices,” “[xvi] matching, by the at least one processor, any of
the first order, the second order, and the third order to each other, wherein
the second order and the third order are on an opposite side of the first
order,” and “[xvii] executing, by the at least one processor, at least partially
the first order” (emphases added).
In other words, claim 1 recites receiving a “first order” for “data
representing a plurality of products . . . represents a sports bet,” which is
inserted into a buying or selling queue and broadcasted “to a plurality of
computer devices,” such that the “first order” is matched on the opposite site
of other orders and executed. Claim 1 recites similar limitations for the
“second order” and “third order.”
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that “the
claims recite an operation that broadcasts a plurality of products and another
operation that receives a first order for one of those products” and “this
Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

21
implies that some remote device received the broadcast of products in order
for the claimed processor to later receive a first order for one of those
products.” (Appeal Br. 13.)
Thus, we do not agree with the Examiner that the limitations
“broadcasting, by the at least one processor, the data representing the
plurality of products to a plurality of computer devices” and “broadcasting
via the communications network by the at least one processor an indication
of the first order to the plurality of computer devices” are indefinite.
Last, the Examiner found that the limitations “matching . . . any of the
first order, the second order, and the third order to each other, wherein the
second order and the third order are on an opposite side of the first order”
and “executing, by the at least one processor, at least partially the first order
. . . at least partially the second order; and . . . at least partially the third
order” as recited in independent claim 1 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112(b). (Final Act. 17.) Independent claim 19 recites similar limitations.
However, Appellant does not present any arguments with respect to the
rejection of claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on these
recitations. Thus, any such arguments are deemed to be waived.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 1 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 3–5, 7–18, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41
depend from claims 1 and 19, and Appellant has not presented any
additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims. Therefore, we
sustain the rejection of claims 3–5, 7–18, 21–23, 25–36, and 39–41 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b), for the same reasons discussed with respect to
independent claims 1 and 19.

Appeal 2019-001932
Application 14/179,783

22
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23, 25–36,
and 39–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23, 25–36,
and 39–41 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is affirmed.

DECISION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23,
25–36, 39–41
§ 101 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23,
25–36, 39–41

1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23,
25–36, 39–41
§ 112(b) 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23,
25–36, 39–41

Overall Outcome 1, 3–5, 7–19, 21–23,
25–36, 39–41

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

AFFIRMED