Ex Parte Khan et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2019

13802804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/802,804 03/14/2013
55498 7590 06/19/2019
Vista IP Law Group, LLP (Oracle)
2160 Lundy Avenue
Suite 230
San Jose, CA 95131
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Arif Rashid Khan
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.
ORA130713-US-NP 8410
EXAMINER
MARCUS, LELAND R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 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):
docketing@viplawgroup.com
ev@viplawgroup.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARIF RASHID KHAN,
JUSTIN THOMAS ANDERSON, and SUNDEEP PARSA
Appeal 2018-003 3 60
Application 13/802,804 1
Technology Center 3600
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14--22, and 24--30, which are all of the claims pending in
the application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Oracle International Corporation as the real party in
interest. See App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 3, 13, and 23 have been cancelled.
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the claims are directed to an "approach for
performing opportunity association and attribution analysis" in order to
"measure marketing campaigns" using marketing data and sales data.
Abstract. 3 Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computer implemented method implemented with a
processor for generating correlation links between multiple sets
of data with association rules and attribution models, comprising:
identifying a first set of data pertaining to multiple
programs and a second set of data within an enterprise
application;
generating, at a rules engine that is stored at least partially
in memory and functions in tandem with one or more computer
processors, a filtered set of a plurality of programs at least by
filtering out one or more programs from the multiple programs;
implementing one or more attribution models by
configuring one or more association rules for the one or more
attribution models, the one or more association rules defining one
or more attribution conditions for the one or more attribution
models;
generating association links between the filtered set and
the second set of data with at least a first attribution model and a
second attribution model by determining whether data in both the
filtered set and the second set of data satisfy the one or more
attribution conditions that are applied with the first attribution
model and the second attribution model;
3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellants' Specification filed March 14, 2013
(Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed January 13, 2017; (3)
the Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed July 17, 2017; (4) the Examiner's Answer
(Ans.) mailed November 30, 2017; and (5) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
January 30, 2018.
2
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
attributing the second set of data to the filtered set at least
by performing a model-based attribution analysis with the
association links and at least the first attribution model and the
second attribution model derived from the first attribution model
of the plurality of attribution models; and
measuring one or more metrics of the filtered set of the
plurality of programs based at least in part upon results of the
model-based attribution analysis, wherein the multiple programs
comprise multiple marketing programs, and the second set of
data comprises results of existing sales activities.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14--22, and 24--30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See Final Act. 2-7.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
Principles of Law
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a "new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter." 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: "[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas" are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573
U.S. 208,216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court's two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217-18 ( citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75-77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is "directed to." See Alice, 573
3
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
U.S. at 219 ("On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
risk."); see also Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) ("Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners' application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.").
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611 );
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594--95 (1978)); and
mental processes ( Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)). Concepts
determined to be patent eligible include physical and chemical processes,
such as "molding rubber products" (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192
( 1981) ); "tanning, dyeing, making waterproof cloth, vulcanizing India
rubber, smelting ores" (id. at 184 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S.
252, 267---68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))). In Diehr, the claim
at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the Supreme Court held that "a
claim drawn to subject matter otherwise statutory does not become
nonstatutory simply because it uses a mathematical formula." Diehr, 450
U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 ("We view respondents' claims as nothing
more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an attempt to
patent a mathematical formula."). Having said that, the Supreme Court also
indicated that a claim "seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract ... is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment." Id. at 191 (citation
4
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
omitted); see also id. at 187 ("It is now commonplace that an application of
a law of nature or mathematical formula to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.") and 191 ( citing Benson and Flook).
If the claim is "directed to" an abstract idea, we tum to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where "we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an 'inventive
concept' sufficient to 'transform' the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application." Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 ( quotations omitted). "A claim
that recites an abstract idea must include 'additional features' to ensure 'that
the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the
[abstract idea]."' Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77). "[M]erely requir[ing]
generic computer implementation[] fail[ s] to transform that abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention." Id.
USPTOJanuary 7, 2019 Revised Section 101 Memorandum
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019 ("2019 Guidance"). Under the 2019 Guidance,
we first look to whether the claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
5
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
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, conventional" in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.0S(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.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the claims as a group, specifically addressing the
limitations recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 49. Accordingly, we focus our
discussion on independent claim 1 as exemplary of Appellants' arguments
for claims 2, 4--12, 14--22, and 24--30. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.37(c)(1)(iv)(2016).
The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to a "mental process
( thinking) that 'can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a
pen and paper"' (Final Act. 3), and, thus, recites an abstract idea. The
Examiner also determines the "additional claim element(s) do not provide
meaningful limitation( s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible
application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself." Final Act. 7; see Ans. 8.
Appellants present several arguments against the section 101
rejection. Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error, as
discussed in greater detail below. The Examiner has provided a
6
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
comprehensive response to Appellants' argument. See Ans. 2-11. Thus, we
adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 2-7; see also
Ans. 2-11. We analyze the claims and the Examiner's rejection in view of
the 2019 Guidance and we adopt the nomenclature for the steps used in the
2019 Guidance.
STEP 1
Section 101 provides that "[ w ]hoever 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. Independent
claim 1 recites a method, independent claim 11 recites a non-transitory
computer readable storage medium, and independent claim 21 recites a
system. As such, the claims are directed to statutory classes of invention
within 35 U.S.C. § 101, i.e., a process, manufacture, and machine.
STEP 2A Prong 1
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the 2019 Guidance, we must determine
whether the claim, being directed to a statutory classes of invention,
nonetheless falls within a judicial exception.
The Examiner determines claim 1 is directed to "a mental process"
Final Act. 3. In particular, based on the Examiner's discussion and
highlighted claim limitations, we understand that the Examiner determines
the claim is directed to analyzing marketing programs, i.e., "performing
marketing analysis" using a process that can be performed in the mind, or on
pen and paper, to solve a business problem. See Final Act. 3--4; see also
7
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
Ans. 3. As such, the Examiner determines the claim is directed to the
abstract idea category of mental processes. See Final Act. 2; see also
Ans. 3--4.
Appellants argue that the Examiner "oversimplifies the claim[]" by
looking at only one part of the overall claim at a time. See App. Br. 8; see
Reply Br. 6-7.
Appellants' argument does not persuade us of error in the Examiner's
determination that the claim is directed to a process for analyzing marketing
programs that can be performed mentally. See Final Act. 3--4; see also
Ans. 3. The Specification supports the Examiner's determination that the
claimed invention is directed to a process that uses rules to solve a business
problem. See Final Act. 3. The Specification describes the desirability to
"tie specific marketing campaigns to revenue derived from the opportunities
associated with the campaigns." Spec. ,r 4. The Specification then describes
the solution to that problem uses "a set of association rules ... to correlate
the marketing programs to eventual sales and/or revenues from the sales."
Spec. ,r 36. That is, the invention is used "to measure marketing campaigns"
based on revenue associated with the campaigns. Id. ,r,r 4, 32.
The claim limitations highlighted by the Examiner broadly recite a
series of steps in a process to measure marketing campaigns that can be
performed mentally. See Final Act. 3--4. Specifically, claim 1 recites:
[ (a)] identifying a first set of data pertaining to multiple programs
and a second set of data ...
[ (b)] generating ... a filtered set of a plurality of programs at
least by filtering out one or more programs from the multiple
programs;
[ ( c)] implementing one or more attribution models by
configuring one or more association rules for the one or more
8
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
attribution models, the one or more association rules defining one
or more attribution conditions for the one or more attribution
models;
[(d)] generating association links between the filtered set and the
second set of data with at least a first attribution model and a
second attribution model by determining whether data in both the
filtered set and the second set of data satisfy the one or more
attribution conditions that are applied with the first attribution
model and the second attribution model;
[ ( e)] attributing the second set of data to the filtered set at least
by performing a model-based attribution analysis with the
association links and at least the first attribution model and the
second attribution model derived from the first attribution model
of the plurality of attribution models; and
[ ( f)] measuring one or more metrics of the filtered set of the
plurality of programs based at least in part upon results of the
model-based attribution analysis, wherein the multiple programs
comprise multiple marketing programs, and the second set of
data comprises results of existing sales activities.
These limitations discuss a series of broadly recited choices, judgments, and
analyses which are used to evaluate the effectiveness of a selected marketing
program. Limitation (a) merely recites selecting what information will be
used to ultimately determine the effectiveness of the marketing campaign;
selecting the information that will be used in an analysis is a mental process
performed in any analysis.
Next, limitation (b) recites the filtering, i.e., selection or choosing, of
marketing programs that will be analyzed by filtering out one or more
programs. Selecting what data to analyze from multiple potential items can
also be performed mentally. For example, Appellants point out paragraphs
49-53 of the Specification describe the process recited by limitation b. App.
Br. 6. Paragraph 50 describes "opportunities are filtered based on which
opportunities meet criteria or transitioned to a certain state and/or which
9
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
accounts, leads, or contacts meet criteria." Spec. ,r 50. As described, this is
a process for making a choice that can be performed in the mind. Further,
filtering, i.e., making a choice, based on whether the selection meets certain
criteria is a typical process that is performed in the mind when making any
choice. Even further, the Specification describes that Figure 8 "illustrates an
example interface that can be used to perform selection of an attribution
model." Spec. ,r 60. Figure 8 shows a number of different models with their
corresponding descriptions wherein a model is selected by a user via a
"Select" button. Accordingly, the selection of the model can be performed
by a person mentally selecting the model that should be used. The
Specification, therefore, supports the Examiner's determination that the step
of filtering can be performed in the mind.
Limitation ( c) recites configuring a model for use in an evaluation.
The Specification describes that configuring a model includes selecting rules
and priorities. Spec. ,r 61. As such, configuring a model for an evaluation
can be a mental process. Limitations ( d) and ( e) recite the application of the
selected information to the prepared model by linking information; such use
of an analysis technique is a mental process. For example, Appellants point
out paragraphs 40-43 and 46 of the Specification describe the processes
recited in limitations (d) and (e). App. Br. 8-9. Those paragraphs describe
that "links are based upon matching conditions that apply to data within the
data sets" and "links can be identified between the marketing/ sales data"
using rules. Spec. ,r,r 40, 45--46. Matching information and applying rules
are processes that can be mentally performed and are typical thought
processes in mental evaluations or judgements. Finally, limitation (f) recites
10
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
"measuring one or more metrics" resulting from the analysis technique; such
a broadly recited evaluation of results can be a mental process.
Accordingly, the claim limitations recite steps performed to evaluate a
marketing campaign. Those steps are recited to encompass mental
performance, and so we conclude claim 1 recites a mental process, as
identified in the 2019 Guidance.
STEP 2A Prong 2
Next, we determine whether claim 1 is directed to the abstract concept
itself or whether it is instead directed to some technological implementation
or application of, or improvement to, this concept, i.e., integrated into a
practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond,
450 U.S. at 175.
The Examiner determines the claimed "invention as a whole is not
directed to a technological problem, but a business problem" and merely
"uses a computing embodiment for speed and efficiency" in implementing
the abstract-idea solution. Ans. 3, 9. The Examiner further determines the
claimed invention "does not improve the computer as a tool." Id. at 4. We
agree with the Examiner.
Appellants argue claim 1 "offer[s] a technologically-rooted solution
for a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer technology,"
namely, "attributing a large set of data within an enterprise software
application to a filtered set of a plurality of programs." App. Br. 47; Reply
Br. 3--4. That is, "the problem that this technology is attempting to solve
only exists because of computer technology-the vast amount of data from
within an enterprise software application." App. Br. 47. Appellants further
11
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
argue the claim "improve[ s] another technological area-migration of
rules." Id. at 54. Additionally, Appellants argue "the claimed invention
improves the function[ ing] of the claimed computer itself because the
claimed filtering at the recited rule engine allows the computer to use less
memory than required for prior approaches." Reply Br. 11-12.
Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the claim integrates the
abstract idea into a practical application or otherwise transforms the claim
into patent-eligible subject matter. In particular, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that the claimed invention addresses a problem
specifically arising in the realm of computer technology. App. Br. 47; Reply
Br. 3--4. As discussed above, the Specification describes a "desir[ e] to have
unified revenue funnel analytics that can measure the effectiveness and
productivity of the marketing department, and can therefore tie specific
marketing campaigns to revenue derived from the opportunities associated
with the campaigns." Spec. ,r 4. That is, the problem described by the
Specification is a marketing analysis problem, not a computing problem.
Furthermore, although Appellants argue the claimed invention addresses
"the vast amount of data" generated in computer processing (App. Br. 47;
Reply Br. 3--4 ), here, the broadly claimed process of repeatedly processing
an alleged "vast" amount of data (App. Br. 47) merely "rel[ies] on a
computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately [which]
is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." OIP Techs., Inc. v.
Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573
U.S. at 225).
Further, although Appellants argue the claim improves "another
technological area-migration of rules" (App. Br. 54), Appellants do not
12
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
sufficiently demonstrate that a migration of marketing-related rules relates to
a type of technology. Moreover, the claim does not expressly recite a
migration of rules, and Appellants do not explain how the claim recites a
migration of rules. Still further, the Specification does not describe a
migration of rules, let alone how a migration of rules is a technology
improved by the invention.
Additionally, Appellants' argument that the "the claimed invention
improves the function of the claimed computer itself because the claimed
filtering at the recited rule engine allows the computer to use less memory
than required for prior approaches" by filtering out marketing programs
(Reply Br. 11-12) is not persuasive. First, the Specification does not
disclose that the process uses less memory, and thus the alleged use of less
memory is supported only by attorney argument which "cannot take the
place of evidence." In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
Moreover, even if less memory is used, the reason is because the process
selects a subset of marketing programs to analyze, not because the
functioning of the computer has been improved. That is, less memory is
used because less analysis is performed, not because the functioning of the
computer is improved.
In view of Appellants' Specification, and consistent with the
Examiner's determinations, claim 1 is not directed to a specific asserted
improvement in computer technological implementation.
The Guidance lists other indicia of integration. Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55. None is present in claim 1. For example, "[t]ransformation and
reduction of an article 'to a different state or thing' is the clue to
patentability of a process claim that does not include particular machines."
13
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604 (emphasis added), quoted in MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Yet "not all transformations ... infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an
'inventive concept."' DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d
1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Claim 1 's method does not transform a physical object or substance.
In this way, the claim is unlike the transformations found in some eligible
claims. See, e.g., Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184 (a process that transforms rubber).
Accordingly, on this record, claim 1 is directed to the identified
abstract idea.
STEP 2B
Next, we determine whether the claim includes additional elements
that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, thereby
providing an inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
The Examiner determines the "additional claim element(s) do not
provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent
eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to
significantly more than the abstract idea itself." Final Act. 7. We agree with
the Examiner.
Appellants argue "the combination of the claimed limitations are
clearly not generic functions and amount to significantly" more than the
abstract idea itself. App. Br. 56. Appellants further argue the Examiner
"fails to identify any 'additional elements' and also fails to explain why the
additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the alleged
judicial exceptions." Id. at 57-58.
14
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
We are not persuaded. Initially, Appellants do not explain what
particular claimed features, alone or in combination, are "clearly not generic
functions" (see App. Br. 56), nor is it readily apparent to what limitations
Appellants refer. We assume Appellants refer to the limitations reciting the
mental process discussed above. However, those limitations are part of the
recited abstract idea, and, as such, are not "additional limitations" that serve
to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible concept. See BSG Tech
LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("Our
precedent has consistently employed this same approach. 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."); see also Berkheimer v. HP,
Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring) ("It is
clear from Mayo that the 'inventive concept' cannot be the abstract idea
itself, and Berkheimer ... leave[ s] untouched the numerous cases from this
court which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged 'inventive
concept' is the abstract idea.").
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument that the Examiner "fails to
identify any 'additional elements' and also fails to explain why the
additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the alleged
judicial exceptions" (App. Br. 57), the Examiner addresses the remaining
limitations that are not directed to the identified mental process (Final
Act. 6). Specifically the Examiner identifies a "computer implemented
method implemented with a processor" and "a rules engine that is stored at
least partially in memory and functions in tandem with one or more
computer processors," as recited in claim 1. Id. The Examiner then
15
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
determines, considering the elements both individually and as a
combination, that those elements recite "generic computer [components]
performing generic computing tasks." Id. at 6-7.
Considering the claimed functions of those generic computing
components, both separately and as an ordered combination, we agree with
the Examiner that those computer functions are generic, routine, and
conventional computer activities that are performed only for their
conventional uses in an ordinary manner. See Elec. Power Grp. v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The focus of the asserted
claims ... is on collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain
results of the collection and analysis."); see also In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms 'processing,'
'receiving,' and 'storing,' ... those functions can be achieved by any
general purpose computer without special programming."); see also
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction). Indeed, the
Specification describes that the computing elements are generic computing
elements. Spec. ,r 95 ("an illustrative computing system 1400 suitable for
implementing an embodiment of the present invention" including generic
computing components expected in any computer, e.g., "devices, such as
processor 1407, system memory 1408 ( e.g., RAM), static storage device
1409 (e.g., ROM), disk drive 1410 (e.g., magnetic or optical),
communication interface 1414 ( e.g., modem or Ethernet card), display 1411
(e.g., CRT or LCD), input device 1412 (e.g., keyboard), and cursor
16
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
control."). The Specification further supports that the computing functions
performed by those elements to implement the abstract idea are generic
computing functions. In particular, the Specification describes that
"embodiments of the invention are not limited to any specific combination
of hardware circuitry and/or software" and the "logic," i.e., the processing,
performed by the computing system, "shall mean any combination of
software or hardware that is used to implement all or part of the invention."
Id. ,I 96.
Additionally, Appellants' argument that the "the independent claims
also present no concerns with preempting every application of a properly
established judicial exception" does not persuade us that the claim is
directed to patent-eligible subject matter. App. Br. 55. Although
preemption may signal patent-ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility." Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Where claims are deemed to recite only patent-ineligible subject matter
under the Alice analysis, as they are here, "preemption concerns are fully
addressed and made moot." Id.
We, thus, conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in claim 1 do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Accordingly, claim 1
does not recite patent-eligible subject matter. Because claim 1 is argued as
representative of the independent claims, we also conclude that independent
claims 11 and 21 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter. See App.
Br. 49. Further, Appellants have not proffered sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us that any of the limitations in dependent claims 2, 4--
17
Appeal2018-003360
Application 13/802,804
10, 12, 14--20, 22, and 24--30 provide a meaningful limitation that
transforms the claims into a patent-eligible application. See App. Br. 46-58.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14--22, and 24--30
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1, 2, 4--12, 14--22, and 24--30.
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.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
18