Ex Parte Studnitzer et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 13, 2019

13834891 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/834,891 03/15/2013
12684 7590 05/15/2019
Lempia Summerfield Katz LLC/CME
20 South Clark Street
Suite 600
Chicago, IL 60603
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ari Studnitzer
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.
004672-11313Z-US 6168
EXAMINER
SHRESTHA, BIJENDRA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2019 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):
mail@lsk-iplaw.com
docket-us@lsk-iplaw.com
pair_lsk@firsttofile.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARI STUDNITZER, JAMES W. FARRELL,
PAUL J. CALLAWAY, BARRY L. GALSTER, and
PEARCE PECK-WALDEN
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-17. Claims 6-10 and 18-20 have been
cancelled. Claims 21-27 were withdrawn as non-elected in response to a
restriction requirement. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief ("App. Br.") identifies Chicago Mercantile Exchange,
Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a trade matching platform with variable
pricing based on clearing relationships. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
providing client-side, computer-executable instructions to
a remote user computer for execution by the remote user
computer;
receiving an enhanced order for a financial instrument,
wherein the enhanced order comprises a clearing counter-party
(CCP) attribute identifying at least a third clearinghouse and a
fourth clearinghouse;
retrieving settings, by a server-side computer processor,
from a user data store, wherein the settings comprise:
a first indication of one or more of a plurality of
clearinghouses from which prices are non-actionable but
viewable, wherein the first indication identifies at least a
first clearinghouse;
a second indication of one or more of the plurality
of clearinghouses restricted from the user, wherein the
second indication identifies at least a second
clearinghouse; and
a third indication of one or more of the plurality of
clearinghouses from which prices are viewable and
actionable, wherein the third indication identifies at least
the third clearinghouse and the fourth clearinghouse;
determining, by the computer processor, that the CCP
attribute of the enhanced order does not identify the first
clearinghouse;
determining, by the computer processor, that the CCP
attribute of the enhanced order does not identify the second
clearinghouse;
sending, by the computer processor, the enhanced order to
a matching engine module, wherein the matching engine module
matches the enhanced order;
2
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
blocking, by the computer processor, the matched
enhanced order from being sent to the first clearinghouse and the
second clearinghouse;
sending, by the computer processor, the matched enhanced
order to the fourth clearinghouse;
removing, by the computer processor, the CCP attribute
from the matched enhanced order for backwards compatibility
before sending it to the third clearinghouse;
receiving, from the third clearinghouse and the fourth
clearinghouse, a confirmation that the matched enhanced order
is cleared and a price of the financial instrument at the respective
clearinghouse;
generating, by the computer processor, information
comprising at least a part of the plurality of prices of the financial
instrument with respect to different clearinghouses;
formatting the information in a first style for prices
received from at least the first clearinghouse identified in the first
indication, wherein the first style comprises graying out of
portions such that they are viewable but non-actionable;
formatting the information in a second style for prices
received from at least the second clearinghouse identified in the
second indication, wherein the second style comprises blacking
out portions such that they are not viewable; and
sending, by the computer processor, a message to a user,
wherein the message comprises the formatted information
generated by the computer processor comprising a plurality of
prices of the financial instrument with respect to different
clearinghouses and is configured to display on the remote user
computer,
wherein the formatted information causes the remote user
computer, which is executing the client-side computer-
executable instructions, to automatically render on a display of
the remote user computer a graphical user interface comprising
the first style and the second style such the grayed out portions
of the information are viewable by a user, but blocking user
requests for an action on the prices in those grayed out portions.
App. Br. 23-24 (Claims Appendix).
3
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
REJECTION
Claims 1-5 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to ineligible subject matter. Final Act. 6-15.
ANALYSIS
Standard for Patent Eligibility
In issues involving subject matter eligibility, the Supreme Court
applies a two-step test, as set forth in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int 'l, 573 U.S.
208 (2014). The Supreme Court instructs us to "first determine whether the
claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept," id. at 217, and, in
this case, the inquiry centers on whether the claims are directed to an
abstract idea. If the initial threshold is met, we then move to the second
step, in which we "consider 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." Id.
(quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66,
79, 78 (2012)). The Supreme Court describes the second step as 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. ( quoting Mayo, 566
U.S. at 72-73).
The USPTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO's January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance ("Memorandum"). Under that
guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
4
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
( 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)).
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52-55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look 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
§ 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Examiner's Findings and Conclusion
In the first step of the Alice inquiry, the Examiner determines the
claims are directed to a combination of abstract ideas. Specifically, the
Examiner finds the claims are directed to "trade matching [] with variable
pricing based on clearing houses relationships" which is an abstract idea.
Final Act. 7. The Examiner further determines:
The concept of matching the received order, send[ing] matched
order to identified clearinghouse as per the pre-defined settings
of the data store for clearance and settlement of the order, and
pricing the matched order of a financial instrument with respect
to identified clearing houses is a fundamental economic
practice[,] which has been found by the courts to be an abstract
5
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
idea[], similar to hedging in Bilski and mitigating settlement risk
in Alice.
Final Act. 10 ( emphases omitted).
At Alice step 2, the Examiner determines the claims do not recite
elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea
because:
The only additional limitations in the claim relate to
computerization of pricing of matched order of the financial
instrument based on transmission of the matched order to the
identified clearinghouses in the pre-defined settings of the data
store, receiving confirmation of clearance of matched order with
price of the financial instrument at the respective identified
clearinghouses and generating price information of the financial
instrument with respect to different clearinghouses in a first or a
second style format as indicated in pre-defined settings for the
specific clearinghouses. The claims as recited simply consist[]
of "transmission of matched order to clearinghouses identified in
predefined settings and transmission of message with price
information of financial instrument with respect to identified
clearinghouses in format identified in the predefined settings".
Final Act. 12-13.
The Examiner further finds the claimed limitations are conventional
and can be performed on a generic computer:
The trade matching platform with variable pricing based on
clearing relationships would require a processor and memory in
order to perform basic computer functions of accepting user
input, retrieving processing information from a data stores,
manipulating that information and displaying the results. These
components are not explicitly recited and therefore must be
construed at the highest level of generality. The interface is also
recited at a high level of generality with the only required
function of displaying message comprising pricing information
of the financial instrument, which is a well-known routine
function of interfaces. Further, the memory/data store performs
6
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
only its basic function of storing information, which is common
to all databases. Thus, the recited generic computer components
perform no more than their basic computer functions. These
additional elements are well-understood, routine and
conventional limitations that amount to mere instructions to
implement the abstract idea of generating message with price of
the financial instrument in specified format at the respective
identified clearinghouses on a computer. Taking these computer
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not
already present when the elements are taken individually.
Final Act. 13-14.
Appellants' Contentions
Appellants present several arguments in favor of eligibility. First,
Appellants argue the claims are eligible in view of Amdocs (Isr.) Ltd. v.
Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Appellants contend
"the precedential Amdocs decision closely parallels the subject matter in
[the] claims at issue in this appeal and strongly suggests the claims to be
patent eligible." App. Br. 11. More specifically, Appellants argue the
claims "expressly recite an 'enhancement' limitation" similar to the claims
in Amdocs, and also recite other similar features such as "a filtering
limitation" and backwards compatibility via "'removing' the CCP attribute
when necessary ... with some clearinghouses." App. Br. 12.
Appellants further contend the claims are not directed to an abstract
idea because:
[T]he Office Action improperly equates claims 1 and 11 to the
patent claims in Alice, which the SCOTUS found were directed
to the basic concept of mitigating settlement risk without
significantly more, thus a fundamental economic principle.
However, unlike the claims in Alice, claims 1 and 11 recite a
method directly tied to a specific computer system arrangement
7
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
with specific CCP attributes in an enhanced order that provide a
technological solution to the problem of backwards compatibility
in a computer network system, as well as controlling/limiting
user access to particular computer networks. In Alice, the
SCOTUS held th[ ose] claims to be patent ineligible because they
recited an abstract idea and simply required to "apply it."
Meanwhile, Applicants' claims 1 and 11 are not directed to a
fundamental economic practice because they recite specific
details about novel and inventive inputs that are collectively used
to provide a technological solution to an existing problem with
connected computer networks. In contrast to the "long
prevalent" subject matter referenced in [Alice], the elements of
claims 1 and 11 are instead directed towards a patent-eligible
technological system involving several computer network
systems.
App. Br. 13-14.
Appellants also argue the claims are similar to those found eligible in
Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) because:
Applicants' claims recite patent eligible features with sufficient
specificity and not merely at a higher level of generality. As
explained above, Applicants' claims 1 and 11 recite removing a
CCP attribute from an enhanced order to provide backwards
compatibility for particular computer networks, while blocking
the transmission of enhanced orders to other computer networks.
Moreover, claim 1 recites causing a particular display of
formatted information to be automatically rendered a user's
remote computing device such that user access to particular data
is secured/restricted.
App. Br. 16.
Appellants also assert their claims compare favorably to those found
eligible inMcRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299
(Fed. Cir. 2016) because "[a]pplying the McRO holding to Applicants'
claims, it is clear that Applicants' claims do not wholly preempt any
particular technological field" and "[a]s the McRo court found to be
8
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
persuasive, the preemption analysis here also favors patent eligibility." App.
Br. 19.
Appellants also assert the claims are patent-eligible under Alice step 2.
App. Br. 18-20. Specifically, Appellants argue the Federal Circuit's
decision in BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) supports a finding that the claims supply an
inventive concept under the second step of the Alice inquiry. App. Br. 19.
Appellants assert that similar to the eligible claims in Bascom, the claims
under appeal "recite a non-conventional, purposeful arrangement of a
network of clearinghouses and other computer components with novel and
inventive process to specifically solve the problem of backwards
compatibility in a computer network system, as well as controlling/limiting
user access to particular computer networks." App. Br. 20.
Our Review
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error. The Memorandum instructs us first to
determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the
claim. The guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings:
(1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human
behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes.
We focus here on the second and third groupings----certain methods of
organizing human behavior such as fundamental economic practices and
mental processes.
Claim 1 recites the following limitations: (1) "providing client-side,
computer-executable instructions to a remote user computer for execution by
9
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
the remote user computer," (2) "receiving an ... order for a financial
instrument," (3) "receiving settings," (4) "wherein the settings comprise[] a
first indication of one or more of a plurality of clearinghouses ... wherein
the first indication identifies a first clearinghouse," (5) "a second indication
of one or more of a plurality of clearinghouses ... wherein the second
indication identifies at least a second clearinghouse," (6) "a third indication
of one or more of a plurality of clearinghouses ... wherein the third
indication identifies at least the third clearinghouse and the fourth
clearinghouse," (7) "determining ... that the CCP attribute of the enhanced
order does not identify the first clearinghouse," (8) "determining ... that the
CCP attribute of the enhanced order does not identify the second
clearinghouse," (9) "sending ... the ... order to a matching engine module,
wherein the matching engine module matches the ... order,"
(10) "sending ... the matched ... order to the fourth clearinghouse,"
(11) "receiving ... a confirmation that the matched ... order is cleared and a
price of the financial instrument at the respective clearinghouse,"
(12) "generating ... information comprising at least a part of the plurality of
prices of the financial instrument with respect to different clearinghouses,"
(13) "formatting the information ... received from at least the first
clearinghouse identified in the first indication," (14) "formatting the
information ... received from at least the second clearinghouse identified in
the second indication," (15) "sending ... a message to a user, wherein the
message comprises the formatted information ... comprising a plurality of
prices of the financial instrument with respect to different clearinghouses
and is configured to display on the remote user computer," (16) "wherein the
formatted information causes the remote user computer ... to automatically
10
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
render on a display of the remote user computer a graphical user
interface ... viewable by a user." App. Br. 23-24 (Claims Appendix).
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation,
recite the fundamental economic practices of matching received orders and
sending the matched orders to identified clearinghouses based on pre-
defined settings. This is so because these limitations all recite the operations
that would ordinarily take place in performing such an order matching
process. For example, limitation ( 1) is the basic operation of setting up a
trading environment. Limitation (2) is the standard practice of receiving a
trade order from a user. Limitations (3}-(6) provide for identification of
clearinghouses to clear an executed trade. Limitations (7) and (8), which
recite making determinations regarding the content of the CCP attribute, are
reasonably characterized as mental processes, which are also abstract.
Limitations (9}-(11) reflect the customary practice of matching an order,
sending a matched order to a clearinghouse, and receiving a clearing
confirmation from the clearinghouse along with pricing information.
Limitation (12) embodies the practice of pricing of financial instruments by
clearinghouses. Limitations (13}-(15) recite formatting the information
received from the clearinghouses and presenting that formatted information
to traders.
Similar to the concept of hedging in Bilski, and the concept of
intermediated settlement in Alice (which like the instant claims involves
settlement of transactions involving financial instruments), the concept of
matching received orders and sending the matched order to identified
clearinghouses based on pre-defined settings recited in Appellants' claims
"is a fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of
11
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
commerce." Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-220 (citations and internal quotation
marks omitted). Accordingly, we conclude the claims recite a judicial
exception of an abstract idea, specifically a fundamental economic practice.
Having determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, our
analysis under the Memorandum turns now to determining whether there are
"additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application." See MPEP § 2106.0S(a}-(c), (e}-(h)). Appellants' claim 1
recites that several of the steps of the claimed method are performed by "a
server-side computer processor," as well as the use of a "user data store" for
storing the retrieved settings. The claimed "computer processor" is
described primarily in functional terms in the Specification, and without
meaningful detail about its structural configuration that differentiates it from
standard, generic computer processors performing the recited operations.
See, e.g., Spec. ,r 79. The recited "user data store" is also described without
any indication that it is anything other than a conventional relational
database. See, e.g., Spec. ,r 80 ("A user data store ( e.g., user database 102)
may include information identifying traders and other users of exchange
computer system 100.") As such, the claims' recitations of the computer
processor and user data store are insufficient to integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Claim 1 also recites additional limitations which focus on the use of a
clearing counter-party (CCP) attribute to create an "enhanced" order and to
identify clearinghouses additional to those identified in the settings retrieved
from the user data store, including: (a) "receiving an enhanced order for a
financial instrument, wherein the enhanced order comprises a clearing
counter-party (CCP) attribute identifying at least a third clearinghouse and
12
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
a fourth clearing house." Claim 1 further recites additional limitations
relating to the retrieved settings, including that the recited "first indication"
includes clearinghouses (b) ''from which prices are non-actionable but
viewable," the recited "second indication" identifies clearinghouses
( c) "restricted from the user," and the recited "third indication" identifies
clearinghouses (d) ''from which prices are viewable and actionable." App.
Br. 23 (Claims Appendix).
Claim 1 further recites routing the order based on the determinations
regarding the content of the CCP attribute: (e) "blocking ... the matched
enhanced order from being sent to the first clearinghouse and second
clearinghouse." Claim 1 also contemplates addressing a situation in which
one of the clearinghouses does not have the capability to process the CCP
attribute, and recites (f) "removing . .. the CCP attribute from the matched
enhanced order for backwards compatibility before sending it to the third
clearinghouse."
Finally, claim 1 also recites presenting information to the user with
specific formatting in order to convey certain information: (g) "formatting
the information in a first style for prices received from at least the first
clearinghouse identified in the first indication, wherein the first style
comprises grain out portion such that they are viewable but non-
actionable," (h) "formatting the information in a second style for prices
received from at least the second clearinghouse identified in the second
indication, wherein the second style comprises blacking out portion such
that they are not viewable," and (i) "presenting the information on a
graphical user interface "comprising the first and the second style such that
the great out portions of the information are viewable by a user, but
13
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
blocking user request for an action on the prices in those great out
portions."
We conclude that these limitations are insufficient to integrate the
recited judicial exception into a practical application. The use of a "CCP
attribute" to create an "enhanced order" as recited in limitation (a) does not
improve the functioning of a computer, nor does it solve any technological
problem with a technological solution. Rather, it is an improvement to the
business process, i.e., to the financial instrument order itself, providing
additional information that allows the user to be presented with better
options for completing the order for the financial instrument. Indeed, the
Specification describes no technological innovation associated with these
features, and instead merely expresses the observation that "[i]n some
examples, the ability to submit a RFQ for a particular product may be
governed by a clearing relationship and/or a user's desire/ability to clear at a
specific CCP relative to the available prices at a CCP." Spec. ,r 34.
We also conclude the limitations relating to the data included in the
retrieved user settings are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a
practical application. Specifically, limitations (b }-( d), which specify that
particular clearing houses may be (i) restricted from the user, (ii) viewable
but not actionable, or (iii) both viewable and actionable, also do not improve
the functioning of the computing system. Rather, these limitations amount
only to improvements to the predefined settings used to identify
clearinghouses suitable for receiving and/or clearing the enhanced order. As
such, these limitations improve the abstract idea itself, but provide no
technological improvement sufficient to integrate the idea into a practical
app li cation.
14
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
The limitation reciting routing the order based on the determinations
made with respect to the presence of the CCP attribute is also insufficient to
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The "blocking" step
recited in limitation ( e) only describes performing the logical action in light
of those mental determinations, namely blocking the order from being sent
to the first and second clearing houses which are restricted from the user.
Limitation (f), which recites removing the CCP attribute "for
backwards compatibility before sending it to the third clearinghouse," does
not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it amounts
to only "generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment," (MPEP § 2106.0S(h)). In particular, the
removal of the CCP attribute is performed to permit the abstract idea of
sending matched orders to identify clearinghouses to be implemented in a
"particular technological environment," as contemplated by MPEP
§ 2106.0S(h), so that certain clearinghouses "do[] not necessarily need to be
aware of this attribute in order to perform its functions." Spec. ,r 83. As
such, the removal of the CCP attribute is not sufficient to integrate claim 1
into a practical application.
As noted above, limitations (g}-(h) recite how information is
conveyed and presented to the user using different styles to indicate different
clearinghouse options. However, these limitations do not improve the
operation of the computer, but rather improve the ability of the trader to
view and understand the information being conveyed. As recently observed
by our reviewing court, where an "invention makes the trader faster and
more efficient, not the computer ... [it] is not a technical solution to a
technical problem." Trading Techs. Int'! v. !BG, LLC, Docket No. 2017-
15
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
2257, slip op. 9 (Fed. Cir. April 18, 2019); see also id. at slip. op. 15 (claims
abstract where "they recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assist traders in processing information more quickly").
In view of the discussion above, we conclude the additional
limitations (a}-(h) recited in claim 1 are not sufficient to integrate the
claimed process into a practical application, and therefore the claim is
directed to a judicial exception.
Having determined the claim is directed to a judicial exception, we
proceed to evaluating whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond
the judicial exception that is not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in
the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)) or simply appends well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. See Memorandum,
84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim does not supply the
inventive concept required under Alice step 2. Appellants' argument under
Alice step 2 relies primarily on BASCOM Global Internet Servs. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), asserting that the "non-
conventional, purposeful arrangement of a network of clearinghouses and
other computer components [provides a] novel an inventive process to
specifically solve the problem of backwards compatibility in a computer
network system, as well as controlling/limiting user access to particular
computer networks." App. Br. 20. We observe no disclosure in the
Specification characterizing backwards compatibility or limiting user access
as problems in the prior art to be addressed by Appellants' invention.
16
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
Moreover, although Appellants assert "inventive concepts recited in
Applicants' claims are in the aforementioned non-conventional and non-
generic arrangement," (App. Br. 18), Appellants do not explain how these
purported inventive concepts are in the non-abstract realm. SAP Am., Inc. v.
InvestPic, LLC, No. 2017-2081, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 12590, Slip. Op. 13
(Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) ("[w]hat is needed is an inventive concept in the
non-abstract realm"). Indeed, the Specification states that the invention
"may be implemented with one or more mainframes, servers, gateways,
controllers, desktops or other computers," which are generic computer
components. Spec. ,r 79.
Because the asserted improvements are within the abstract realm, and
because the claimed process is carried out using a generic computer, we do
not discern in claim 1 any "specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not 'well-understood, routine, conventional."' MPEP § 2106.05( d).
Consequently, we agree with the Examiner that the claims do not supply an
inventive concept sufficient to transform the judicial exception into patent-
eligible subject matter.
Summary
Because the Examiner correctly concluded claim 1 is directed to a
judicial exception, and because Appellants do not identify any error in the
Examiner's determination under Alice step 2, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Appellants do not present arguments for any
other claim. Accordingly, we treat claim 1 as representative, and sustain the
patent-eligibility rejection of the remaining claims for the same reasons.
17
Appeal2018-002186
Application 13/834,891
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5 and 11-17.
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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
18