Ex Parte Caldwell

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 21, 2019

13507602 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/507,602
136265 7590
Kunzler, PC. - MX
50 West Broadway
10th Floor
FILING DATE
07/12/2012
06/25/2019
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Ryan Caldwell
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
3552.2.2 6915
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LIZ P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3696
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2019 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):
docket@kunzlerlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN RY AN CALDWELL
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
Technology Center 3600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Non-final Rejection of claims 21--40, which constitute all the claims pending
in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is MX Technologies, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant's Specification describes methods for depicting budgetary
information "as two-dimensional or three-dimensional bubble or spheroid
graphical objects or other similar shape." Spec. ,r 16.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows;
1. A computer-implemented method for dynamically
resizing bubbles for display in different-sized two-dimensional
viewing areas of different computer display devices, the
computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request to access larger and smaller bubbles on
a two-dimensional viewing area of a larger computer display
device, the larger and smaller bubbles representing budget
categories for a total budget represented by a largest bubble;
calculating a visual size for each of the larger and smaller
bubbles relative to one another and based on the viewing area of
the larger computer display device, each of the smaller and larger
bubbles being sized proportionate to a percentage of the total
budget represented by a size of the largest bubble such that the
sum of the surface areas of each of the smaller and larger bubbles
is equal to the surface area of the largest bubble;
automatically displaying the larger and smaller bubbles
with the calculated sizes on the viewing area of the larger
computer display device with an original surface area of the
larger bubble being larger than an original surface area of the
smaller bubble;
receiving a request to access the larger and smaller bubbles
on a two-dimensional viewing area of a smaller computer display
device, the viewing area of the smaller computer display device
being smaller than the viewing area of the larger computer
display device;
calculating a different visual size for each of the larger and
smaller bubbles relative to one another and based on the viewing
2
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
area of the smaller computer display device such that each of the
larger and smaller bubbles remain sized proportionate to the
percentage of a total budget represented by the size of the largest
bubble such that the sum of the surface areas of each of the
smaller and larger bubbles is equal to the surface area of the
largest bubble;
automatically shrinking the surface areas of the larger and
smaller bubbles to the calculated sizes to fit the viewing area of
the smaller computer display device in order to display the larger
and smaller bubbles on the viewing area with the shrunken
surface area of the larger bubble remaining larger than the
shrunken surface area of the smaller bubble;
receiving a request to again access the larger and smaller
bubbles on the viewing area of the larger computer display
device;
automatically restoring the larger and smaller bubbles to
their originally calculated sizes to fit the viewing area of the
larger computer display device in order to again display the
larger and smaller bubbles on the viewing area of the larger
computer display device;
receiving updated placement preferences from a user of
the larger computer display device;
in response to receiving the updated placement
preferences, fluidly moving the larger and smaller bubbles
around the viewing area of the larger computer display device
according to the updated placement preferences;
receiving a selection of one of the larger and smaller
bubbles from a user;
calculating sizes of one or more breakdown bubbles
associated with the selected bubble proportionate to a percentage
of a budget represented by the selected bubble, each of the one
or more breakdown bubbles representing one of a time period
and an individual expense item associated with the selected
bubble; and
3
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
determining placement of each of the one or more
breakdown bubbles relative to one another around the selected
bubble according to the placement preferences.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 21--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. See Non-final
Act. 6.
Claims 21--40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for being directed
to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Non-final Act. 7-13.
ANALYSIS
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner finds the claims recite features outlined below that are
not described in the Specification and thus fail to comply with the written
description requirement:
"calculating a visual size for each of the larger and smaller
bubbles relative to one another and based on the viewing area
of the larger computer display device, each of the smaller and
larger bubbles being sized proportionate to a percentage of the
total budget represented by a size of the largest bubble such
that the sum of the surface areas of each of the smaller and
larger bubbles is equal to the surface area of the largest bubble
calculating a different visual size for each of the larger and
smaller bubbles relative to one another and based on the
viewing area of the smaller computer display device such that
each of the larger and smaller bubbles remain sized
proportionate to the percentage of a total budget represented
by the size of the largest bubble such that the sum of the surface
areas of each of the smaller and larger bubbles is equal to the
surface area of the largest bubble
4
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
calculating sizes of one or more breakdown bubbles associated
with the selected bubble proportionate to a percentage of a
budget represented by the selected bubble, each of the one or
more breakdown bubbles representing one of a time period and
an individual expense item associated with the selected bubble
and determining placement of each of the one or more
breakdown bubbles relative to one another around the selected
bubble according to the placement preferences. "
Non-final Act. 6.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because the Specification describes the
problem to be solved as failure "to show the relativeness of budget data in a
manner that is intuitive, easy to understand, and may be depicted on a small
display device" and presents a visual depiction "using proportionate bubble
graphics." App. Br. 6 (citing Spec. ,r,r 11, 13, and 30-33). Appellant further
points to the disclosure for describing how the graphical representation of
the budget data is sized to fit the display size of the user device. App. Br. 7
(citing Spec. ,r,r 15, 31, and 35).
In response to Appellant's contentions, the Examiner further points to
paragraph 19 of Appellant's Specification, which states "when the viewing
area of a display device available to show graphical representations of
budgeting information is small, the bubbles can be shrunk or manipulated or
adjusted to fit the screen." Ans. 14. The Examiner however finds the
disclosure includes no formula or algorithm "for calculating a visual size for
each of the larger and smaller bubbles relative to one another in the
specification." Id.
5
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
To satisfy the written description requirement, an applicant must
convey with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that, as of the filing
date sought, he or she was in possession of the invention, and that the
invention, in that context is whatever is now claimed. See Vas-Cath, Inc. v.
Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1563-64 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In fact, there is no
requirement that the Specification include the exact words, or formulas, to
satisfy the written description requirement, as long as one skilled in the art
would conclude that the inventor had possession of the claim features.
"[T]he description requirement does not demand any particular form of
disclosure, or that the specification recite the claimed invention in haec
verba." Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed.
Cir. 2010) (en bane) (citation omitted). Rather, "the test for sufficiency is
whether the disclosure of the application relied upon reasonably conveys to
those skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed
subject matter as of the filing date." Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
Here, although no particular formula or algorithm for the recited
"calculating" steps are disclosed in the Specification, we agree with
Appellant that "one of skill in the art, in light of the specification, would
understand how to calculate an area or volume of a circle or sphere, and
would understand how to calculate the sizes of the bubbles as a percentage
of the total budgeted amount to depict the relative sizes of the bubbles."
Reply Br. 2. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that the cited portions of
the Specification would reasonably convey to a person of ordinary skill in
the art that calculating the proportion of the displayed circle or sphere would
result in displaying the appropriate size or proportion based on the type of
the display device.
6
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
In view of the above discussion and considering the presented facts
and the arguments made by Appellant and the Examiner, we find that
Appellant's disclosure provides sufficient written description indicating that
Appellant was in possession of the claimed subject matter at the time of
filing of the application. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims
21--40 under the first paragraph ofpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112.
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. App. Br. 8-11. As
permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal based on claim 21.
See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner determines that the claims are directed to "a judicially
recognized exception" by reciting method steps related to dynamically
resizing graphical representation of bubbles for display in different-sized
viewing areas including "receiving a request to access larger and smaller
bubbles," which results in "calculating a visual size for each of the larger
and smaller bubbles" and "automatically displaying the larger and the
smaller bubbles with the calculated sizes" on a larger display. Non-final
Act. 8. According to the Examiner, the claims further recite other steps for
displaying the bubbles on a smaller display and later restoring the bubbles
for display back on the larger display for presentation to a user. Non-final
Act. 8-9. The Examiner adds that the recited limitations "correspond to
concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts such as collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis (Electric Power Group); Budgeting (Int. Ventures v. Cap One
Bank) and organizing information through mathematical correlations
7
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
(Digitech ), where the Supreme Court relied on the fact that concepts relating
to processes of organizing information that can be performed mentally
abstract." Non-final Act. 9.
With respect to the additional elements and whether they amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception, the Examiner finds:
Although a computer system acts as the intermediary in the
claimed method, the claims do no more than implement the
abstract idea on a generic computer. The claim recites the
additional limitations of a computer display device. The
"memory," and the processors are recited at a high level of
generality and are recited as performing generic computer
functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic
computer components recited as performing generic computer
functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional
activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract
idea with a computerized system.
Next, the dynamically resizing bubbles for display in
different-sized two-dimensional viewing areas of different
computer display devices is stated at a high level of generality
and its broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a computer
display device. The modification of dynamically resizing
bubbles for display in different-sized two-dimensional viewing
areas of different computer display devices is interpreted as the
concepts relating to processes of organizing information that
can be performed through the use of some unspecified generic
computer processor.
Non-final Act. 9-10. The Examiner further finds that the recited "computer
functions ... are part of the abstract idea of collecting information,
analyzing information and displaying the results of the analysis" such that
"[t ]he computer is employed for its most basic functions (performing a
calculation and iterative calculations) and displaying the results of the
analysis, and thus does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the
8
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
claims," which "do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea."
Non-final Act. 10-11.
Appellant argues that the claimed invention is not directed to an
abstract idea. App. Br. 8-10. According to Appellant, "The claimed
solution does not recite a basic concept that is similar to any abstract idea
previously identified by the courts" because "the claim does not recite any
mathematical concept or a mental process such as comparing or categorizing
information that can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a
pen and paper" and the recited features are "directly rooted in computer
technology to solve a technological problem that arises in graphical user
interfaces." App. Br. 8. Appellant compares the claims to those in Enfzsh 2
and DDR3 and asserts the claims are rooted in computer technology by
solving a problem specific to graphical user interfaces. App. Br. 8-10.
Appellant also contends that the pending claims are patent-eligible because
the combination of elements recited in each claim describe "an
unconventional improvement to a technological problem" such that
when viewed as an ordered combination, describe an
unconventional way to visually represent budget information as
bubbles that dynamically scale based on the size of the viewing
area of the display that the bubbles are displayed on, instead of
using conventional graphical elements such as bar graphs, pie
charts, or the like.
App. Br. 11.
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that "any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
2 Enfzsh, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
3 DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
9
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
useful improvement thereof' is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
"Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable."
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bankint'l, 573 U.S. 208,216 (2014) (quotingAss'nfor
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is "directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine "the elements of
each claim both individually and 'as an ordered combination' to determine
whether the additional elements 'transform the nature of the claim' into a
patent-eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claims for an "inventive concept," "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."' Alice, 573 U.S. at 217-18 ( alteration in original) ( quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) ("Guidance"). 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 activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
10
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Abstract Idea
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim's specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
11
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts4; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity5; or ( c) mental processes. 6
Independent claim 21 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim
recites a mental process, one of the abstract idea groupings listed in the
Guidance. See, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing "[m]ental processes----concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion)" as one of the "enumerated groupings of abstract ideas").
The claimed method provides for resizing bubbles for display in
display devices having different viewing areas such that "when the viewing
area of a display device available to show graphical representations of
budgeting information is small, the bubbles can be shrunk or manipulated or
adjusted to fit the screen." Spec. ,r 19. Claim 21 recites a method for
receiving a request to access the bubbles on a larger computer display device
or a smaller computer device. App. Br. 13-14 (Claims App.). The claimed
method includes the following steps: (1) "receiving a request to access larger
and smaller bubbles;" (2) "calculating a visual size for each of the larger and
smaller bubbles relative to one another and based on the viewing area of the
4 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
6 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52.
12
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
larger computer display device;" (3) "automatically displaying the larger and
smaller bubbles with the calculated sizes on the viewing area of the larger
computer display device;" and (4) additional steps related to repeating these
steps for a smaller computer display device.
Apart from the computer and display device, every limitation of claim
21 recites an abstract idea, namely mental processes, which are concepts
performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion) by calculating sizes of bubbles and determining
placement of the resized bubble. Considered together, the calculating and
determining limitations of claim 21 recite a process that people can perform
in the human mind or using pen and paper. As a result, the recited process is
no different from other concepts that courts have determined are a mental
process. See, e.g., CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d
1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (determining that a claim that recites steps that
"can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and
paper" is directed to an unpatentable mental process). This resizing of the
bubbles to fit the viewing area of the computer display device does not
require a machine, let alone a particular machine, to implement-fits
squarely within the mental processes category of the agency's guidelines.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Thus, we conclude that claim 1 recites an
abstract idea.
Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on these mental
processes, we nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is
integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies,
relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful
limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort
13
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54--
55. We, therefore, (1) identify whether there are any additional recited
elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements
individually and collectively to determine whether they integrate the
exception into a practical application. See id.
Here, the computer and display devices, as well as the resizing
functions, are the only recited elements beyond the abstract idea, but these
additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application when reading claim 21 as a whole. Therefore, we are not
persuaded that the claimed invention improves the computer or its
components' functionality or efficiency, or otherwise changes the way those
devices function. In another words, contrary to Appellant's assertion (App.
Br. 8), the claimed invention here merely uses generic computing
components to calculate the size of the bubbles that fit the viewing area of
the computer display device, and resize the bubbles to fit the larger or
smaller displays-a generic computer implementation that is not only
directed to mental processes, but also does not improve a display mechanism
as was the case in McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America, Inc., 837
F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Furthermore, the display and resizing elements recited in claim 21 do
not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The written
description discloses that the recited computer hardware and software
encompass generic components such as a general-purpose computer,
memory, and display. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 53 (Describing the computer system
for performing the claimed functions as
14
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
[i]n a typical system, the computer has memory for storing user
data, memory for storing software represented as a list of
instructions to the computer, an input device for receiving user
data and user instructions, a processing unit for carrying out
software instructions and calculations, and a display device for
displaying budgeting information graphically in either two or
three-dimensional format.
See also Ans. 15-16 (finding "the claims do no more than implement the
abstract idea on a generic computer."). Simply adding generic hardware and
computer components to perform abstract ideas does not integrate those
ideas into a practical application. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(identifying "merely includ[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea
on a computer" as an example of when an abstract idea has not been
integrated into a practical application).
We also are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments that claim 21 is
analogous or similar to the inventions found to be patent-eligible in Enfzsh,
and DDR. App. Br. 8-10. Appellant has not demonstrated that claim 21
"improve[s] the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory," as the
claims in Enfish did via a "self-referential table for a computer database."
See Enfzsh, 822 F.3d at 1336, 1339. Appellant also does not assert that
claim 21 requires an arguably inventive device or technique for displaying
information, other than resizing the displayed image to fit the viewing area
of a computer display device. Thus, claim 21 is unlike DDR in which an
inventive concept was found in the modification of conventional mechanics
behind website displays to produce a dual-source integrated hybrid display.
See DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.
Thus, the claimed limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on
15
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not (1) improve the functioning
of a computer or other technology, (2) are not applied with any particular
machine (except for a generic computer), (3) do not effect a transformation
of a particular article to a different state, and (4) are not applied in
any meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a
whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
exception. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 21 is "directed to" an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 21 recites an "inventive concept." The Examiner
determined claim 21 does not recite an inventive concept because the
additional elements in the claim do not amount to "significantly more" than
an abstract idea. See Non-final Act. 9-13.
We agree. The additional elements recited in the claim include a
"computer" and "computer display device," which are recited at a high level
of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are
generic computer components. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 53. Using generic
computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide the
necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 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."). Thus, these elements, taken
individually or together, do not amount to "significantly more" than the
abstract ideas themselves.
16
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
Appellants contend various elements recited in the claim provide the
necessary "inventive concept." App. Br. 12-14. In particular, Appellants
assert:
In particular, the courts in the BASCOM and Amdocs cases both
held that when the claims, as viewed as an ordered
combination, provide an unconventional inventive concept
that overcomes the known drawbacks of other conventional
methods, then the claims recite significantly more than the
abstract idea and describe patent eligible subject matter.
Similarly, the claims at issue, when viewed as an ordered
combination, describe an unconventional way to visually
represent budget information as bubbles that dynamically scale
based on the size of the viewing area of the display that the
bubbles are displayed on, instead of using conventional
graphical elements such as bar graphs, pie charts, or the like.
Therefore, the claims at issue recite patent eligible subject
matter because the claimed solution provides a specific and
unconventional combination of steps.
App. Br. 11. However, these elements form parts of the recited abstract
ideas and thus are not "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 78); see also Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 n.24
("USP TO 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." (Emphasis added)). Consistent with the
Examiner's findings, we see nothing in the claims or the Specification
suggesting that these additional elements of claim 1 are anything but generic
computer components that perform well-understand, routine, and
conventional activities. See Ans. 17. As such, Appellant's claims can be
distinguished from patent-eligible claims such as those in Bascom Global
Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016))
17
Appeal2018-004040
Application 13/507,602
and Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (App. Br. 11 ), that are directed to "solving a technology-based
problem" (Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349-52) and "enhancing data in a
distributed fashion" Amdocs, 841 F.3d at. 1300--01).
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
21 is "directed to" an abstract idea and does not recite an "inventive
concept." Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 21 and
the remaining claims that fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 21--40 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 21--40 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18