D2L CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 30, 2020

2019006824 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 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.
14/025,147 09/12/2013 Stefan REGEHR K8001241US 5983
34236 7590 12/30/2020
GOWLING WLG (CANADA) LLP
50 QUEEN STREET NORTH, STE. 1020
P.O. BOX 2248
KITCHENER, ONTARIO N2H6M2
CANADA
EXAMINER
HATCHER, DEIRDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/30/2020 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):
JEFF.WONG@GOWLINGWLG.COM
VAL.COTTRILL@GOWLINGWLG.COM
Waterloo.IP@gowlingwlg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte STEFAN REGEHR, SCOTT WILLIAMS,
BRIAN PEARSON, and STEVEN LOW
____________

Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
ALYSSA A. FINAMORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 3–12, 14–19, 21–23, 25, and 27. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Feb. 4,
2019), Claims Appendix (“Claims App.,” filed Mar. 5, 2019), Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed June 27, 2019), Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed
Jan. 4, 2018), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Sept. 12, 2013). Appellant
identifies D2L Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s invention “relates to methods and systems for entity based
position assignment.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 12, and 19 are the independent
claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed notations
added, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for assigning positions, the method comprising:
[(a)] obtaining position data related to each position of a
plurality of positions in a classroom, wherein the position data
related to each position includes one or more characteristics of
the corresponding position;
[(b)] obtaining data related to each entity of a plurality of
entities, wherein the plurality of entities comprises a plurality of
students, associated with an event to be held in the classroom,
wherein each entity is to be assigned to one of the plurality of
positions;
[(c)] obtaining a position weighting for one or more
positions based at least in part on the position data;
[(d)] determining a desirable arrangement based at least
in part on the position data, the position weighting, one or more
instructor preferences, and the entity data;
[(e)] arranging each entity in a corresponding desired
position within the desirable arrangement;
[(f)] storing an arrangement of each entity in the
corresponding desired position on a storage medium;
[(g)] obtaining additional data related to one or more of
the plurality of entities from a learning management system;
[(h)] determining an occurrence of one or more academic
events associated with the one or more of the plurality of entities
based at least in part on the additional data;
[(i)] determining that a re-arrangement triggering event
occurred based at least in part on the determination that one or
more academic events associated with the one or more of the
plurality of entities occurred; and
[(j)] in response to determining that the re-arrangement
triggering event occurred, arranging one or more entities to one
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

3
or more corresponding positions based at least in part on the re-
arrangement triggering event.
Claims App. 22.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–12, 14–19, 21–23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3–12, 14–19, 21–23, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Morris (US 2014/0229390 A1, pub. Aug.
14, 2014), Stirlen (US 2009/0063208 A1, pub. Mar. 5, 2009), Wilson,2 and
MAT Blog.3

ANALYSIS
Patent-Ineligible Subject Matter
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–13.
We select independent claim 1 as representative. The remaining claims
stand or fall with claim 1. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

2 Duncan Wilson, Class Seating Charts & Behavior Management, YouTube
video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pD8OkYRf_S4, posted Dec. 2,
2012. The Examiner provides a three page print out from YouTube for this
YouTube video. We refer to the print out as “Wilson” and treat the print out
as if sequentially numbered with the page having the phrase “class charts” in
a YouTube search bar designated as page 1. The Examiner provides a
partial transcript of this video presentation (Ans. 17), as well as two
screenshots from the presentation (Ans. 15, 17), in the Answer.
3 Marygrove College, 5 Classroom Management Apps Every Teaches Needs
to Know About (posted Jan. 15, 2013). A copy of the posting is available at
https://web.archive.org/web/20130129081612/http://info.marygrove.edu/
MATblog/bid/90368/5-Classroom-Management-Apps-Every-Teacher-
Needs-to-Know-About (last accessed June 15, 2020).
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

4
Principles of Law
35 U.S.C. § 101
An invention is patent eligible if it is a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted § 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)
(quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S.
576, 589 (2013)).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-part framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012)
and Alice, “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural
phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible
applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The first step in
that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one
of those patent-ineligible concepts,” such as an abstract idea. Id. According
to Supreme Court precedent, concepts determined to be abstract ideas
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (id. at 219–20; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611
(2010)); mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95
(1978)); and mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69
(1972)).
If the claims are not directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an
abstract idea, the inquiry ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the
second step where the elements of the claims are considered “individually
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

5
and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there are additional
elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible
application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 78).
This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original).
USPTO Guidance
We are also guided by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
guidance, as set forth in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”), incorporated into
the MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE §§ 2104–06, Rev. 10.2019
(“MPEP”) in June 2020. “The guidance sets out agency policy with respect
to the USPTO’s interpretation of the subject matter eligibility requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 101 in view of decisions by the Supreme Court and the
Federal Circuit.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. Although “[a]ll USPTO
personnel are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to
follow the guidance,” the guidance “does not create any right or benefit,
substantive or procedural, enforceable by any party against the USPTO.” Id.
The Guidance, by its terms, applies to all applications, and to all patents
resulting from applications, filed before, on, or after January 7, 2019. Id.
at 50.
Under USPTO guidance, the first step of the Mayo/Alice framework is
a two-prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A); see also Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54 (“Step 2A of the 2019 Revised Patent Matter Eligibility Guidance
is a two-prong inquiry.”). “Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

6
idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?” MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(1);
see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. For determining whether a claim
recites an abstract idea, the guidance defines enumerated groupings of
abstract ideas, distilled from precedent. MPEP § 2106.04(a); Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52. If the claim recites a judicial exception, then the claim
requires further analysis at Prong Two. MPEP § 2106(II)(A)(1); Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54. “Prong Two asks does the claim recite additional
elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?”
MPEP § 2106.04(II)(A)(2); see also id. § 2106.04(d), Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 54–55. Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does
not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look,
under Step 2B, to whether the additional elements, individually or in
combination, provide an inventive concept. See MPEP §§ 2106(III),
2106.05.
“An inventive concept ‘cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law
of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.’” Id. at
§ 2106.05(I) (quoting Genetic Techs. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2016)). Among the considerations in determining whether the
additional elements, individually or in combination, amount to significantly
more than the exception itself, we look to whether they add a specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” in the field or simply append well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. MPEP § 2106.05(II);
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

7
Rejection
The Examiner determined here that independent claim 1 is directed to
“analyzing data to determine a desirable seating arrangement,” which is an
abstract idea in the form of both a certain method of organizing human
activity and a mental process. Ans. 4 (identifying the abstract idea recited in
claim 1), 7–9 (determining that the additional elements recited in claim 1 do
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application); see also Final
Act. 3–4 (determining that claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of
“assigning seating positions”). Under the second step of the Mayo/Alice
framework, the Examiner determined that claim 1 does not include
additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the
abstract idea itself. Ans. 8–9; see also Final Act. 4–5.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One)
We are not persuaded, as an initial matter, that the Examiner
characterized the claim language too broadly, failed to articulate how the
claim is similar to any concept that the courts have identified as an abstract
idea, or otherwise erred in determining that claim 1 is directed to an abstract
idea. See Appeal Br. 7–12. The Federal Circuit has explained that “the
‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light
of the specification, based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed
to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d
1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active
Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). It asks whether the
focus of the claims is on a specific improvement in relevant technology or
on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers
are invoked merely as a tool. See id. at 1335–36. Here, it is clear from the
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

8
Specification (including the claim language) that claim 1 focuses on an
abstract idea, and not on any improvement to technology and/or a technical
field.
The Specification is titled “METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ENTITY
BASED POSITION ASSIGNMENT,” and states that the “present disclosure
relates generally to position assignment.” Spec. ¶ 1. In the Background
section, the Specification describes that many situations require “placing
various entities in specific positions.” Id. ¶ 2, “[I]n a classroom setting, an
instructor typically arranges students in particular seating arrangements in
order to obtain a distribution that pleases the instructor.” Id. For example,
an instructor arranges students to ensure students have appropriate access to
classroom amenities. Id. Periodically, the teacher needs to manually
rearrange the class seating arrangement for optimization. Id. This
trial-and-error approach (i.e., position arrangement and reorganization) is
typically necessary with conventional approaches for entity based position
assignment. Id. ¶ 3. “It is, therefore, desirable to provide an improved
method and system for entity based position assignment.” Id. ¶ 4.
The claimed invention is ostensibly intended to address this problem
by providing a method and system for entity based position assignment that
retrieves position data, entity data, and rules for assigning entities to
positions, and then determines a desirable arrangement based on the position
data, entity data, and rules. Id. ¶ 36. Consistent with this overview, claim 1
recites a method for assigning positions comprising the following steps:
[(a)] obtaining position data related to each position of a
plurality of positions in a classroom, wherein the position data
related to each position includes one or more characteristics of
the corresponding position;
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

9
[(b)] obtaining data related to each entity of a plurality of
entities, wherein the plurality of entities comprises a plurality of
students, associated with an event to be held in the classroom,
wherein each entity is to be assigned to one of the plurality of
positions;
[(c)] obtaining a position weighting for one or more
positions based at least in part on the position data;
[(d)] determining a desirable arrangement based at least
in part on the position data, the position weighting, one or more
instructor preferences, and the entity data;
[(e)] arranging each entity in a corresponding desired
position within the desirable arrangement;
[(f)] storing an arrangement of each entity in the
corresponding desired position . . . ;
[(g)] obtaining additional data related to one or more of
the plurality of entities . . . ;
[(h)] determining an occurrence of one or more academic
events associated with the one or more of the plurality of entities
based at least in part on the additional data;
[(i)] determining that a re-arrangement triggering event
occurred based at least in part on the determination that one or
more academic events associated with the one or more of the
plurality of entities occurred; and
[(j)] in response to determining that the re-arrangement
triggering event occurred, arranging one or more entities to one
or more corresponding positions based at least in part on the re-
arrangement triggering event.
Therefore, claim 1 recites collecting data (position data, student data,
position weighting) (steps (a)–(c)); analyzing the data to determine a
desirable arrangement (step (d)); arranging students based on the results of
the data collection and analysis (the desirable seating arrangement) (step
(e)); storing the arrangement (step (f)); collecting additional data (related to
one or more students) (step (g)); analyzing the additional data for the
occurrence of an academic event and a re-arrangement triggering event
(steps (h) and (i)); and rearranging the students in response to a re-
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

10
arrangement triggering event (step (j)). Claim 1, considered as a whole and
given its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites steps for determining and
managing a seating arrangement in a classroom.4
Each of these steps include observations, evaluations, and judgments
recited at such a high level of generality that they could be performed in the
human mind or by a human using pen and paper, i.e., the mental processes
abstract idea grouping. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III); see also Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52; Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353–54
(Fed. Cir. 2016) (determining that “collecting information, analyzing it, and
displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” where the steps are
recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be
performed in the human mind is an abstract idea); University of Utah
Research Found. v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 1057, 1067 (Fed Cir. 2014)
(determining that “comparing BRCA sequencing and determining the
existence of alterations” where the claims cover any way of comparing
BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be
performed in the human mind is an abstract idea).
For example, here, any manner of “determining a desirable
arrangement” and “arranging each entity . . . within the desirable
arrangement” may be performed at steps (d) and (e) of claim 1. After
observing various data (steps (a)–(c)), a teacher could evaluate the data
mentally to determine an arrangement for students in a classroom based on

4 Although our articulation of the concept to which the claims are directed
may differ from that articulated by the Examiner, any such difference only
relates to the level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842
F.3d 1229, 1240–41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be
described at different levels of abstraction.”).
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

11
the observed data (step (d)), and arrange the students accordingly (step (e)),
such as by using pen and paper to create a seating chart that identifies a seat
position for each student in the classroom. See Spec. ¶ 62 (describing that
“the output from system 100 may be a seating chart 330 where the students
are arranged according to the rules and the data received by the system
100”); see also id. ¶ 54 (describing that the system “is configured to allow
instructors to assign seats to students within a classroom layout”). For
example, a teacher could evaluate student data and position data to arrange
younger students closer to the front of the classroom. Id. ¶ 65. In another
example, the teacher could evaluate the data to diversify the arrangement of
students, such as distributing students having the same gender throughout
the classroom. Id. ¶ 66. The teacher could memorize the seating chart to
store the chart in the human mind (step (f)). To aid the mental process of
storing, the teacher could physically store the seating chart created with pen
and paper, such as by placing the chart on a desk or in a file cabinet.
Turning to the remaining limitations of claim 1, steps (h) and (i) cover
any manner for “determining,” and step (j) covers any manner for
“arranging” based on a re-arrangement triggering event. Thus, after
arranging the students, the teacher could observe additional data related to
the students (step (g)) and judge whether an academic event occurred (step
(h)). Based at least in part on one or more academic events that occurred,
the teacher could evaluate whether a re-arrangement triggering event
occurred (step (i)), and arrange one or more students accordingly (step (j)).
For example, the teacher could determine that a student failing a test or an
assignment constitutes a re-arrangement triggering event. See id. ¶ 69. In
response to this determination, the teacher could use a pen to modify this
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

12
student’s position on the seating chart. See id. An underperforming student
could be re-arranged to interact with different students. Id. ¶ 68.
The concept of determining and managing a seating arrangement in a
classroom, as recited by claim 1, also pertains to “managing personal
behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions),” which is a
subgrouping of the “certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract
idea grouping. MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II); see also id. at
§ 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C); Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. For example,
“determining a desirable arrangement based at least in part on the position
weighting, one or more instructor preferences, and the entity data” (step (d))
and “arranging each entity” (step (e)), as recited in claim 1, relates to
applying rules to the data gathered at steps (a)–(c). The Specification
describes, for example, that “system 100 is configured to arrange the entities
into positions to create a desirable arrangement” by “the application of the
rules to the position data and entity data.” Spec. ¶ 51, Fig. 2; see also id.
¶ 67. The rules include “rules related to the instructor preferences” and
“special criteria based on entity data or position data,” such as whether a
student must sit in a particular location for access to certain equipment
required by the student. Id. ¶ 59. “The desirable arrangement is intended to
improve (e.g., optimize) the placement of the entities in that the greatest
number of rules and requests with respect to aligning the entity preferences
and position attributes are met.” Id. ¶ 51. “[E]ach entity is assigned a
position according to the desirable arrangement.” Id. ¶ 52.
Likewise, “determining an occurrence” (step (h)), “determining that a
re-arrangement triggering event occurred” (step (i)), and, in response,
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

13
“arranging one or more entities” (step (j)) involves applying rules to
additional data to determine whether to re-arrange the position of one or
more students. For example, the Specification describes applying a rule to
rearrange students who are underperforming in a current arrangement to
ensure they interact with different individuals than in previous arrangements.
Spec. ¶ 68. An exemplary rule includes evaluating whether a student’s
grade on a test or assignment is below a predetermined threshold and, if so,
placing the underperforming student in a higher weighted position. Id. ¶ 69.
Step One of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2A, Prong Two)
Having concluded that claim 1 recites an abstract idea under the
Guidance, Step 2A, Prong One, we next consider whether the claim recites
additional elements that, when considered individually or in combination,
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong
Two. MPEP § 2106.04(d); 2106.04(d)(II), Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Exemplary considerations for the Prong Two analysis, culled from
precedent, are set forth at MPEP § 2106.04(d)(I), and described in more
detail at MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1), 2106.04(d)(2), and 2106.05(a) through (c),
and 2106.05(e) through (h).
Here, claim 1 additionally recites a “storage medium” (step (f)) and
“learning management system” (step (g)) — elements that are recited at a
high level of generality as generic computer components. For example,
claim 1 recites that the “storage medium” performs the generic function of
“storing.” See also Spec. ¶¶ 41, 80, Fig. 1 (describing the storage medium
required by the claimed invention generically). Claim 1 further recites that
the “learning management system” functions as a source for “additional data
related to one or more of the plurality of a entities.” But see SAP Am. Inc. v.
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

14
InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[E]ven if a process
of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a
particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection and analysis
other than abstract.”). The Specification does not indicate that any
specialized learning management system is required by the claimed
invention. Instead, the Specification describes generally, and at a high level,
that entity data can be retrieved from “external network devices (not
shown)” (id. ¶ 43), or “third party network devices (not shown)” (id. ¶ 46).
These additional elements, at most, require generic computer
components to implement the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment (a learning management
system). Therefore, considered individually and as an ordered combination,
the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation
of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible.”); Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253,
1259 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (explaining that limiting the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (cellular telephones) is insufficient for
patent eligibility); see also MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(I), 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h).
We are not persuaded by any of Appellant’s arguments that the
claimed invention integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
See Appeal Br. 7–13. For example, Appellant argues that claim 1
“inherently requires more than . . . ‘gathering and analyzing information’
information [sic], such as an input interface to receive data, or an output
interface to output the assigned seating positions, etc.” Id. at 9. Appellant’s
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

15
argument is not persuasive at least because it is not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not recite an input interface for receiving
data or an output interface to output the assigned positions. See, e.g.,
Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351
(Fed. Cir. 2014) (“Contrary to Digitech’s argument, nothing in the claim
language expressly ties the method to an image processor. The claim
generically recites a process of combining two data sets into a device
profile.”). Nor does claim 1 indicate that any particular technology or
technique is required for this functionality.
Here, claim 1 covers any manner of solution that achieves the result-
focused, functional limitations of “obtaining,” “storing,” “determining,” and
“arranging.” This is insufficient to show that the abstract idea is integrated
into a practical application. See Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1356
(cautioning against claims “so result-focused, so functional, as to effectively
cover any solution to an identified problem”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v.
Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[T]he claim
language here provides only a result-oriented solution with insufficient detail
for how a computer accomplishes it. Our law demands more.”); see also
MPEP § 2106.05(1) (explaining that “claim limitations that attempt to cover
any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is
accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the
result, do[] not integrate a judicial exception, because they recite no more
than an idea of a solution or outcome”).
Attempting to analogize claim 1 to the claims at issue in Enfish,
Appellant contends that the claim 1 “addresses an improvement in computer
related technology.” Appeal Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant asserts that
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

16
claim 1 “addresses . . . an improvement on how information pertaining to
backup data can be more effectively and timely provided, for which the
claimed solution is necessarily rooted in technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer software applications
and the Internet.” Id. Appellant does not point to anything in the claim
language or the Specification to support these assertions. Here, we find no
improvement in computer capabilities related to the provision of backup data
analogous to the improvement to computer functionality achieved by
Enfish’s self-referential table for a computer database. Enfish, 822 F.3d
at 1336.
Instead, the Specification frames the claimed invention as improving
how teachers arrange students in a classroom to obtain an optimal
arrangement and manage that arrangement. See Spec. ¶¶ 1–6; see also
Appeal Br. 10 (acknowledging that claim 1 is directed to “an improvement
on how positions in a classroom can be assigned and re-arranged based on
various input data pertaining to the students and/or the properties of the
positions”). We are not persuaded that an improvement to assigning and
managing a seating arrangement is an improvement to computer
functionality, as opposed to an improvement in a process that is itself the
abstract idea. See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d
1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“To be a patent-eligible improvement to
computer functionality, we have required the claims to be directed to an
improvement in the functionality of the computer or network platform
itself.”).
For similar reasons we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument
that claim 1 is analogous to the patent-eligible claim analyzed in Example 2
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

17
of the USPTO’s “Examples: Abstract Ideas,”5 which analyzes claim 19 of
DDR Holdings under prior Office guidance. Appellant asserts that claim 1
aims to “overcome a problem associated with efficiently and effectively
allocating positions in a classroom to students based on data pertaining to
the students and data pertaining to the students.” Appeal Br. 11. Yet, in
DDR Holdings, the Federal Circuit distinguished the claimed solution, which
was “necessarily rooted in computer technology in order to overcome a
problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks,” from
patent-ineligible claims that broadly and generically require the use of a
computer and the Internet to perform an abstract business practice. DDR
Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1257–58. Namely, the court held that the claims at
issue “specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a
desired result—a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence
of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” Id. at 1258.
Here, we are not persuaded that a problem associated with efficiently
and effectively allocating students’ positions in a classroom is a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer technology, as opposed to a
problem that has existed for instructors in the classroom long before the
advent of computer networks. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 2–3 (describing the
arrangement of students in a classroom as a longstanding problem for
instructors). Likewise, we are not persuaded that the claimed solution is
necessarily rooted in computer technology analogous to the patent-eligible
claims in DDR Holdings. Instead, at best, claim 1 requires the use of a

5 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
101_examples_1to36.pdf.
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

18
storage and data from a learning management system to implement the
abstract idea.
We also are not persuaded, for much the same reasons outlined above,
that claim 1 is analogous to hypothetical claim 2 in Example 21 of the
USPTO’s “July 2015 Update Appendix 1: Examples”6 Appeal Br. 12.
Exemplary claim 2 of Example 21, like the claims at issue in DDR Holdings,
solved an Internet-centric challenge (alerting a subscriber with time sensitive
information when the subscriber's computer is offline) with a claimed
solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology. Appellant argues
that claim 1, like hypothetical claim 2, “recites additional limitations that
when considered as an ordered combination demonstrates a technology
rooted solution to an Internet-centric problem.” Appeal Br. 12. However,
for the reasons described above, we are not persuaded that claim 1 addresses
a challenge particular to the Internet or recites a solution that is necessarily
rooted in computer technology. Instead, claim 1 uses computers as tools to
implement the abstract idea in a particular technological environment
involving a learning management system.
We also are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding
preemption. See Appeal Br. 11. There is no dispute that the Supreme Court
has described “the concern that drives [the exclusion of abstract ideas from
patent-eligible subject matter] as one of pre-emption.” Alice, 573 U.S.
at 216. Nevertheless, characterizing preemption as a driving concern for
patent eligibility is not the same as characterizing preemption as the sole test
for patent eligibility. “The Supreme Court has made clear that the principle

6 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ieg-july-
2015-app1.pdf.
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

19
of preemption is the basis for the judicial exceptions to patentability,” and
“[f]or this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by
the § 101 analysis.” Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d
1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216). “[P]reemption
may signal patent ineligible subject matter [but] the absence of complete
preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Id.
Appellant does not persuade us that any additional element or
combination of additional elements recited in claim 1 improves computer
functionality, technology and/or a technical field to the claimed invention, or
that otherwise integrates the abstract idea into a “practical application,” as
that phrase is used in the Guidance. We conclude, for the reasons outlined
above, that claim 1 recites either a mental process or a certain method of
organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional
elements recited in the claim do no more than generally link the abstract idea
to a particular technological environment and use computers as tools to
implement the abstract idea. Therefore, the additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded that the Examiner erred in determining that claim 1, as a
whole, is directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined that claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea, we
consider whether the claim includes any additional elements, alone or in
combination, that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in
the field. Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
This step of the analysis considers additional elements, as limitations
reciting a judicial exception cannot supply an inventive concept. See Mayo,
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

20
566 U.S. at 72–73 (requiring “a process that focuses upon the use of a
natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements,
sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
natural law itself” (emphasis added)); BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc.,
899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has been clear since Alice that a
claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept to which it is directed
cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the invention ‘significantly
more’ than that ineligible concept.”); Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369,
1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) (“Berkheimer . . . leave[s]
untouched the numerous cases from [the Federal Circuit] which have held
claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive concept’ is the abstract
idea.”). Thus, to the extent Appellant argues that the combination of
steps (d), (e), (i), and (j) of claim 1 are not well-understood, routine,
conventional in the field (see Appeal Br. 12–13), that argument is not
persuasive at least because those steps comprise the abstract idea itself.
In addition, Appellant asserts that the claim feature for “determining
that a change in one or more values associated with at least one of the
plurality of students exceeds a predefined threshold” in combination with
other claim features are not well understood, routine, and conventional in the
field. Id. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive, at least because none of
the claims recite this language.
As set forth above, the only additional elements recited by the claims
are generic computing elements such as the “storage medium” recited in
step (f) and the learning management system in step (g). Such generic
computing elements are well-known, routine, and conventional. See Alice,
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

21
573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot
transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”)
Here, Appellant has not identified any additional elements recited in
claim 1 that, individually or in combination, provide significantly more than
the abstract idea. We are not persuaded, on the present record, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Therefore, we
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. We also
sustain the rejection of the remaining claims, which fall with claim 1.

Obviousness
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is in error because the Examiner does not
provide sufficient explanation or reasoning how or why the prior art renders
obvious
determining that a re-arrangement triggering event
occurred based at least in part on the determination that one or
more academic events associated with the one or more of the
plurality of entities occurred; and
in response to determining that the re-arrangement
triggering event occurred, arranging one or more entities to one
or more corresponding positions based at least in part on the re-
arrangement triggering event,
as recited in steps (i) and (j) of independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 12 and 19. See Appeal Br. 17–18.
The Examiner acknowledges that Morris does not teach steps (i) and
(j), as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 12 and 19, and relies
upon Wilson for these aspects of the claim language. Id. at 9, 12, 14. In the
Answer, the Examiner provides a transcript of a portion of Wilson relevant
to the Examiner’s rejection and a screenshot from Wilson of a user interface
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

22
for tracking student behavior. Ans. 17. The transcript of Wilson suggests, at
a high level, a toolkit for teachers having both a class seating chart and
behavior management software. See id. (“Seating charts are an essential part
of any teacher’s toolkit[,] and managing behavior is necessary for effective
learning to take place. So what if you combine the two?”). The screenshot
provided by the Examiner shows buttons for positive student behavior, such
as being kind, on task, and sharing. Id. Wilson ostensibly teaches that
teachers can track behavior over time. Wilson 3 (describing that the
application “provides charts for student behavior over time”).
The Examiner finds that Wilson teaches grouping students based on a
behavior score and reasons that “a new seating chart may be warranted”
when a behavior score changes, constituting a re-arrangement triggering
event. Final Act. 9. The Examiner concludes that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would have modified Morris to include the rearrangement
triggering event corresponding to academic events “to more effectively
manage the classroom and student changing needs.” Id. at 9–10.
One problem with the Examiner’s analysis, however, is that the
Examiner has not established that Wilson teaches or suggests rearranging
seating based on a changed behavior score or other re-arrangement
triggering event. Indeed, the Examiner has not shown that any of the prior
art teaches these aspects of the claim language. Because the Examiner’s
finding that Wilson teaches or suggests steps (i) and (j), as recited in claim 1,
and similarly recited in claims 12 and 19, lacks adequate support, we do not
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 12, and 19, and dependent
claims 3–11, 14–18, 21–23, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-006824
Application 14/025,147

23

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§ References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–12, 14–19,
21–23, 25, 27 101 Eligibility
1, 3–12, 14–
19, 21–23,
25, 27

1, 3–12, 14–19,
21–23, 25, 27 103
Morris, Stirlen,
Wilson, MAT
Blog

1, 3–12, 14–
19, 21–23,
25, 27
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–12, 14–
19, 21–23,
25, 27

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