Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2020

14804654 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 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.
14/804,654 07/21/2015 Haim Shuvali 84269661 8131
146568 7590 05/29/2020
MICRO FOCUS LLC
500 Westover Drive
#12603
Sanford, NC 27330
EXAMINER
EHNE, CHARLES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2113
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2020 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):
software.ip.mail@microfocus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HAIM SHUVALI and GUY OFFER
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20. Claims 10,
16, and 19 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

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 Entit Software
LLC, a wholly-owned affiliate of Micro Focus International Plc. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to “methods, systems, and computer-
readable and executable instructions to associate error event with inputs to
applications.” Spec. ¶ 11.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 1 under appeal reads as follows;
1. A system comprising:
a processor; and
a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions
executable on the processor to:
record, in a data store, a plurality of different error event
types encountered in response to an input to a first element of an
application displayed in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user
device;
associate each of the plurality of different error event types
with a unique identifier of the input;
electronically represent an error event type of the different
error event types associated with the unique input identifier in a
GUI of a support device; and
associate, with the unique identifier, further different event
types encountered in response to respective inputs to the first
element of the application displayed in respective GUIs of
further user devices.
REJECTION
Claims 1–9, 11–15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to patent-ineligible subject matter. See
Ans. 3.
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

3
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the pending claims as a group. Appeal Br. 7–15;
Reply Br. 4–7. As permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37, we decide the appeal
based on claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Arguments
The Examiner determines that claim 1 is directed to a process of
analyzing data and displaying the results, which is a mental process, and
similar to the abstract idea held patent-ineligible in Electric Power Group,
LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See Final Act. 2; see
also Ans. 6–7. The Examiner further finds that claim 1 is not significantly
more than the abstract idea because the claim does not improve the
functioning of a computer and instead recites generic computer components
performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine,
and conventional activities that amount to no more than implementing the
abstract idea with a computerized system. See Final Act. 2–3; see also
Ans. 7–8.
Appellant contends claim 1 recites particular technical details in the
association of different error event types with a unique identifier of an input
to a first element of an application displayed in a graphical user interface of
a user device, and goes beyond the Examiner’s characterization of the claim
as collecting data, analyzing the data, and displaying the results of the
collection and analysis. See Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant argues that the
features recited in claim 1 “may be useful in technical improvements
directed to application testing, development, and operation on computing
devices.” Id. at 9.
Appellant further contends claim 1 recites a set of rules in a specific
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

4
way to solve a problem to achieve a desired outcome, similar to the claims in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 838 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016). See Appeal Br. 10–11. Accordingly, Appellant argues, the set of
rules recited in claim 1 improve a computer-related technology by causing
the processor to perform operations used to identify relationships between
different error events, which may be used to resolve the error events more
efficiently. See id. at 12.
Appellant additionally contends the combination of the features
recited in claim 1, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than an abstract
idea because claim 1 results in a technological improvement in the manner
in which a system operates, similar to the claims in Bascom Global Internet
Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See
Appeal Br. 13–14. Appellant specifically argues, by associating different
error event types with a unique identifier of an input to a first element of an
application executing on a user device, the processor may more efficiently
identify the error events using the unique identifier. See id. at 14. As a
result, according to Appellant, the processor may consume less bandwidth
and power in identifying the different types through the association of the
different error event types and the unique identifier than if the processor
were to identify the different event types individually. See id. at 14–15.
Further, in the Reply Brief, Appellant asserts the Examiner has not
rejected claim 1 as allegedly being unpatentable over any cited references.
See Reply Br. 7. Thus, according to Appellant, the Examiner has failed to
provide the required evidence (i.e., one of references that describe each of
the features of the claim) as to whether the recited features might be well-
understood, routine, and conventional. See id.
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

5
Principles of Law
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quoting Ass’n for
Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “the elements of
each claim both individually and ‘as an ordered combination’ to determine
whether the additional elements ‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine claim 1 for an “inventive concept,” “an element or
combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the patent in
practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the [ineligible
concept] itself.’” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
In January 2019, the USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

6
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”).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 activities such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE
(MPEP) §§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Abstract Idea
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, we (1) identify
the claim’s specific limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine
whether the identified limitations fall within certain subject matter
groupings, namely (a) mathematical concepts; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity; or (c) mental processes.

2 The Office issued further guidance on October 17, 2019: USPTO, October
2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (“October 2019 Update”) (available
at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.p
df).
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

7
Independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea because the claim
recites a mental process, one of the abstract idea groupings listed in the
Guidance. See, Guidance 84 Fed. Reg. at 52, 53 (listing “[m]ental processes
– concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation,
evaluation, judgment, opinion)” as one of the “enumerated groupings of
abstract ideas”).
Claim 1 is directed to “[a] system comprising: a processor, and a non-
transitory storage medium storing instructions executable on the processor.”
Appeal Br. 17. The instructions cause the processor to perform the
following:
(1) “record . . . a plurality of different error event types encountered in
response to an input to a first element of an application displayed
in a graphical user interface (GUI) of a user device;”
(2) “associate each of the plurality of different error event types with a
unique identifier of the input;”
(3) “represent an error event type of the different error event types
associated with the unique input identifier;” and
(4) “associate, with the unique identifier, further different event types
encountered in response to respective inputs to the first element of
the application displayed in respective GUIs of further user
devices.”
Id.
Here, apart from the claimed “processor,” “non-transitory storage
medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of a support device,” the
claim elements recite a method of collecting encountered error event types
and organizing the collected error event types by a unique identifier, which
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

8
fits squarely within the mental process category of the agency’s guidelines.
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental processes
including (1) an observation, (2) an evaluation, (3) a judgment, and (4) an
opinion). Further, the October 2019 Update confirms that a claim to
“collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the
collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high
level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the
human mind, is an example of a mental process. See October 2019 Update
at 7.
Although claim 1 recites an abstract idea based on a mental process,
we nevertheless must still determine whether the abstract idea is integrated
into a practical application, namely whether the claim applies, relies on, or
uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the
abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the abstract idea. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. We
therefore (1) identify whether there are any additional recited elements
beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate those elements individually and
collectively to determine whether they integrate the exception into a
practical application. See id.
Here, as previously discussed, the only recited elements beyond the
abstract idea are “processor,” “non-transitory storage medium,” “data store,”
“electronically,” and “GUI of a support device,” as recited in claim 1.
Consistent with the Examiner’s findings, these additional elements do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the
claims as a whole because the additional elements are analogous to an
instruction to implement the mental process on a computer. See Final
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

9
Act. 2–3. Further, regarding the claimed “electronically represent an error
type . . . in a GUI of a support device,” the display of data in a graphical user
interface is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity which does not
render an abstract idea patent-eligible. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55
(identifying “[adding] insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial
exception” as an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated
into a practical application).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that claim 1 improves
the processor or otherwise improves a computer-related technology. Rather,
consistent with the Examiner’s findings, the alleged technological
improvement results from applying a more efficient mental process (i.e.,
collection of encountered error event types and organization of the collected
error event types by a unique identifier) using a processor. Thus, claim 1
merely uses generic computing components to implement the improved
mental process, and does not improve the underlying processor or another
computer-related technology.
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims at issue in
McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir.
2016) is also not persuasive. In McRO, the claims recited rules with specific
characteristics that allowed computers to product accurate and realistic lip
synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters that
previously could only be produced by human animations, and it was the
specific claimed features of the rules that produced technical improvement.
See McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313. In contrast, claim 1 does not recite any rules
that enable the automation of specific tasks that previously could not be
automated.
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

10
Further, Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is similar to the claims at
issue in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827
F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) is also not persuasive. In Bascom, the claims
solved an Internet-centric problem of filtering Internet content, and thus, the
claimed computer components were necessary components of the claims.
See Bascom, 827 F.3d at 1349–51. In contrast, the recited “processor,”
“non-transitory storage medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of
a support device” of claim 1 are not necessary components to perform the
method of collecting encountered error event types and organizing the
collected error event types by a unique identifier recited in claim 1. In fact,
the recited steps for performing the method can be done in the human mind
or on pen and paper. Additionally, unlike the claims at issue in Bascom,
claim 1 does not recite a technical improvement and, as previously
described, recites an improvement to the underlying mental process itself.
Thus, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical
application. Claim 1: (1) does not improve the functioning of a computer or
other technology, (2) is not applied with any particular machine (except for a
generic computer), (3) does not effect a transformation of a particular article
to a different state, and (4) is not applied in any meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Inventive Concept
Because we determine claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, we
consider whether claim 1 recites an “inventive concept.” As previously
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

11
discussed, the additional elements recited in claim 1 are “processor,” “non-
transitory storage medium,” “data store,” “electronically,” and “GUI of a
support device.” Claim 1 recites these elements at a high level of generality,
and Appellant’s Specification indicates that these elements are generic
computer components, as shown below.
[0031] Figure 4 illustrates a diagram of an example of a system to
associate error events with inputs to applications according to the
disclosure. The system 440 can include a data store 408 (e.g.,
analogous to data store 108 as referenced in Figure 1), a system
442 to associate error events with inputs to applications, and/or a
number of engines. The system 443 can be in communication with
the data store 408. The system 443 to associate error events with
inputs to applications can include a number of engines (e.g., [an]
associate engine 434, represent engine 444, etc.). The system 443
to associate error events with inputs to applications can include
additional or fewer engines than illustrated to perform the various
functions described herein.
[0032] The number of engines can include a combination of
hardware and instructions to perform a number of functions
described herein (e.g., represent an error event type of different
error event types associated with the unique input identifier in a
GUI of a support device, etc.). Each of the engines can include
hardware or a combination of hardware and instructions
designated or designed to execute a module (e.g., a particular
module). The instructions (e.g., software, firmware,
programming, etc.) may be stored in a memory resource (e.g.,
computer-readable medium) or as a hard-wired program (e.g.,
logic).
[0033] The associate engine 434 can include hardware and/or a
combination of hardware and instructions to associate each of a
plurality of different error event types encountered in response
to an input to an element of an application displayed in a GUI
of a user device with a unique identifier of the input. The
application is suitable for operation on a user device. For instance,
in some examples, the application is a mobile application and the
user device is a mobile user device, as described herein. . . .
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

12
[0035] The represent engine 444 can include hardware and/or a
combination of hardware and instructions to represent an error
event type of the different error event types associated, for
example, by the associate engine 434, with the unique input
identifier in a GUI of a support device. . . .
[0036] A representation can include a representation of an error
event notification message. For example, the representation can
be a reproduction of an error event notification message
displayed in the GUI of the support device. That is, the
reproduction of the error event notification message can be
visually identical to an error event notification message displayed
in the GUI of the user device in response to the input. Such a
reproduction of an error event notification message as originally
displayed by the GUI of the user device that encountered the error
event that lead to the error event notification message can promote
understanding and/or enhancements of a user experience
associated with execution of the application on a user device. . . .
[0038] Figure 5 illustrates a diagram of an example of a computing
device to associate error events with inputs to applications
according to the disclosure. The computing device 555 can utilize
hardware and instructions (e.g. software, or firmware), or
hardware and logic to perform a number of functions described
herein.
[0039] For example, the computing device 555 can be a
combination of hardware and instructions to associate error
events with inputs to applications. The hardware, for example can
include a processing resource 560 and/or a memory resource 564
(e.g., computer-readable medium (CRM), database, etc.) A
processing resource 560, as used herein, can include a number
of processors capable of executing instructions stored by a
memory resource 564. Processing resource 560 can be integrated
in a single device or distributed across multiple devices. The
instructions (e.g., computer-readable instructions (CRI)) can
include instructions stored on the memory resource 564 and
executable by the processing resource 560 to implement a desired
function (e.g., associate each of the different error event message
types with the unique input identifier of the input, etc.).
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

13
Spec. ¶¶ 31–33, 35–36, 38–39 (emphasis added).
Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does
not provide the necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223
(“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-
ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Thus, these
elements, taken individually or together with the other claim elements, do
not amount to “significantly more” than applying the abstract idea on a
general purpose computer.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the lack of any
prior-art rejections definitively establishes that claim 1 does not recite well-
understood, routine, and conventional operations. This contention conflates
the non-obviousness test under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with the patent-eligibility
test under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s contention that the
Examiner failed to present evidence that claim 1 recites well-understood,
routine, and conventional operations. As previously discussed, Appellant’s
Specification provides evidence that the recited operations are well-
understood, routine and conventional, as Appellant’s Specification discloses
that any general-purpose computer is capable of performing the recited
operations. See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 31–33, 35–36, 38–39.
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that claim
1 is “directed to” an abstract idea, and does not recite an “inventive
concept.” Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and
the remaining claims which fail to include additional elements that add
significantly more to the abstract idea, under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2019-001933
Application 14/804,654

14
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–9, 11–15, 17,
18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–9, 11–15,
17, 18, 20
101 Eligibility 1–9, 11–15,
17, 18, 20

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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