Google Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 25, 2020

14585675 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/585,675 12/30/2014 Kay H. Brodersen 16113-7204001 1731
26192 7590 02/25/2020
FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
PO BOX 1022
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55440-1022
EXAMINER
LEE, PAUL D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2862
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
PATDOCTC@fr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAY H. BRODERSEN, HAVARD GARNES,
DIMITRIS MERETAKIS, OLAF BACHMANN,
and STEVEN LEE SCOTT

Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675
Technology Center 2800
Before CATHERINE Q. TIMM, JAMES C. HOUSEL, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
CASHION, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–12, 14–16, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Google LLC.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

2
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The invention relates to systems and methods to “ensure anomaly
detection and guided analysis that are statistically meaningful, avoid
overfitting, and provide a generative model for forecasting.” Spec. ¶ 2.
According to Appellant, the claimed invention provides a
specific way in which anomalies that exist in the unpresented
(i.e., unlaunched) underlying slice data are surfaced to the user
in the aggregate time series data so that the user need not
navigate to (or launch) the underlying slice data in order to
identify the existence of these underlying anomalies, and so that
the user can directly navigate directly to the appropriate
underlying slice of data to further analyze the anomalies in the
underlying slice data, thereby allowing the user to more quickly
access the appropriate data.

Appeal Br. 6–7.
Claim 1, reproduced below from the Claims Appendix to the Appeal
Brief, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter (formatting added):
1. A computer-implemented method for anomaly detection
and forecasting time-series data, the method comprising:

receiving, at a server, a request from a client to analyze a time-
series data comprising a plurality of data points;

accessing a database of global calendars;

building a structural time-series model from the time-series data
and the database of global calendars, the structural time-series model
comprising an aggregation of time-series data in a plurality of data
dimensions and a plurality of probability distributions, each
probability distribution corresponding to a data point in the
aggregation of time-series data;

Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

3
determining, for each data point of the time-series data, a range
of expected values from a respective probability distribution, the
range of expected values capturing a predefined percentage of the
respective probability distribution;

detecting an aggregate anomaly at a first data point of the
aggregation of time-series data responsive to comparing the first data
point with a respective range of expected values;

detecting a slice anomaly in slice data for one of the data
dimensions, wherein the slice data has a fixed value for one of the
data dimensions;

determining that a time of the slice anomaly matches a time of
the aggregate anomaly; and

in response to determining that the time of the slice anomaly
matches the time of the aggregate anomaly, transmitting, to the client
for display, data that identify a location of the aggregate anomaly in
the aggregation of time-series data as well as data identifying the slice
anomaly as a drill-down suggestion indicating that, although not
initially presented in the aggregation of time series data, the slice
anomaly will be included in a presentation of the slice data.

Appeal Br. 9–10 (Claims Appendix).

Independent claim 19 is directed to a computer-implemented system
for anomaly detection and forecasting time-series data that essentially
performs the method of claim 1.

OPINION
The Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–12, 14–
16, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to patent-ineligible subject
matter. Final Act. 3–7.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

4
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075
(BPAI 2010) (precedential), cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that even if the Examiner had failed
to make a prima facie case, “it has long been the Board’s practice to require
an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”).
After considering the argued claims and each of Appellant’s
arguments, we are not persuaded that Appellant identifies reversible error.
Thus, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection for the reasons expressed in the
Final Office Action and the Answer. We add the following primarily for
emphasis.
Appellant does not argue any claim separate from the other claims.
See generally Appeal Br. In view of this, and for the purposes of this
opinion, we select independent claims 1 and 11 as representative of the
subject matter claimed. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv),
dependent claims 2, 4–6, 9, 10, 12, 14–16, 19, and 20 stand or fall with their
respective independent claim.
The Examiner identifies each step recited in claim 1, except for the
steps of receiving a request from a client to analyze a time-series data,
accessing a database of global calendars and transmitting the data that
identifies the locations of the anomalies, as reciting an abstract idea of either
a mathematical concept or a mental process. Final Act. 3–5.
The Examiner further finds that the additional claim 1 elements/steps
of receiving a request to analyze a time-series data comprising a plurality of
data points and accessing a database of global calendars are insufficient to
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

5
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the
description of mere data gathering in these additional steps in conjunction
with the abstract ideas amount to only insignificant extra solution activity to
the judicial exception. Id. at 5. The Examiner also finds that the step of
transmitting the data that identify the locations of the anomalies amounts to
insignificant extra solution reporting of a calculated result. Id. at 6.
With respect to system claim 11, the Examiner finds the claimed
network interface of a server, the structural time-series module of the server,
the anomaly detector of the server, and the report generator of the server are
described at a high level of generality and amount to merely generic
elements of the computer server to perform the generic functions of
receiving, processing, or outputting data, which does not add something
significantly more to the abstract idea. Id. at 5–6.
Appellant raises a number of arguments with regard to this rejection
that we address throughout the opinion. Appeal Br. 3–8; Reply Br. 1–3.

Legal Framework
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. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, our
inquiry focuses on the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in
Mayo and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

6
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 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. Kappos, 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 concepts (Flook, 437 U.S. at 594–95); and mental processes
(Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972)). Concepts determined to be
patent eligible include physical and chemical processes, such as “molding
rubber products” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 191 (1981)); “tanning,
dyeing, making water-proof cloth, vulcanizing India rubber, smelting ores”
(id. at 182 n.7 (quoting Corning v. Burden, 56 U.S. 252, 267–68 (1853)));
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
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

7
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. (citing Benson and Flook); see, e.g., 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.”).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn 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 (quotation marks 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.
The Office has published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, as
updated in October 2019.2 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
activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes); and

2 We recognize that the Memorandum was not available to the Examiner and
Appellant during the prosecution of the instant Application.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

8
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim recites a judicial exception and 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 generally Memorandum.

Analysis
Determination of Claims’ Statutory Category
Before any consideration as to whether claims 1 and 11 are directed to
patent-ineligible subject matter, such as an abstract idea, we must first
determine if the claim falls under a statutory category, as a “new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
There is no dispute between Appellant and the Examiner that claim 1
falls under a statutory category under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See generally
Appeal Br.; see generally Final Act.
For completeness, we note that (1) independent claim 1 is a method
claim falling under the statutory category of a “process,” and (2)
independent system claim 11 is an apparatus falling under the statutory
category of “machine” under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

9
Having established that the claims fall in a statutory category, we now
follow the Memorandum to analyze claims 1 and 11 to determine if they are
directed to patent-ineligible subject matter.

Determination of Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Applying the guidance set forth in the Memorandum, we conclude
that claims 1 and 11 do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
Revised Step 2A, Prong One–Recites Judicial Exceptions
The Memorandum instructs us first to determine whether each claim
recites any judicial exception to patent eligibility. 84 Fed. Reg. at 54. The
Memorandum identifies three judicially-excepted groupings of abstract
ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human
activity such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes.
Id. at 52. The Examiner finds claim 1 recites mathematical relationships,
mathematical calculations, and mental processes for identifying an aggregate
anomaly data point and slice anomaly data point. Ans. 5.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites a computer-implemented method comprising the steps
of (a) building a structural time-series model from the time-series data and
the database of global calendars, (b) determining, for each data point of the
time-series data, a range of expected values from a respective probability
distribution, the range of expected values capturing a predefined percentage
of the respective probability distribution, (c) detecting an aggregate anomaly
at a first data point of the aggregation of time-series data responsive to
comparing the first data point with a respective range of expected values, (d)
detecting a slice anomaly in slice data for one of the data dimensions,
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

10
wherein the slice data has a fixed value for one of the data dimensions, and
(e) determining that a time of the slice anomaly matches a time of the
aggregate anomaly.
(a) Step of building a structural time-series model. . .
The step of building a structural time-series model is recited at a high
level of generalization and merely provides information, through
mathematical operations, to be used in the process. The claim recites that
the structural time-series model comprises “an aggregation of time-series
data in a plurality of data dimensions and a plurality of probability
distributions.” This step further recites that “each probability distribution
correspond[s] to a data point in the aggregation of time-series data.” A
probability distribution is a mathematical function. According to the
Specification, the step of building a structural time-series model3 “includes
building a dynamic linear model, a state-space model, and/or a Bayesian
time-series model.” Spec. ¶ 74. The Specification further discloses that the
model relies on Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) iterations to estimate
the values of the components comprising or corresponding to a probability
distribution, where iterations are performed to decrease the uncertainty
associated with each component. Spec. ¶ 105. Thus, the step of building the
model encompasses any number of mathematical relationships where
probability distributions are associated with data points and recites a
mathematical concept.

3 The Specification describes the structural time-series module of the server
as a mathematical relationship or, at best, executable software including
mathematical relationships. Spec. ¶ 103. Therefore, we interpret the
structural time-series model to be a mathematical model that uses
mathematical relationships to generate data. See id. ¶ 104.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

11
(b) Step of determining, for each data point of the time-series data, a
range of expected values from a respective probability distribution, . . .

The step of “determining, for each data point of the time-series data, a
range of expected values from a respective probability distribution” is
recited at a high level of generalization. The last clause of the step, recites
that “the range of expected values captur[es] a predefined percentage of the
respective probability distribution” further defines a property of the “range
of expected values,” which is data. This step also involves a mathematical
relationship where probability distributions are associated with data points.
Further, according to the Specification, “the range of expected values may
be determined by the mean and the standard deviation value generated by
the model for each data point.” Spec. ¶ 75. The Specification further
explains that “the anomaly parameter may be used with the mean and the
standard deviation to calculate the range of expected values for each data
point.” Id. Thus, this step involves a mathematical relationship that recites
a mathematical concept.
(c) Step of detecting an aggregate anomaly at a first data point of the
aggregation of time-series data responsive to comparing the first data point
with a respective range of expected values, and
(d) Step of detecting a slice anomaly in slice data for one of the data
dimensions, . . .

The steps of detecting an aggregate anomaly and detecting a slice
anomaly are anomalies in data. The Specification describes that aggregate
anomaly “refers to anomalies that are detected in the aggregate time-series
data.” Spec. ¶ 83. The Specification states that a slice anomaly is an
anomaly detected in a slice data. Id. at ¶ 78. We address these steps
together because the Specification discloses that “[d]etecting a slice anomaly
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

12
may be similar to detecting an aggregate anomaly as describe[d] in step 410,
and as described in relation to relation to steps 310 through steps 325 of FIG.
3.” Id. ¶ 86. That is, both types of anomalies are detected using a similar
approach.
These steps are recited at a high level of generalization. The
Specification describes the step of detecting an anomaly as detecting an
anomaly corresponding to a respective data point that lies outside a
respective range of expected values. Spec. ¶ 76. The claim recites
comparing a data point with a respective range of expected values to detect
an aggregate anomaly. The claim also recites that a slice data must have a
fixed value for one of the data dimensions to detect a slice anomaly. This,
therefore, involves a comparison of data against a set of data. Comparing
data points against a range of expected values or data dimensions are steps
that can be performed in the human mind. As such, these steps are mental
steps that recite a mental process.
(e) determining that a time of the slice anomaly matches a time of the
aggregate anomaly

The step of determining that a time of the slice anomaly matches a
time of the aggregate anomaly is recited at a high level of generalization.
The Specification describes the step of determining that a time of the slice
anomaly matches a time of the aggregate anomaly may include comparing
the time of the slice anomaly with a time of the aggregate anomaly based on
a number of factors to find a match. Spec. ¶¶ 88–89. Comparing data points
is a step that can be performed in the human mind. As such, this step is a
mental step that recites a mental process.

Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

13
Claim 11
Independent claim 11 recites a computing apparatus (system)
comprising a network interface of a server, a structural time-series module
of the server, an anomaly detector, and a report generator, where each of the
components performs the steps of method claim 1. Claim 11 recites these
components at a high level of generality.
The Specification teaches that the interface may be an electronic
display, a touch screen, a speaker, a keyboard, a pointing device, a mouse, a
microphone, a printer, a gamepad, etc. Spec. ¶ 21.
The Specification discloses that the structural time-series module may
comprise a Bayesian structural time-series (BSTS) model. Id. ¶¶ 97, 103.
The Specification describes the structural time-series module of the server as
a mathematical relationship or, at best, executable software including
mathematical relationships. Spec. ¶ 103. Therefore, we construe the
structural time-series model to be a mathematical model that uses
mathematical relationships to generate data. See id. ¶ 104.
The Specification does not ascribe any particular details to an
anomaly detector. See generally id. However, Mathis,4 made of record by
Appellant in an Information Disclosure Statement entered into the record on
January 10, 2017, discloses that it was known to use anomaly detectors in
“methods and apparatus for anomaly detection in time series data using
predictive modeling.” Mathis ¶¶ 3, 16.
The Specification teaches that the report generator may include web
search service, a reporting service, an online video-sharing service, a video

4 US 2014/0108640 A1, issued April 17, 2014.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

14
streaming service, an audio streaming service, an image sharing service, a
file storing service, a document indexing service, a database service, a
website service, an email service, a social media service, an online chat
service, an online shopping service, an online advertisement auction service,
or any other service or resources. Id. ¶ 35. In addition, the Specification
discloses that the report may include a visual representation, such as a graph,
of the time series data, the range of expected values at each data point, and
an indication of data points at which an anomaly was detected. Id. at 77.
These devices are merely configured so as to perform the method of claim 1,
which recites a judicial exception, i.e., mathematical concept, and the system
likewise also recites this judicial exception. Fundamentally, this claim
recites the same judicial exceptions, mental processes and mathematical
concepts, for substantially the same reasons as provided above regarding
claim 1.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant relies on illustrative 101 Guidance
Example 385 to assert that the claims do not recite the abstract idea of a
mathematical concept because the claims do not recite a mathematical
relationship, formula, or calculation. Reply Br. 1. Example 38 is part of a
group of Examples published by the USPTO on January 7, 2019, accessible
at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
101_examples_37to42_20190107.pdf (hereinafter as “Examples Document”
or “Ex. Doc.”). Ex. Doc. 6. As the document states, these examples “are

5 The USPTO provided these examples for use in conjunction with the
USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent Subject
Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Memorandum”), 84 Fed. Reg. 50, as updated
in October 2019. Id. 1.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

15
hypothetical and only intended to be illustrative of the claim analysis under
the [Memorandum].” Id. The Examples Document also advises that
“[t]hese examples should be interpreted based on the fact patterns set forth
below as other fact patterns may have different eligibility outcomes.” Id.
That is, the examples are not determinative of patent eligibility of claims.
Id.
Appellant also relies on Example 38 to assert that the claims do not
recite the abstract idea of a mental process because the steps are not
practically performed in the human mind. Reply Br. 1. Appellant also
asserts that the claims do not recite a certain method of organizing human
activity such as a fundamental economic concept or commercial and legal
interactions. Id.
Example 38 illustrates a hypothetical claim as follows (formatting
added):
A method for providing a digital computer simulation of an analog
audio mixer comprising:
a. initializing a model of an analog circuit in the digital computer,
said model including a location, initial value, and a manufacturing tolerance
range for each of the circuit elements within the analog circuit;
b. generating a normally distributed first random value for each
circuit element, using a pseudo random number generator, based on a
respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range; and
c. simulating a first digital representation of the analog circuit
based on the first random value and the location of each circuit element
within the analog circuit.

Ex. Doc. 6.
For the purposes of this opinion we focus on method step b to address
Appellant’s arguments.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

16
Step b recites “generating a normally distributed first random value
for each circuit element, using a pseudo random number generator, based on
a respective initial value and manufacturing tolerance range.” Id.
According to the Examples Document, even though some of the
limitations may be based on mathematical concepts, this step does not recite
a mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation because the
mathematical concepts are not recited in the claims. Id. at 7.
Appellant contends that claim 1, like Example 38, does not recite the
abstract idea of a mathematical concept because the claims do not recite a
mathematical relationship, formula, or calculation. Reply Br. 1.
We are unpersuaded by this argument. “It is of no moment that the
algorithm [or mathematical concept] is not expressed in terms of a
mathematical formula. Words used in a claim operating on data to solve a
problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d
835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The exemplary language of Example 38’s claim merely recites that a
first random value is generated based on two inputted values, “a respective
initial value and manufacturing tolerance range.” Even though a
mathematical relationship is implied in the claim, the exemplary language
does not specify any mathematical relationship regarding how the two inputs
result in the desired output. The step of building a structural time-series
model in Appellant’s claim 1 recites that “the structural time-series model
comprising an aggregation of time-series data in a plurality of data
dimensions and a plurality of probability distributions, each probability
distribution corresponding to a data point in the aggregation of time-series
data.” Claim 1 also recites the step of “determining, for each data point of
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

17
the time-series data, a range of expected values from a respective probability
distribution, the range of expected values capturing a predefined percentage
of the respective probability distribution.”
Thus, unlike the language of the claim in Example 38, the language of
Appellant’s claim 1 is more particular because it identifies sufficiently that
the data point/range of expected values are associated or correlated with a
probability distribution. Therefore, the claim language defines a
mathematical relationship which recites a mathematical concept.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument that claim 1 does
not recite a mental process because the steps are not practically performed in
the human mind. Reply Br. 1. Appellant does not explain why the data
comparison recited in claim 1’s steps of “detecting an aggregate anomaly at
a first data point of the aggregation of time-series data responsive to
comparing the first data point with a respective range of expected values,”
“detecting a slice anomaly in slice data for one of the data dimensions,
wherein the slice data has a fixed value for one of the data dimensions,” and
“determining that a time of the slice anomaly matches a time of the
aggregate anomaly” cannot practically be performed in the human mind.
Memorandum, 84 F.3d 52 n.14 (“If a claim, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of
generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes
category unless the claim cannot practically be performed in the mind.”).
Accordingly, applying the guidance in the Memorandum, we conclude
that claims 1, 11, and, thus, all claims on appeal each recite an abstract idea,
i.e., a mental process and a mathematical concept, and, as such, recite a
judicial exception.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

18
Revised Step 2A, Prong Two – Practical Application6
Having determined that claims 1 and 11 recite the abstract ideas of a
mental process and mathematical concept, we next look to determine
whether the claims recite “additional elements that integrate the [judicial]
exception into a practical application.” MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h);
Memorandum, 84 F.3d at 53–54. Integration into a practical application
requires an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the
claim to “apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that
imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–54; see also id. at 55 (setting forth
exemplary considerations indicative that an additional element or
combination of elements may have integrated the judicial exception into a
practical application).
Claim 1 recites the additional steps of (1) receiving a request from a
client to analyze a time-series data, (2) accessing a database of global
calendars, and (3) transmitting/displaying the result obtained from the
method. In addition, claim 1 recites a server and a database.
We find that the additional elements recited in claim 1 do not integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application. While Appellant asserts
that the claim is directed to an “improvement in computer functionality,”
claim 1 does not positively recite a computer nor does the Specification

6 We acknowledge that some of these considerations may be properly
evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office Memorandum). Solely
for purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the Office, we
evaluate it under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office Memorandum). See
generally Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. 50.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

19
describe an improvement to the functioning of a computer. In fact, the
Specification describes that the claimed invention may be practiced with
“any number and/or type of user-operable electronic device,” including “a
general-purpose computing device.” Spec. ¶¶ 21, 27. Nor are the additional
elements directed to a particular machine or transformation. In addition,
Appellant does not argue or otherwise demonstrate that the claims provide
an improvement to another technology or technical field. To the contrary,
the Examiner determined that the claimed method does not improve another
technology or technical field. Final Act. 7. The claim merely produces data
that “identify[] the precise location in the time series where [an] underlying
anomaly occurs” that is used “to perform further analysis.” Appeal Br. 3.
Indeed, the method does not require any step of applying or using these
numbers for any purpose or to solve any problem. The steps of receiving a
request, accessing a database, and transmitting/displaying a result, as noted
above, are merely data gathering steps that do not integrate the claimed
method into a practical application.
The server and database are not devices that improve the functioning
of a computer or result in improvements to another technology or technical
field, nor does Appellant argue otherwise. We note that Appellant discloses
the server as broadly encompassing any number and/or type of user-operable
electronic devices (Spec. ¶ 21) and the database as broadly encompassing
any type of non-volatile memory, media, or memory devices (id. ¶ 27). That
is, the Specification discloses that these devices can be any device capable of
performing the stated function at a high level of generality.7 But such

7 Although some of these considerations also may be properly evaluated
under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance), consistent with the
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

20
disclosure does not integrate the mathematical concept and the mental
process recited in the claims into a practical application. See Memorandum,
84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (setting forth examples in which a judicial exception has
not been integrated into a practical application).
With regard to the system of claim 11 comprising a network interface
of a server, a structural time-series module of the server, an anomaly
detector, and a report generator, as indicated above, none of these devices is
directed to a particular machine or transformation, nor does Appellant argue
otherwise. Moreover, none of these devices improve the functioning of a
computer or to another technology or technical field, nor does Appellant
argue otherwise. We note that Appellant discloses these devices broadly
encompass any device capable of performing the stated function at a high
level of generality.8 See, for example, Spec. ¶¶ 21 (types of interface), 35
(report generator). But such disclosure does not integrate the mathematical
concepts recited in the claims into a practical application. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (setting forth examples in which a judicial
exception has not been integrated into a practical application).
Appellant argues that the claims recite “a practical application of any
alleged judicial exception” because they are directed to an improvement in
the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field.
Reply Br. 1. Appellant argues that claim 1, like the claims at issue in Core

Memorandum, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office
guidance). See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
8 Although some of these considerations also may be properly evaluated
under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of Office guidance), consistent with the
Memorandum, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of Office
guidance). See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

21
Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (2018),
provides “an improved user interface for a computing device” that
“improve[s] the efficiency of using [an] electronic device” by “allow[ing]
the user to see the most relevant data” and directing the user to the slice of
data that is causing the presented anomaly in the aggregate time-series data
rather than leaving it to the user to explore the various slices of data in an
effort to determine which slice of data is causing the presented anomaly.
Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2. That is, Appellant contends that claim 1
improves the functioning of a computer by providing an improved interface
that guides the user directly to the slice of data that is the root of the problem
even though the individual slice of data is not presented on the screen.
Reply Br. 2.
In Core Wireless, the court determined that the involved claims were
patent eligible because they were “directed to an improved user interface for
computing devices, not to the abstract idea of an index.” 880 F.3d at 1362.
The court reasoned that
[a]lthough the generic idea of summarizing information
certainly existed prior to the invention, these claims are directed
to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting
information in electronic devices. Claim 1 of the ’476 patent
requires “an application summary that can be reached directly
from the menu,” specifying a particular manner by which the
summary window must be accessed. The claim further requires
the application summary window list a limited set of data,
“each of the data in the list being selectable to launch the
respective application and enable the selected data to be seen
within the respective application.” This claim limitation
restrains the type of data that can be displayed in the summary
window. Finally, the claim recites that the summary window “is
displayed while the one or more applications are in an un-
launched state,” a requirement that the device applications exist
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

22
in a particular state. These limitations disclose a specific
manner of displaying a limited set of information to the user,
rather than using conventional user interface methods to display
a generic index on a computer.
Id. at 1362–63. The court concluded that the claims were patent eligible
because they “recite[d] a specific improvement over prior systems, resulting
in an improved user interface for electronic devices,” and, therefore, were
directed to “an improvement in the functioning of computers.” Id. at 1363.
We first note that method claim 1 recites the use of a server and a
database but fails to recite limitations related to a user interface or an
improvement in the functioning of a user interface. As we note above, the
Specification teaches that the interface may be an electronic display, a touch
screen, a speaker, a keyboard, a pointing device, a mouse, a microphone, a
printer, a gamepad, etc. Spec. ¶ 21. These appear to be conventional user
interfaces. Thus, the potential improvement to user experience provided by
the claimed invention relates solely to the format or content of the displayed
data, not to the functioning of the user interface itself.
To support the contention that the claimed invention is directed to an
improvement in the functioning of a computer or other technology or
technological field by providing an improved user interface, Appellant
directs us to claim 1’s language:
in response to determining that the time of the slice anomaly
matches the time of the aggregate anomaly, transmitting, to the
client for display, data that identify a location of the aggregate
anomaly in the aggregation of time-series data as well as data
identifying the slice anomaly as a drill-down suggestion
indicating that, although not initially presented in the
aggregation of time series data, the slice anomaly will be
included in a presentation of the slice data.

Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

23
Appeal Br. 3; Reply Br. 2. In fact, the noted claim language recites an
improvement to the visual representation in the format of the data presented
to a user and not the user interface itself. This visual representation presents
data to the user in a customized form with respect to an aggregate anomaly
in the aggregation of time-series data, including data identifying a slice
anomaly as a drill-down suggestion. While this language recites that the
data presents a drill-down suggestion to arrive at a slice anomaly, it does not
recite how a user interface is improved by the drill-down suggestion or by its
use. Further, while Appellant argues that claim 1, like the Core Wireless
claims, provides a particular manner of “summarizing and presenting
information” (Appeal Br. 4), Appellant has not explained adequately how
this improves a user interface.
Appellant argues that, unlike Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed invention uses an
inventive technique for displaying a drill-down suggestion indicating that,
although not initially presented in the aggregation of time series data, the
slice anomaly will be included in a presentation of the slice data. Appeal Br.
4. According to Appellant, the claimed invention not only displays data
results but also does more by pointing the user directly to a slice (i.e., a
dimension) of data that is the cause of the anomaly identified with the
aggregate time-series data presented to the user, thereby enabling the user to
more quickly identify and access the slice data that is causing the anomaly.
Id.
This argument supports our determination that the noted claim
language addresses an improvement to the visual representation in the
format of the data presented to a user and not the user interface itself.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

24
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is similar to the
patent-ineligible claims in Electric Power that focus “on collecting [data],
analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis.”
Final Act. 6; Ans.5; Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1353. “[M]erely presenting
the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information,
without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is
abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis.” Electric
Power, 830 F.3d at 1354; see also id. at 1353 (“[W]e have treated collecting
information, including when limited to particular content (which does not
change its character as information), as within the realm of abstract ideas.”).
Therefore, we find that the claimed subject matter does not integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Examiner, that claim 1 recites a
judicial exception, i.e., the abstract ideas of a mental process and a
mathematical concept, and does not integrate this judicial exception into a
practical application.
With regard to apparatus claim 11, as indicated above, none of the
apparatus’s components improve the functioning of a computer or another
technology or technical field. While claim 11 recites “a network interface of
a server receiving a request from a client to analyze a time-series data
comprising a plurality of data points,” we again note that the Specification
does not disclose the interface used is anything other than conventional user
interfaces. Spec. ¶ 21. In addition, like claim 1, claim 11 does not recite
how a user interface is improved to analyze a time-series data comprising a
plurality of data points. Thus, we find Appellant’s arguments, as applied to
claim 11, unpersuasive for the reasons we give above.
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

25
Accordingly, we conclude, as did the Examiner, that the claims recite
a judicial exception, i.e., the abstract idea of a mathematical relationship for
calculating the transmittance and reflectance values of a material, and do not
integrate this judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2 B–Inventive Concept
Because we determine that claims 1, 11, and, thus, all the claims
under appeal recite an abstract idea and do not include additional elements
that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, we look to
whether the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., adds a specific
limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood,
routine, conventional” in the field. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
As we note above, claim 1 only generally recites the use of a server
and a database to perform claim 1’s steps of receiving a request and
accessing global calendars. The Specification discloses the server as broadly
encompassing any number and/or type of user-operable electronic devices
(Spec. ¶ 21) and the database as broadly encompassing any type of non-
volatile memory, media, or memory devices (id. ¶ 27). That is, the
Specification discloses that these devices can be any device capable of
performing the stated function at a high level of generality. Claim 1 does
not recite any additional elements, such as specific components of the
computer.
While Appellant contends that claim 1 provides “an improved user
interface for a computing device” that “improve[s] the efficiency of using
[an] electronic device” (Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 2), claim 1 fails to recite
limitations related to a user interface or an improvement in the functioning
of a user interface. As we note above, the Specification discloses the use of
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

26
what are conventional and well known types of interfaces (an electronic
display, a touch screen, a speaker, a keyboard, a pointing device, a mouse, a
microphone, a printer, a gamepad, etc.). Spec. ¶ 21.
Even if a user interface was positively recited in claim 1, it would not
add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-
understood, routine, conventional” in the field, taken individually or as an
ordered combination with the claimed steps.
We have again considered Appellant’s arguments regarding the
claimed invention being an improvement in computer-related technologies
in our deliberations of this step. Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply Br. 1–3. We
maintain our position that these arguments lack persuasive merit for the
reasons we give above.
There is no dispute that the claimed elements were known in the art
and, thus, “well-understood, routine, and conventional.” Spec. ¶¶ 21, 35,
103; Mathis ¶¶ 6, 13. Rather than arguing to the contrary, Appellant argues
that the claimed invention contains an inventive concept in their ordered
combination of limitations sufficient to satisfy the second step of the
Supreme Court’s Alice test. Appeal Br. 3. Specifically, Appellant contends
that the claimed invention (1) presents a display representing an aggregation
of time series data for multiple different dimensions (“slices”) of data with
the ability to pinpoint and identify, within the display representing
aggregation of time series data, a specific slice of data in which an anomaly
exists, (2) identifies the precise location in the time series where that
underlying anomaly occurs so that the user can directly drill down into that
specific slice of data in which the anomaly exists to perform further analysis.
Id. Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter improves computer
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

27
functionality by using a combination of features that was not “well-known,
routine, conventional” as of the filing date of the application. Id. at 7.
We are unpersuaded by these arguments for reasons we give above.
Specifically, we again note that the subject matter of claim 1 does not recite
a user interface which Appellant relies upon as the basis for an improvement
in computer functionality. Further, as we also note above, the claim
language that Appellant directs us to addresses the visual representation of
the data and the functionality of the user interface itself.
Appellant argues that the claims do not preempt all applications of the
alleged abstract idea. Appeal Br. 7. According to Appellant, “the claims
recite a specific combination of features that provide ‘a particular solution to
a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome’” and “do not
preempt other techniques that do not include the combination of features
recited above.” Id.
We have considered Appellant’s arguments on this issue but are
unpersuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s determination for the
reasons presented by the Examiner. Ans. 13–14. Appellant has not
identified error in the Examiner’s determination that the components are
“well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
With regard to apparatus claim 11, this claim recites a computing
apparatus (system) comprising a network interface of a server, a structural
time-series module of the server, an anomaly detector, and a report
generator, where each of the components performs the steps of method claim
1. Claim 11 recites these components at a high level of generality.
As we discuss above, the claimed elements are acknowledged as
known in the art and, thus, “well-understood, routine, and conventional.”
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

28
Spec. ¶¶ 21, 35, 103; Mathis ¶¶ 6, 13. Appellant has not argued adequately
to the contrary. See generally Appeal Br.
While Appellant argues that the claimed invention contains an
inventive concept in their ordered combination of limitations (Appeal Br. 3),
the claim language is specifically directed to performing calculations and not
a specific configuration of the computer apparatus.
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s determination that the
claimed steps and components are well-understood, routine and conventional
activities/components. Ans. 6. Further, courts have recognized the
performance of repetitive calculations by a computer as a well-understood,
routine, conventional activity. Flook, 437 U.S. at 594 (recomputing or
readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Servs. L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance
Co., 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“The computer required by some
of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the
performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose
meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.”).
We also reevaluate our conclusions about whether the recited
computer apparatus integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56. Because the recited computer apparatus
(and its components) adds nothing more than well-understood, routine,
conventional activities, those conclusions stand. Considering both our
previous conclusions and the findings about well‐understood, routine, and
conventional activity, we determine that the claimed method does not use
the computer apparatus in a way that indicates that the claim provides an
inventive concept. Therefore, we find no element or ordered combination of
elements recited in claims 1 and 11 that contains any “inventive concept” or
Appeal 2019-002497
Application 14/585,675

29
adds anything “significantly more” to transform the abstract concept (i.e.,
mental processes and mathematical concepts) into a patent-eligible
application.
Accordingly, we conclude that claims 1, 2, 4–6, 9–12, 14–16, 19 and
20 are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
They ensnare the abstract ideas of a mental process and mathematical
concept and do not recite additional elements, individually or as an ordered
combination, that integrate this mental process and mathematical concept
into a practical application.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6,
9–12, 14–
16, 19, 20
101 Ineligible subject
matter
1, 2, 4–6,
9–12, 14–
16, 19, 20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED