ClearForce, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 5, 2021

2020006597 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 5, 2021)

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.
15/248,372 08/26/2016 Jim Jones III 130255-00001 1992
27614 7590 04/05/2021
MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP NEWARK
FOUR GATEWAY CENTER
100 MULBERRY STREET
NEWARK, NJ 07102
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2021 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JIM JONES III and
NORMAL ALLEN WILLOX JR.
__________________

Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the decision
of the Examiner to reject claims 1–23, which are all of the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies CLEARFORCE, INC. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent. Representative claim 1 recites:
1. A method of electronically evaluating a behavior of an
employee to identify risk, the method comprising:
receiving, by the processing device, first data from one or
more legal databases, wherein the first data comprises
information regarding legal activity relating to the employee;
receiving, by the processing device, second data from
one or more financial databases, wherein the second data
comprises financial activity relating to the employee;
receiving, by the processing device, third data relating to
one or more activities electronically conducted by the employee
on a network communicatively coupled to the processing
device, said third data generated in response to electronic
monitoring of an electronic device being operated by the
employee on the network, said third data including data relating
to operation of the electronic device by the employee;
receiving, by a processing device, fourth data from one or
more social networking databases, wherein the fourth data
comprises social networking activity conducted by the
employee;
aggregating, by the processing device, the first data, the
second data, the third data, and the fourth data into an employee
profile relating to the employee;
determining, by the processing device, legally Protected
Information regarding the employee from the employee profile;
determining, by the processing device, one or more
anomalies associated with the employee based on the employee
profile and the legally Protected Information; and
generating, by the processing device, an alert relating to
the one or more anomalies, wherein the alert does not contain
references to the legally Protected Information.

REJECTION
Claims 1–23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent
ineligible subject matter without significantly more.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the claims as a group and separately argues that the
Examiner has not addressed the dependent claims. Appeal Br. 11–17. We
select claim 1 as representative and address Appellant’s arguments regarding
the dependent claims separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner determines that steps of receiving
first, second, third, and fourth types of data and aggregating the data into an
employee profile recite a method of organizing human activity involving
personal behavior, relationships, and interactions between people of social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Final Act. 3–4. The
Examiner determines that steps of determining Protected Information and
anomalies can be performed in the human mind as mental processes. Id. at
4. The Examiner determines that the dependent claims narrow the scope of
the abstract ideas and can be performed in the mind. Id. at 5; Ans. 9–10.
The Examiner determines that the processing device is an additional
element recited at a high level of generality as a generic computing device
that performs generic functions of receiving, aggregating, determining, and
generating that apply the judicial exception as a tool but does not provide a
meaningful limit on practicing the abstract idea or integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 8–9. The Examiner also
determines the data collection steps, including third data from an employee’s
electronic device, are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Ans. 8.
The Examiner determines the receiving, aggregating, determining, and
generating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the
abstract idea using a generic computer component, which does not provide
an inventive concept or significantly more. Final Act. 5; Ans. 10.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

4
Principles of Law
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or
any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent
therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
35 U.S.C. § 101. Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are
not patentable. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
To distinguish patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena,
and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications, we first
determine whether the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept. Id.
at 217. If they are, we consider the claim elements, individually and as an
ordered combination, to determine if any additional elements provide an
inventive concept sufficient to ensure that the claims in practice amount to
significantly more than a patent on the ineligible concept. Id. at 217–18.
The USPTO has issued guidance about this framework. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Revised Guidance”). To determine if a claim is “directed to” an abstract
idea, we evaluate whether the claim recites: (1) any judicial exceptions,
including certain groupings of abstract ideas listed in the Revised Guidance
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activities
such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE § 2106.05(a)–
(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 10.2019 June 2020) (“MPEP”)).2 Id. at 52–55.

2 “A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application
will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” Id. at 54.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

5
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and also (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then consider
whether the claim either (3) adds a limitation beyond a 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. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 1: Is Claim 1 Within a Statutory Category?
Claim 1 recites a method, which is a statutory category of invention,
namely, a process. See Final Act. 3.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does Claim 1 Recite a Judicial Exception?
We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 recites certain methods of
organizing human activity involving personal behavior, relationships, and
interactions between people such as social activities and following rules or
instructions and mental processes. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 6–7. Claim 1 also
recites a fundamental economic practice of mitigating risk under the Revised
Guidance. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
The title of the application is “Systems and Methods for Electronically
Monitoring Employees to Determine Potential Risk.” The method monitors
employee activities and other factors to determine whether they pose a risk
to an organization, its employees, or its customers. Spec. ¶ 2. It addresses a
need for continually monitoring employees for adverse activity to provide a
risk assessment and identify risk to an organization. Id. ¶¶ 5–8, 43. Risks
may be mitigated by observing employee actions, life events, behavior, and
other activities. Id. ¶ 44. Appellant agrees that the claims electronically
evaluate an employee’s behavior to identify risk. See Appeal Br. 14–15.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

6
Mitigating risk is a fundamental economic practice and abstract idea
when recited at a high level of generality as in claim 1 without technological
innovations. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (mitigating risk in settlement is a
fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce);
Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (claims recited the basic concept
of hedging or protecting against risk, which is a fundamental economic
practice long prevalent in our system of commerce).
Here, the claimed method mitigates the risk that employees may harm
an organization’s assets, harm an organization financially, damage its brand,
reputation, or name, compromise its intellectual property, commit criminal
acts or data breaches that harm the organization, or cause it to lose revenue
or suffer other damage. Spec. ¶¶ 43, 44. The preamble recites this purpose.
The first four steps receive data used to assess an employee’s risk to
an organization. Appeal Br. 19 (Claims App.). Employee legal activity data
can be obtained from law enforcement, judicial, or other legal information
networks. Spec. ¶ 98. Employee financial activity data can be obtained
from credit reporting, bankruptcy, real property, consumer reporting, and
financial institution databases for financial-related information. Id. ¶ 100.
Electronic activity data is generated by monitoring employees’ usage of
electronic devices on a network including accessing the Internet. Activity
includes keystrokes, clicks, electronic mail transmissions, websites visited,
and files downloaded locally onto a device. Id. ¶ 104. Employee social
networking activity data can be received as periodic data transfers from
social network sites or by monitoring social networking feeds. Id. ¶ 97.
The step of aggregating collects all of this data into a “profile” for a
target employee without any technical details of the process. Id. ¶ 105.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

7
The data collection and aggregation steps form an employee profile to
assess risk as part of the fundamental economic practice identified above.
The steps also can be performed as mental processes. Elec. Power Grp, LLC
v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“But merely selecting
information, by content or source, for collection, analysis, and display does
nothing significant to differentiate a process from ordinary mental processes,
whose implicit exclusion from § 101 undergirds the information-based
category of abstract ideas.”). In Electric Power, the method received and
aggregated data measurements from an electric power grid and non-grid data
sources. It analyzed the measurements based on limits, sensitivities, and
rates of change to derive dynamic stability metrics and form “a composite
indicator of reliability that is an indicator of power grid vulnerability.” Id. at
1351–52, 1354 (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people
go through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”).
Here, claim 1 aggregates data into a composite “employee profile” to
identify anomalies. An anomaly “deviates from expected information for an
employee” and indicates risk. Spec. ¶¶ 49, 108–11. Such determinations
can be performed as a mental process. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355;
see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1372–74
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (obtaining information from databases, making a map of
credit card numbers and transactions made from IP addresses, and using the
map to identify fraudulent transactions that use different credit cards from
the same IP address can be performed in the human mind including logical
reasoning as can validating transactions by using weighted values of plural
parameters and consumer information).
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

8
Collecting an employee’s legal, financial, electronic device, and social
networking data and aggregating the data into an employee profile organizes
the human activity underlying that data to mitigate risk. Without more, such
collection and organization steps recite the abstract idea identified above.
See In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612–13 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (a method of using a server to receive digital images and classification
information, extract classification information, characterize digital images,
and store the digital images in an organized manner using the classification
information recited a method of organizing human activity); Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (a method of collecting data, recognizing certain
data in the collected data set, and storing the recognized data in a memory
are well-known activities that humans have performed, e.g., banks reviewing
checks, recognizing relevant amount, account number, and account holder
data, and storing that information in their records).
In Berkheimer, a method of archiving items in a computer received
items, parsed the items into object structures for evaluation, and presented
the evaluated object structures for manual reconciliation when a variance
was found between the object, a predetermined standard, and a user defined
rule. In re Berkheimer, 881 F.3d 1360, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The court
held that the parsing and comparing steps were similar to the collecting and
recognizing steps of Content Extraction and the classifying in an organized
manner of TLI. Id. at 1367. Here, claim 1 collects and aggregates employee
legal, financial, electronic, and social networking data into an employee
profile that is compared to baseline data to identify an anomaly of possible
risk and generate an alert for a risk assessment. See Spec. ¶¶ 111–130.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

9
Appellant argues that the claims are not abstract because “third data
generated in response to electronic monitoring of an electronic device being
operated by the employee on the network, said third data including data
relating to operation of the electronic device by the employee” does not
recite one of the abstract ideas enumerated under the Revised Guidance.
Appeal Br. 14–16. Appellant contends that this electronic evaluation of an
employee’s behavior to identify risk is tied to a specific electronic activity
performed by a machine. See Reply Br. 6–9.
“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson[, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)].” CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1375. As the decisions in Electric Power, TLI, and Content Extraction all
indicate, collecting data measurements and data from electronic components
such as sensors, scanners, and telephones, without any technical innovation,
is insufficient to make a recited abstract idea non-abstract. See Elec. Power,
830 F.3d at 1354 (“The advance [the claims] purport to make is a process of
gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying
the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for
performing those functions.”); TLI, 823 F.3d at 611 (“While claim 17
requires concrete, tangible components such as ‘a telephone unit’ and a
‘server,’ the specification makes clear that the recited physical components
merely provide a generic environment in which to carry out the abstract idea
of classifying and storing digital images in an organized manner.”); Content
Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (holding “claims are drawn to the basic concept
of data recognition and storage” and are abstract even though performed on
an “application unit” (computer) and “automated digitizing unit” (scanner)).
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

10
As our reviewing court held in a similar context, “communicating
requests to a remote server and receiving communications from that server,
i.e., communication over a network,” is an abstract idea. ChargePoint, Inc.
v. SemaConnect, Inc., 920 F.3d 759, 767 (Fed. Cir. 2019). “‘[I]ntercepting’
traffic is itself an abstract idea.” Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns,
Inc., 778 F. App’x 882, 892 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
In Bridge & Post, the claims related to tracking user communications
and activity over a network on a client computing device by tagging network
traffic of the user with a user identifier and collecting that user information.
Bridge & Post, 778 F. App’x at 890 (holding claims recited the abstract idea
of communicating information with a personalized marking by tagging user
traffic with an identifier to capture the user’s network traffic information).
Using a persistent device identifier on a user’s network access device
to track the user’s network activity (times and locations of network access)
and generate a user profile based on this information recited a fundamental
practice of targeting information to a user based on user data. Id. at 887–88.
Here, claim 1 similarly tracks electronic activity of a user’s electronic device
to aggregate an employee profile. Electronic activity data includes data for
accessing external networks such as the Internet, keystrokes, clicks, email
transmissions, websites visited, and files downloaded. Spec. ¶ 104.
Our reviewing court has held similar claims to be patent-ineligible.
See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1093 (Fed. Cir.
2019) (monitoring access to a patient’s personal health information by time,
volume, and a specific user by collecting and analyzing such data according
to rules to provide notifications if improper access occurred recite mental
processes in the abstract idea category and extra-solution activity).
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

11
Contrary to Appellant’s assertions (Reply Br. 11), the claimed activity
data relates to an employee’s interactions and relationships with others. The
legal activity data captures an employee’s interactions with law enforcement
and judicial personnel and forums as well as persons in other venues for law
enforcement and judicial proceedings. Spec. ¶ 98. Financial activity data
captures an employee’s financial activities in relation to others such as credit
transactions, real property transactions, bankruptcy transactions, medical
history, employment history, rental history, and utility payment history. Id.
¶ 100. Social network activity data measures an employee’s activities and
interactions with others on social networking sites. Id. ¶ 97.
The step of generating an alert regarding any anomalies recites extra-
solution activity. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354 (“[M]erely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is
abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.”). Removing
any legally Protected Information, as claimed, involves generic filtering as
part of the abstract idea identified above. Bascom Global Internet Servs.,
Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“We
agree with the district court that filtering content is an abstract idea because
it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior,
similar to concepts previously found to be abstract.”).
Thus, we determine claim 1 recites the abstract ideas identified above.
Independent claims 11 and 19 fall with claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong One: Do the Dependent Claims Recite an Abstract Idea?
We also agree with the Examiner that the dependent claims recite the
same abstract idea and extra-solution activity. Final Act. 5; Ans. 9–10.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

12
Generating a report comprising the alert without the legally Protected
Information, as recited in claims 2, 12, and 20, recites extra-solution activity
and filtering at a high level of abstraction as part of the same abstract idea.
Weighting the first, second, third, and fourth data according to factors
associated with the employee, as recited in claims 3 and 13, does not claim a
technological improvement. Weighting data can be performed as a mental
process when recited at this level of generality. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d
at 1373–74 (validating credit card transactions by using weighted values of
plural parameters and consumer information can be performed as a mental
process); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 586 (1978) (computing an upward
alarm limit using weighting factors can be done with pencil and paper).
Generating a risk assessment and instructions in response to the alert,
and generating an employee behavior model, as recited in claims 4–7, 14,
and 15, recite the same abstract idea without any technological innovation.
See OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed.
Cir. 2015) (generating a pricing model for products based on survey data of
prices and statistical analysis of the survey data to determine an estimated
outcome was similar to other fundamental economic practices using generic
computer activities); see also In re Jobin, 811 F. App’x 633, 637 (Fed. Cir.
2020) (claims to an improved data structure model involved the collection,
organization, grouping, and storage of data using techniques of conducting a
survey and crowdsourcing using generic servers and databases and recited a
method of organizing human activity, which is a hallmark of abstract idea
claims with no improvement to computer technology); In re Downing, 754
F. App’x 988, 993 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (a personal management and resource
forecasting model did not improve resource planning computer technology).
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

13
Receiving the first data as a live feed and second and third data from
various databases and sources, and obtaining employee consent as recited in
claims 8–10, 16–18, and 21–23 recite the abstract idea of mitigating risk and
mental processes. See Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (where a large portion
of the claims enumerated types of information and sources in the power grid
environment, selecting information by content or source for collection,
analysis, or display recited mental processes). Data feeds were collected,
accumulated, and analyzed in real time to create a composite indicator of the
power grid’s vulnerability in Electric Power. Id. at 1351–52; Ans. 9–10.
Employee consent may be governed by company policy. Spec. ¶ 93.
Consent may be required as a condition of employment. Id. Consent may
be required as a condition for an employee to use a computing device of the
organization. Id. Non-consenting employees may be denied access to
resources such as computing devices, access to the Internet or local intranet,
or access to incentives provided to employees who consent. Id. ¶ 94.
Without more, the concept of exchanging privacy for functionality is a
fundamental practice. VeriPath, Inc. v. Didomi, No. 2020-1777, 2021 WL
422817, *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 8, 2021) (“[A]t most, claim 1 is directed to no
more than an improvement to the abstract notion of exchanging privacy for
functionality that utilizes an API to achieve the desired result. ‘[I]t is not
enough . . . to merely improve a fundamental practice or abstract process by
invoking a computer as a tool.’” (citation omitted)).
Thus, we determine the dependent claim recite the same abstract idea
identified for the independent claims and extra-solution activity. See Apple,
Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract
idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction.”).
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

14
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements that
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Revised Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. We determine that claim 1 lacks additional elements that
improve a computer or other technology or implement the abstract idea in
conjunction with a particular machine that is integral to the claim. Id. at 55.
Nor does it include additional elements that transform or reduce a particular
article to a different state or thing or apply the abstract idea in a meaningful
way beyond linking it to a particular technological environment. Id.
The “processing device” is recited as a generic computing device. It
is used as a tool to perform the generic functions of receiving, aggregating,
determining, and generating data and an employee profile. See Final Act. 4–
5; Ans. 8–9. It is not a particular machine integral to the claim. Nor does it
improve computers. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225 (using computers for basic
electronic recordkeeping by creating accounts, obtaining data, adjusting
account balances, and issuing automated instructions merely requires a
generic computer that performs generic computer functions).
As discussed under Prong One, monitoring an electronic device that is
operated on a network is part of the abstract idea. Thus, it cannot provide an
additional element for integration. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
55 n.24 (“USPTO guidance uses the term ‘additional elements’ to refer to
claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond
the identified judicial exception.”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (holding that a
claim to an abstract idea must include “additional features” to ensure it does
not monopolize the abstract idea) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 77 (2012)); see also Appeal Br. 16.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

15
For similar reasons, the features recited in the dependent claims are
recited at a high level of generality as features of the abstract idea recited in
claim 1. They are not additional elements that can integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. See Appeal Br. 16–17; Reply Br. 13.
The holding in Enfish is distinguishable because the claims in Enfish
recited a data storage and retrieval system with a “means for configuring”
algorithm that functioned differently than conventional database structures
by storing column information in rows. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The technical improvements provided
increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory needs. Id.
Here, the processing device is claimed generically to perform generic
computer functions as a tool to implement the abstract idea. It is described
as a generic computer device in the Specification. Spec. ¶¶ 56–62.
SRI International v. Cisco Systems illustrates why claim 1 here is not
patent eligible. In SRI, the claims recited a specific technique of using plural
network monitors to analyze specific types of network data and integrate the
reports from each monitor to solve a technological problem of identifying
hackers and intruders in computer networks. SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
Inc., 930 F.3d 1295, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The network monitors analyzed
network packet data transfer commands, network packet data transfer errors,
network packet data volume, network connection requests, network packet
error codes, network connection denials, network connection acknowledge-
ments, and network packets of well-known network-service protocols. Id. at
1301, 1303–04. The court emphasized that “the claims are not directed to
just analyzing data from multiple sources to detect suspicious activity.” Id.
at 1303. Here, claim 1 analyzes multiple data sources to detect anomalies.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

16
Receiving and aggregating data from different data sources to form an
employee profile to determine if an anomaly exists in some undefined way is
part of the abstract idea identified above, absent any technical innovation.
An anomaly is determined by comparing an employee’s profile to a baseline
representation of the employee’s “typical” behavior and an expected value.
Spec. ¶¶ 108, 111. Even if these features were claimed, they do not describe
technical improvements to networks or computers.
Unlike the claims in SRI, the claims here are not tied to a network or a
physical structure. They do not predict or diagnose a condition of a network
or computer security. They collect and aggregate data about an employee to
produce an employee profile. See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for
Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1349–50 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claims to a “device
profile” comprising two sets of data recites a collection of intangible color
and spatial information that do not require any physical embodiment and
thus are not a category of eligible subject matter); Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (the
claimed elements of a database, a user profile keyed to a user identity, and a
computer medium are generic computer elements used to apply the abstract
idea by performing generic computer tasks that do not make the abstract idea
patent-eligible).
Unlike the claims in SRI, no technical details are recited for electronic
monitoring of an electronic device operated by an employee on a network.
No technical details are claimed for monitoring or operating any networks,
electronic devices, or computers. No technical problem is solved thereby.
Accordingly, we determine that the claims lack additional elements
that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

17
Step 2B: Do the Claims Include an Inventive Concept?
We next consider whether claim 1 recites any additional elements,
individually or as an ordered combination, to provide an inventive concept.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. This step is satisfied when the claim limitations
involve more than well-understood, routine, and conventional activities
known in the industry. See Berkheimer, 881 F.3d at 1367; see also Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56 (the second step of the Alice analysis considers
if a claim adds a specific limitation beyond the recited judicial exception that
also is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” activity in the field).
Individually, a processing device does not provide significantly more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 222 (“[S]imply implementing a mathematical principle on
a physical machine, namely a computer, [i]s not a patentable application of
that principle.”) (citation omitted). It receives, aggregates, and analyzes data
at a high level of generality as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
As an ordered combination, claim 1 recites no more than what the
limitations recite individually. See BSG Tech LLC v., BuySeasons, Inc., 899
F.3d 1281, 1290–91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“If a claim’s only ‘inventive concept’
is the application of an abstract idea using conventional and well-understood
techniques, the claim has not been transformed into a patent-eligible
application of an abstract idea.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d
1161, 1169 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]his court has ruled many times that ‘such
invocations of computers . . . that are not even arguably inventive are
insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an
abstract idea.’”) (citation omitted); Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1355 (receiving,
accumulating, and updating measurements to derive a composite indicator of
reliability on a conventional computer and network was not inventive).
Appeal 2020-006597
Application 15/248,372

18
Accordingly, we determine that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept to
transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Claims 2–23
fall with claim 1.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§  
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–23 101 Patent Eligibility 1–23
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