Charles F. Thell et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 2, 2019

13468326 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 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.
13/468,326 05/10/2012 Charles F. Thell TRCP.P0042USC1/1000223283 8869
29053 7590 08/02/2019
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 ROSS AVENUE
SUITE 3600
DALLAS, TX 75201-7932
EXAMINER
STERRETT, JONATHAN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2019 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):
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHARLES F. THELL, WILLIAM C. WHITE, and
CINDY LARSON
____________________

Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,3261
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 24–37.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ invention is a system and method for identifying excellent
performance of individuals within a profession. Candidates are identified by
creating a candidate pool from independent research and a peer nomination

1 Appellants state that the real party in interest is Thomson Reuters Global
Resources. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–23 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
2
process. Identified candidates then obtain a score according to an
independent research and objective evaluation process; peer evaluators
contribute to this score by evaluating top-scoring candidates. Candidates
with scores in a top percentage of the candidates are recognized as
demonstrating excellent performance. Abstract.
Claim 24 is reproduced below:
24. A data management tool for use in detecting data
associated with a level of performance by individuals of a
plurality of individuals within a profession group, the
data management tool comprising:
at least one processor in which the data management tool
executes; a database for storing data related to the plurality of
individuals;
an independent research component provided by the data
management tool, the independent research component
configured to identify the data related to respective
individuals of the plurality of individuals based on electronic
information sources associated with each individual of the
plurality of individuals, the information sources determined
based on the profession group, wherein the data related to the
plurality of individuals in the database is divided into
subgroups;
a scoring view of a graphical user interface provided by
the data management tool for calculating a total point scale
value for each individual of the plurality of individuals, the
scoring view comprising:
at least a listing of objective criteria available for
correlating the objective criteria to a standardized scoring
system, wherein correlating the objective criteria assigns a point
scale to each objective criterion of the objective criteria; and
an interface for selecting and applying the objective
criteria to the data related to the plurality of individuals,
identified by the independent research component, in the
database to determine a total point scale value for each
individual of the plurality of individuals;
a survey component provided by the data management
tool, the survey component configured to:
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
3
transmit, based on the subgroups, a survey to at least one
peer of an individual of the plurality of individuals when the
total point scale value of the individual calculated by
the scoring view meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold, to
solicit a performance value for the individual;
receive the performance value for the individual from the
at least one peer; and
apply, to the data related to the individual in the database,
a weighted combination based on the total point scale value and
the received performance value to generate a total performance
value for the individual; and
a selection component provided by the data management
tool, the selection component configured to identify data in the
database as associated with the level of performance when
the data represents an individual of the plurality of individuals
with a total performance value generated by the survey
component exceeding a pre-established threshold.

Claims 24–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter.
Claims 24 and 37 stand rejected on the ground of non-statutory
obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–13
of U.S. Patent No. 8,412,564.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed Nov. 21, 2017), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Apr.
16, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Feb. 16, 2018) for
their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Is the claimed invention directed to a judicial exception?
2. Is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application?
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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. 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.”).
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 determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical
processes, such as “molding rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 192 (1981)); “tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth,
vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores” (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
5
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 at 176; see also id. at 192 (“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. (citing Benson and Flook); see, 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.”).
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.
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
6
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”). 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
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)).
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
(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 Memorandum.
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
7
ANALYSIS
SECTION 101 REJECTION
With regard to subject matter eligibility, Appellants make a unitary
argument directed to all pending claims. App. Br. 11–20. Accordingly, we
select independent claim 24 as representative of the rejected claims.
Claim 24 recites the following limitations:
(a) at least one processor, in which a data management
tool for use in detecting data associated with a level of
performance by individuals within a profession group executes;
(b) a database for storing data related to those
individuals;
(c) an independent research component that is configured
to identify data related to respective individuals, based on
electronic information sources that are determined based on the
profession group;
(d) a graphical user interface, including a scoring view,
for calculating a total point scale for each individual, the
scoring view comprising:
(1) a listing of objective criteria having a
standardized scoring system;
(2) an interface for selecting and applying the
objective criteria to the data regarding the individuals, in order
to determine a total point scale value for each individual;
(e) a survey component configured to transmit a survey
to at least one peer of an individual, when the total point scale
of that individual meets or exceeds a predetermined threshold;
receive the performance value for that individual from that
peer; and apply to that individual’s data a weighted
combination based on the total point scale value and the
performance value received via the survey, to generate a total
performance value for the individual; and
(f) a selection component that identifies data as
associated with the level of performance, when the total
performance value exceeds a predetermined threshold.
We regard the claimed limitations of identifying data concerning
individuals in a profession, determining a point score for each individual
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
8
based on a listing of objective criteria, soliciting a performance value from
an individual’s peer and combining that performance value with the point
score to generate a total performance value, and selecting individuals whose
total performance value exceeds a threshold, to constitute a mental process
classified as an abstract idea under the Memorandum. Assigning points to
an individual based on objective criteria, combining those points with a
performance value derived from a survey filled out by another person, and
selecting individuals with a total performance value above a threshold
constitute concepts that could be performed in the human mind. If a claim,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
in the mind.3

3 See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[W]ith the exception of generic computer implemented
steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from
being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”); Mortg.
Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d. 1314, 1324 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for “anonymous
loan shopping” was an abstract idea because it could be “performed by
humans without a computer”); Versata Dev. Grp. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d
1306, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Courts have examined claims that required the
use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible
invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind.”);
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654
F.3d 1366, 1375, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the incidental use of
“computer” or “computer readable medium” does not make a claim
otherwise directed to process that “can be performed in the human mind, or
by a human using a pen and paper” patent eligible); id. at 1376
distinguishing Research Corp. Techs. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859
(Fed. Cir. 2010), and SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319
(Fed. Cir. 2010), as directed to inventions that “could not, as a practical
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
9
Further, we regard the claim limitations concerning calculating a total
point scale value by applying objective criteria to individual data, and
performing a weighted combination of the total point scale value and the
received performance value to generate a total performance value for an
individual, as reciting a mathematical concept, specifically mathematical
calculations.4

matter, be performed entirely in a human’s mind”). Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71
(“‘[M]ental processes[ ] and abstract intellectual concepts are not
patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’”
(quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67)); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589 (same); Benson,
409 U.S. at 67, 65 (noting that the claimed “conversion of [binary-coded
decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally,” i.e., “as a
person would do it by head and hand.”); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to the
mental process of “translating a functional description of a logic circuit into
a hardware component description of the logic circuit” are directed to an
abstract idea, because the claims “read on an individual performing the
claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper”); In re BRCA1 & BRCA2-
Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litig., 774 F.3d 755, 763 (Fed. Cir.
2014) (concluding that concept of “comparing BRCA sequences and
determining the existence of alterations” is an “abstract mental process”); In
re Brown, 645 F. App’x. 1014, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (non-precedential)
(claim limitations “encompass the mere idea of applying
different known hair styles to balance one’s head. Identifying head shape
and applying hair designs accordingly is an abstract idea capable, as the
Board notes, of being performed entirely in one’s mind”).
4 See, e.g., Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of
hedging . . . reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an unpatentable
abstract idea[.]”); Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981) (“A
mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection of our patent
laws’’) (citing Benson, 409 U.S. 63); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594
(1978) (“ [T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a
patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.”);
Benson, 409 U.S. at 71–72 (concluding that permitting a patent on the
claimed invention ‘‘would wholly pre-empt the mathematical formula and in
practical effect would be a patent on the algorithm itself’’); Mackay Radio &
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
10
Accordingly, we conclude that the claims recite a mental process, one
of the categories of abstract ideas recognized in the Memorandum. 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. We further conclude that the claims also recite calculations,
which constitute one of the mathematical concepts identified in the
Memorandum. Id. We thus conclude that the claims recite an abstract idea.
Appellants argue that the arrangement of features of the present
claims does not represent a previously known process; recite a unique,
previously unknown process; and automate the identification, scoring, and
threshold comparison steps for identifying top individuals in their field by
creating a technological environment that allows such automation based on
an arrangement of rules and steps that was previously unknown. App. Br. 7.
Appellants suggest that the claims address a specific problem in
conventional industry practice by providing a distinct technical solution.
App. Br. 8.
Like the Examiner, we are not persuaded that such a “technical
solution” is presented. Ans. 8. Appellants purport to solve the problems in
the art concerning data analysis for determining excellent performers.

Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939) (“ [A]
scientific truth, or the mathematical expression of it, is not patentable
invention[.]”); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (holding that claims to a “series of mathematical
calculations based on selected information” are directed to abstract ideas);
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2014) holding that claims to a “process of organizing information
through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea);
Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687 F.3d
1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (identifying the concept of “managing a stable
value protected life insurance policy by performing calculations and
manipulating the results” as an abstract idea).

Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
11
Appellants complain that data is not always current and up-to-date; that data
may be biased and subjective; and that the scoring process may not be based
on an objectively defined set of criteria. App. Br. 7–8; Spec. ¶¶ 8, 9.
Appellants purport to solve these problems by providing a computer-based
data management tool “that enables a computer with capabilities for
identifying relevant data [and] applying well-defined objective criteria to the
data.” App. Br. 8. But Appellants’ solutions – identifying relevant data,
providing objective criteria, and defining criteria well – are improvements to
the underlying abstract idea, the mental process of evaluating professionals,
by using the “right” criteria on the “right” raw data. Appellants have not
disclosed an improvement to the existing technological process such as that
found in McRO. See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1310.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the claimed invention is
analogous to the invention in Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG
Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appellants argue that
Core Wireless Licensing stands for the proposition that a claim is patent-
eligible when it presents a solution, implemented in a particular manner, that
“improves the function of the computer system, or that improves the
utilization of the computer system’s functionality.” Reply Br. 2. We do not
agree that the holding in Core Wireless Licensing is nearly as expansive as
Appellants argue. The court in Core Wireless Licensing founded its
conclusion of patent eligibility on the claimed invention’s “improved user
interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens.” Core
Wireless Licensing, 880 F.3d at 1360. The disclosed invention improved the
“efficiency of using the wireless device by bringing together ‘a limited list
of common functions and commonly accessed stored data,’ which can be
accessed directly from the main menu . . . allow[ing] the user to see the most
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
12
relevant data or functions ‘without actually opening the application up,’”
thus speeding the user’s navigation through various views and windows. Id.
at 1361. The court concluded that the claimed invention thus demonstrated a
particular improvement in the computer’s functionality – “the claims are
directed to an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly
those with small screens” – and not merely “improved utilization of the
computer system’s functionality,” as Appellants characterize the holding.
Reply Br. 2.
Appellants’ reference to Trading Technologies Int’l, Inc. V. CQG,
Inc., 675 Fed. Appx. 1001 (Fed. Cir. 2017)(nonprecedential) is similarly
unavailing. Reply Br. 4. The court in Trading Technologies, similar to
Core Wireless Licensing, found that the claimed subject matter was
“directed to a specific improvement to the way computers operate,” to wit,
“a specific, structured graphical user interface paired with a prescribed
functionality directly related to the graphical user interface’s structure.” Id.
at 1003. Appellants admit that Trading Technologies concerned “a
particular GUI structure paired with particular functionality,” rather than
simply an improvement in the utilization of a computer system, as
Appellants argue initially. Reply Br. 2, 4.
We are also not convinced by Appellants’ argument that the claimed
invention demonstrates a particular improvement in a computer’s
functionality. Reply Br. 6. As stated supra, the “improvements” disclosed
and claimed by Appellants amount to improvements in the underlying
abstract idea of identifying outstanding professionals within a profession
group, rather than any technological improvements. We conclude that the
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
13
claimed invention is directed to the mere adaptation of an abstract idea to a
computerized environment.
INTEGRATED INTO A PRACTICAL APPLICATION
We next evaluate whether the claims integrate the identified abstract
idea of identifying outstanding professionals in a field through ratings, and
mathematical calculation of said ratings, into a practical application. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. We consider whether there are any
additional elements beyond the abstract ideas that, individually or in
combination, “integrate the [abstract ideas] into a practical application, using
one or more of the considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Id. at 54–55.
The Examiner finds that “the claim does not amount to significantly
more than the abstract idea itself.” Final Act. 6. “[W]hile the claims recite
computer systems to process the data to perform the datamining and
analysis, this is merely a nominal and routine use of a computing system to
process data and therefore does not provide ‘something more’ to make the
claims patent eligible.” Final Act. 7.
Appellants argue that “the present claims provide features that create a
technological environment that addresses the foregoing problems using a
‘more dynamic and efficient’ technical approach than conventional
implementations, as in Bascom.” App. Br. 11. Appellants contend that “the
features of claim 24 provide specific technical implementations of rules for
controlling the flow of data within the system, using specific components, to
ensure the integrity of the processed data.”
Appellants argued “specific implementation” includes a claimed data
management tool, processor, database, independent research component,
graphical user interface, survey component, and selection component.
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
14
Appellants’ Specification does not set forth technical details concerning why
or how these components are not well-understood, routine, or conventional.
See Ans. 8–9.
The claimed “data management tool” is not described in the
Specification. The claimed “research component” is not described in the
Specification. The “scoring section 22” of graphical user interface is
mentioned only in passing, as being useful to “enable scoring of
characteristics of the individual.” The “scoring data area 22” is described as
containing boxes having editable fields used to record the research scores.
Spec. ¶¶ 43–46. We determine that the disclosed scoring view forms a part
of the claimed mental process that is merely adapted to use on a computer.
The graphical user interface is disclosed as being usable “for assisting with
independent research and data collection in accordance with the present
invention.” The interface “is divided in several section, each section
including a number of fields which contain information and information
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
15
inputs for a selected practicing professional.” Spec. ¶ 42; Fig. 2.

Figure 2 is an illustration of a graphic user interface utilized within a
processing configuration in accordance with one embodiment of the
invention. Spec. ¶ 20.
As disclosed and illustrated, the user interface is a conventional
interface for data entry, analogous to a paper form that would be used with a
mental process. We determine that Appellants’ user interface is a
conventional tool for data gathering (i.e., insignificant extra-solution
activity).
Appellants disclose performing a peer survey of professionals and
how to choose peers for such a survey. Spec. ¶¶ 28–31. Appellants’
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
16
disclosure does not express any aspects in which the peer survey is not well-
understood, routine, and conventional.
Appellants argue, without supplying evidence, that claim 24 as a
whole “amounts to significantly more than merely automating ‘the
identification, scoring and threshold comparison steps for identifying
individuals who are top in their field.’” App. Br. 12–13. We do not agree
with Appellants’ contention that the features of claim 24 provide “specific
and concrete improvements” such as were found in Bascom. App. Br. 13.
We conclude that none of the claim limitations, viewed “both
individually and as an ordered combination,” amount to significantly more
than the judicial exception in order to sufficiently transform the nature of the
claims into patent-eligible subject matter. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355
(internal quotations omitted) (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1297). In
particular, we determine that claim 24 does not recite:
(i) an improvement to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) an improvement to another technology or technical field;
(iii) an application of the abstract idea with, or by use of, a
particular machine;
(iv) a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a
different state or thing; or
(v) other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the
use of the abstract idea to a particular technological
environment.
See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
INVENTIVE CONCEPT
Last, we consider whether claims 24–37 have an inventive concept,
i.e., whether any additional claim elements “‘transform the nature of the
claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether the
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
17
additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in
the field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 50, 56.
The examiner finds, limitation by limitation, that the claim calls for
the use of “the routine and conventional aspects of a computer,” that “the
use of a GUI is routine and conventional use of a computer to input data,”
that “transmitting and receiving surveys and performing the associated
processing uses the routine and conventional aspects of the computer,” etc.
Final Act. 7–11. “Taken as a whole and in any ordered limitation, the
claimed invention clearly recites an abstract idea whose implementation is
merely routine and conventional and does not provide significantly more.”
Final Act. 11.
Appellants do not make any specific argument that the claims contain
additional elements that transform the nature of the claim into a patent-
eligible application. As discussed supra, we determine that Appellants do
not recite claim elements that are disclosed to function in ways beyond well-
understood, routine, and conventional activities in the field. Thus, we
conclude that the claims do not recite an inventive concept that would
transform the nature of the claim(s) into a patent-eligible application.
SUBJECT MATTER ELIGIBILITY - CONCLUSION
We conclude that the claims recite a mental process of identifying
outstanding professionals in a particular field, combined with mathematical
calculations for arriving at performance values.
We further conclude that the claims do not integrate the identified
abstract ideas into a practical application.
Appeal 2018-005088
Application No. 13/468,326
18
We conclude that the claims do not recite an inventive concept that
would transform the nature of the claim(s) into a patent-eligible application.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claims 24–37.
NON-STATUTORY OBVIOUSNESS-TYPE DOUBLE PATENTING REJECTION
Appellants do not contest the rejection of claims 24 and 37 on the
ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being
unpatentable over claims 1–13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,412,564, proposing to
file a terminal disclaimer once allowable subject matter has been indicated.
App. Br. 4. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 24 and 37 on
obviousness-type double patenting grounds.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception.
2. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24–37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 is affirmed. The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 24 and 37 on
non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting grounds is affirmed.
TIME PERIOD
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