HireVue, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2021

2020003225 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2021)

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.
14/548,048 11/19/2014 Nathan Moon 28969.6 (L0003) 5563
28221 7590 04/01/2021
PATENT DOCKET ADMINISTRATOR
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
ONE LOWENSTEIN DRIVE
ROSELAND, NJ 07068
EXAMINER
YOUNG, MICHAEL C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2021 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):
patents@lowenstein.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NATHAN MOON, MARK NEWMAN, RYAN JAMESON, and
LOREN LARSEN
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
Technology Center 3600

Before ERIC B. CHEN, GREGG I. ANDERSON, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, 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, 4–10, 13–16, 19, and 20, which are
all of the pending claims. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as HireVue. Appeal
Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to facilitating the evaluation of candidates in
an evaluation process. Spec. Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method comprising:
providing, by a processing device, a user interface on a
client computing device, wherein a first portion of the user
interface displays indicators in a two-dimensional plot, each
indicator indicating a weighted performance of one of a set of
candidates in an evaluation, and wherein display of the indicators
is based on a set of evaluation data from a candidate evaluation
system;
delivering, by the processing device, the first portion of
the user interface with a second portion of the user interface to
an application window displayable within a display of the client
computing device, wherein the second portion of the user
interface comprises a plurality of selector elements with which
to update a weight given to the indicators within the two-
dimensional plot;
receiving, by the processing device through a first set of
the plurality of selector elements within the second portion of the
user interface, a first update to one of a plurality of first
weightings for a first subset of the set of evaluation data, wherein
the first subset of the set of evaluation data comprises a set of
evaluators;
receiving, by the processing device through a second set
of the plurality of selector elements within the second portion of
the user interface, a second update to one of a plurality of second
weightings for a second subset of the set of evaluation data,
wherein the second subset of the set of evaluation data comprises
a set of prompts that elicit candidate responses to be scored;
normalizing, by the processing device, the plurality of first
weightings to generate a plurality of first normalized weightings
that sum up to one;
normalizing, by the processing device, the plurality of
second weightings to generate a plurality of second normalized
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
3
weightings that sum up to one and that are combinable with the
plurality of first normalized weightings;
combining, by the processing device, the plurality of first
normalized weightings and the plurality of second normalized
weightings to generate a plurality of combined weightings that
are relatable to the set of evaluation data for purposes of updating
a position of at least one of the indicators for the weighted
performances within the two-dimensional plot; and
dynamically updating, by the processing device in
response to the receiving the first update and the second update
through the second portion of the user interface, the position of
the at least one of the indicators within the two-dimensional plot
of the first portion of the user interface using the plurality of
combined weightings.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Kirshenbaum US 2005/0097067 A1 May 5, 2005
Diaz US 2007/0160963 A1 July 12, 2007
Manser US 2011/0131082 A1 June 2, 2011
Smith US 2011/0276356 A1 Nov. 10, 2011
Ullman US 2012/0185468 A1 July 19, 2012
Parmar US 2013/0166358 A1 June 27, 2013
Data Journalism Handbook to Gregor Aisch (hereinafter “Data”).

Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
4
REJECTIONS
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1, 4–10, 13–16, 19, 20 101 Eligibility
1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, 19 103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum, Ullman
6 103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum, Ullman,
Parmar
8, 14 103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum, Ullman,
Data
9, 15, 20 103 Diaz, Smith
Kirshenbaum, Ullman,
Manser

STANDARD OF REVIEW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
OPINION
Appellant’s contentions are unpersuasive of reversible Examiner error
with respect to the independent claims. As to the independent claims, we
adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner (1) in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) in the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief and concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for emphasis.

Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
5
35 U.S.C. § 101
The Examiner determines as follows: “[T]he claims are directed to an
abstract idea in the form of a mental process” or alternatively “recite an
abstract idea because the[y] recite converting qualitative data regarding a
candidate into a quantitative value using a series of calculations utilizing
normalized weightings[, so t]he claimed invention is directed to a
mathematical procedure applied to the information in order to weight and
display candidate information.” Ans. 8. The Examiner thus determines
“[b]ecause the claimed conversion into a quantitative value via normalized
weighting is a mathematical calculation, and the steps involve mathematical
calculation, the claims are recite an abstract idea consistent with the
grouping ‘a’ of the 2019 PEG.” Id. (referring to the October 2019 Patent
Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (“2019
PEG”)). The Examiner further determines that the claims fail to integrate the
abstract ideas into a practical application in accordance with the 2019 PEG.
Id. at 11. The Examiner further determines “the claim[’]s additional
elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.”
Id. at 13.
For the reasons we explain below, we agree with the Examiner’s
determination.
Principles of Law
A. Section 101
Inventions for a “new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or
composition of matter” generally constitute patent-eligible subject matter.
35 U.S.C. § 101. However, the U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted
35 U.S.C. § 101 to include implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
6
phenomena, and abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66
(2012), and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 75–
77). 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 formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); 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 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S. at 69
(citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
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
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
7
nothing more than a process for molding rubber products and not as an
attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having said that, the Court also
indicated that a claim “seeking patent protection for that formula in the
abstract . . . is not accorded the protection of our patent laws, . . . and this
principle cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment.” Id. at 191 (citing Benson
and Flook); see also, 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 (internal 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. (alterations in original) (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.
B. USPTO Section 101 Guidance
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“2019 Guidance”), updated by USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf) (“October 2019
Guidance Update”); see also October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
8
Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942 (Oct. 18, 2019) (notifying the public of the
availability of the October 2019 Guidance Update). “All USPTO personnel
are, as a matter of internal agency management, expected to follow the
guidance.” 2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51; see also October 2019
Guidance Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites
the following:
(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 MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
2019 Guidance, 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, [and] 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.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Step 2A, Prong 1
The Examiner finds as follows:
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
9
Examiner notes that the Revised Guidance states that the test is
to identify whether the claims are “directed to” a judicial
exception. Examiner notes that the claimed invention not only is
directed to an abstract idea in that the instant application is
directed to certain mental processes, methods of organizing
human activity specifically commercial or legal interactions such
as advertising, marketing and business relations and
mathematical relationships.
Examiner notes that Claim 1 recites a method operating on
a generically claimed “processing device” in order to analyzing
the performance of candidates against specific weighted criteria
in order to generate a plot indicating how the candidates score
when the weights are applied. Examiner notes that the claims
recite a process directed to concepts that are performed mentally
and a product of human mental work. The limitations suggest a
process similar to standard practice of filling a job opening and
interviewing individuals for a job. Jobs were filled using
interviews and analysis of the interview responses long before
modern computer were invented, and continues to be
predominately a product of human endeavor. Examiner notes
that the claimed invention requires the users to submit specific
information in the interfaces which amounts to human endeavor
in the claimed invention. The instant application is directed to
evaluators submitting criteria that is applied to interview
responses using a generically claimed processing device.
Because the limitations above closely follow the steps of
interviewing candidates for positions and identifying the best
candidate, and the steps involve human judgments, observations
and evaluations that can be practically or reasonably performed
in the human mind, the claim recites an abstract idea consistent
with the “mental process” grouping set forth in the 2019 PEG.
The limitation to “providing, by a processing device, a
user interface on a client computing device, wherein a first
portion of the user interface displays indicators in a two-
dimensional plot, each indicator indicating a weighted
performance of one of a set of candidates in an evaluation, and
wherein display of the indicators is based on a set of evaluation
data from a candidate evaluation system”, and “delivering, by the
processing device, the first portion of the user interface with a
second portion of the user interface to an application window
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
10
displayable within a display of the client computing device,
wherein the second portion of the user interface comprises a
plurality of selector elements with which to update a weight
given to the indicators within the two-dimensional plot”, as
drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable
interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer interface components.
That is, other than reciting that the information is received by the
processing device, nothing in the claim element precludes the
step from practically being performed in the mind. For example,
the claim encompasses the user manually entering selected
elements and weights. The mere nominal recitation of generic
computer interfaces and displays does not take the claim out of
the mental process grouping. Thus, the claims recite an abstract
idea.
The limitation to “receiving, by the processing device
through a first set of the plurality of selector elements within the
second portion of the user interface, a first update to one of a
plurality of first weightings for a first subset of the set of
evaluation data, wherein the first subset of the set of evaluation
data comprises a set of evaluators”, and “receiving, by the
processing device through a second set of the plurality of selector
elements within the second portion of the user interface, a second
update to one of a plurality of second weightings for a second
subset of the set of evaluation data, wherein the second subset of
the set of evaluation data comprises a set of prompts that elicit
candidate responses to be scored”, as drafted, is a process that,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance
of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic
computer components. That is, other than reciting that the
information is received by the processing device, nothing in the
claim element precludes the step from practically being
performed in the mind. For example, the claim encompasses the
user manually entering selected elements and weights. The mere
nominal recitation of generic computer interfaces and displays
does not take the claim out of the mental process grouping.
The limitation to “normalizing, by the processing device,
the plurality of first weightings to generate a plurality of first
normalized weightings that sum up to one” and “normalizing, by
the processing device, the plurality of second weightings to
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
11
generate a plurality of second normalized weightings that sum up
to one and that are combinable with the plurality of first
normalized weightings”, as drafted, is a process that, under its
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in
the mind but for the recitation of a generic “processing device”.
For example, the claims is directed to normalizing information
which amounts to data analysis, evaluation and observations
recited at a high level of generality such that they could
practically be performed in the human mind. Thus, the claim
recites a mental process.
The limitation to “combining, by the processing device,
the plurality of first normalized weightings and the plurality of
second normalized weightings to generate a plurality of
combined weightings that are relatable to the set of evaluation
data for purposes of updating a position of at least one of the
indicators for the weighted performances within the two-
dimensional plot”, as drafted, is a process that, under its
reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in
the mind but for the recitation of a generic “processing device”.
For example, the claims is directed to combining the normalized
information which amounts to data analysis, evaluation and
observations recited at a high level of generality such that they
could practically be performed in the human mind. Thus, the
claim recites a mental process.
The limitation to “dynamically updating, by the
processing device in response to the receiving the first update
and the second update through the second portion of the user
interface, the position of the at least one of the indicators within
the two-dimensional plot of the first portion of the user interface
using the plurality of combined weightings”, as drafted, is a
process that, under its reasonable interpretation, covers
performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of
a generic “processing device”. For example, the claims is
directed to combining the normalized information and updating
the display information through the interface which amounts to
data analysis and the subsequent display of the data analysis, and
evaluation and observations recited at a high level of generality
such that they could practically be performed in the human mind.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
12
Therefore the claims are directed to an abstract idea in the
form of a mental process.
Alternatively, Claims 1, 10 and 16 recite an abstract idea
because the[y] recite converting qualitative data regarding a
candidate into a quantitative value using a series of calculations
utilizing normalized weightings. The claimed invention is
directed to a mathematical procedure applied to the information
in order to weight and display candidate information. The
qualitative data related to the candidates and evaluators is
converted using normalization procedures to determine a
quantitative value. Examiner notes that the claimed invention is
more than just involving mathematical equations, the crux of the
invention is the conversion of the data in order to generate a
normalized value based on various qualitative information.
Because the claimed conversion into a quantitative value via
normalized weighting is a mathematical calculation, and the
steps involve mathematical calculation, the claims are recite an
abstract idea consistent with the grouping “a” of the 2019 PEG.
With respect to the dependent claims, they have been
considered and are not found to be reciting anything that amounts
to being significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 4 and 13 are directed to the central theme of the
abstract idea identified and are merely further embellishments of
the identified mental process of analyzing candidate information.
Nothing is added to the function or structure of the claims that
brings the claimed invention out of the identified abstract idea
grouping.
Claims 5-9, 14-15 and 19-20 are directed to the generic
computer function of data transmission and display. This is not
enough, as addressed above, to provide significantly more to the
claims and amount to data processing and transmission which the
courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities
(see M.P.E.P. [§] 2106.05(g)) and does not bring the claimed
invention outside the identified grouping. Data transmission is
one of the most basic and fundamental uses there are for a generic
computing device is not sufficient to amount to significantly
more. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) citing Symantec.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that the claims
be determined to be reciting abstract idea is the form of judicial
exceptions under Step 2A Prong 1.
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
13
Ans. 4–9.
We see no error in the Examiner’s analysis.
The Examiner further determines as follows:
Examiner respectfully submits that while the claimed
invention includes displaying an interface with information, such
improvements in computer capabilities [fail] to bring the claimed
invention from being directed to an abstract idea. Examiner notes
that the claimed invention is more like Electric Power Group[,
830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016)] (where the Court
determined that receiving information, analyzing the information
and subsequently displaying the results of the analysis amounts
to an abstract idea) and Example 37 Claim 3 where the Revised
Guidance reference claim limitations that are directed to a
determination and ranking of information that is determined
which is substantially similar to the claimed invention in that the
various selectors and weights are received from user inputs, the
information is then analyzed in order to generate a display to
indicate the results of the analysis. Furthermore, as with the
ineligible claimed invention in BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons,
Inc.[,] 899 F[.]3d 1282, 1284-91 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the claimed
invention does not improve a computer's functionality or that of
its associated components, but rather the benefits that flow from
performing the abstract idea in conjunction with generic
computer components. See BSG, 899 F.3d at 1288). Therefore,
Examiner respectfully submits that the claims be determined to
be reciting abstract idea is the form of judicial exceptions under
Step 2A Prong 1.
Ans. 10.
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis.
Appellant argues the Examiner “oversimplifies the claims and
incorrectly reduces the claims to a mental process or a [mathematical]
procedure in finding the claims ‘directed to’ an abstract idea.” Reply Br. 3
(underlining omitted).
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
14
We disagree in view of the detailed, element-by-element analysis by
the Examiner, reproduced above.
Appellant argues “the instant claims are comparable in several
respects to those claims found patent eligible in Core Wireless Licensing
S.A.R.L. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).” Reply Br.
6.
We disagree. Appellant overlooks that in Core Wireless, the court
found the claimed subject matter improved a particular device, namely, a
mobile device, by presenting on the smaller screen of the mobile device a
condensed menu of an unlaunched application. That is not the case here
where the abstract ideas are implemented on a general purpose computer.
We see no improvement in a specific device as in Core Wireless.
Rather, as the Examiner determines, the claims align precisely with
those found ineligible in Electric Power wherein the claims were directed to
receiving information, analyzing the information, and subsequently
displaying the results of the analysis, which amounts to an abstract idea. See
Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354. Regarding Appellant’s contention that “the
instant claims recite detailed aspects of two different portions of a user
interface and how processing weights received through a first portion can be
updated into a two-dimensional plot of a second portion” and “recite more
than generic computer components, but a specific user interface-based
computing device,” we disagree. Reply Br. 6–8. As discussed in greater
detail below under Prong 2A, Step 2, there is no indication that the
generically recited “user interface on a client computing device” is in any
way improved by the content that is displayed. Generic computer displays
are capable of simultaneously displaying user interface portions (e.g., a
menu bar) and output in a second portion corresponding to the user interface
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
15
selections. To whatever extent the user selection results in backend
processing to display the output, that backend processing is math, capable of
being performed by a generic computer. The specific content displayed does
not improve the computer or the display.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Examiner
that the claims recite a judicial exception to patent-eligible subject matter
under step 2A, prong 1, of the 2019 Guidance.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under step 2A, prong 2, of the 2019 Guidance, we next analyze
whether representative claim 1 recites additional elements that individually
or in combination integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
2019 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53–55. The additional elements include “a
processing device,” “a user interface on a client computing device.” Claim 1.
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis that the claims do not integrate
the judicial exception into a practical application as follows:
The instant application fails to integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application because the instant
application merely recites words “apply it” (or an equivalent)
with the judicial exception or merely includes instructions to
implement an abstract idea. The claimed structure amounts to
appending generic computer elements to the abstract idea
comprising the body of the claim. The computing elements are
only involved at a general, high level, and do not have the
particular role within any of the functions but to be a generically
claimed “processing device”. Examiner notes that unlike
Trading Tech, which the Court determined that at the time of
invention in that case, the provided interface technology within
the disclosure provided an improvement to the interface
technology at the time of the invention. Examiner notes that
Appellant has merely attached the claim language to the assertion
that the limitations are similar to the interface found in Trading
Tech, yet fails to specifically define and show evidence for how
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
16
the interface technology is improved. Examiner notes that, as
stated above, the claimed invention is more similar to the claims
found in Electric Power Group, Example 37 Claim 3 and BSG.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully submits that the claimed
invention be determined to fail to integrate a practical application
as defined in the 2019 Revised Guidance.
Ans. 11
Accordingly, the claim, as a whole, does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application because the claim limitations do not impose any
meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Stated differently, the
claims do not (1) improve the functioning of a computer or other technology,
(2) are not applied with any particular machine (except for generic computer
components), (3) do not effect a transformation of a particular article to a
different state, and (4) are not applied in any meaningful way beyond
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular
technological environment, such that the claim, as a whole, is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP
§§ 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h).
Step 2B
Under the 2019 Guidance, 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 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.
We agree with the Examiner’s analysis as follows:
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
17
Here, the instructions entirely comprise the abstract idea,
leaving little if any aspects of the claim for further consideration
under Step 2A Prong 2. In short, the role of the generic
computing elements recited in the claimed invention is the same
as the role of the computer in the claims considered by the
Supreme Court in Alice, and the claim as whole amounts merely
to an instruction to apply the abstract idea on the generic
computing system/platform. Therefore, the claims have failed to
integrate a practical application (see at least 84 Fed. Reg. (4) at
55). Under the 2019 PEG, this supports the conclusion that the
claim is directed to an abstract idea, and the analysis proceeds to
Step 2B.
While many considerations in Step 2A need not be
reevaluated in Step 2B because the outcome will be the same.
Here, on the basis of the additional elements other than the
abstract idea (e.g., processing device, interface), considered
individually and in combination as discussed above, the
Examiner respectfully submits that the claims does not contain
any additional elements that individually or as an ordered
combination amount to an inventive concept and the claims are
ineligible. The instant application merely recites words “apply
it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception or merely
includes instructions to implement an abstract idea. The claimed
structure amounts to appending generic computer elements to the
abstract idea comprising the body of the claim. This is not
enough, as addressed above, to provide significantly more to the
claims and amount to data processing and transmission which the
courts have recognized as insignificant extra-solution activities
(see M.P.E.P. [§] 2106.05(g)). Data transmission is one of the
most basic and fundamental uses there [is] for a generic
computing device [and] is not sufficient to amount to
significantly more. See MPEP § 2106.0S(d)(II) citing Symantec.
The computing elements are only involved at a general, high
level, and do not have the particular role within any of the
functions but to be a generically claimed “processing device”.
Therefore, the claim[’]s additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception.
. . .
. . . . Examiner notes that Appellant has submitted that the
“computing device” is a specially programmed computing
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
18
device that amounts to more than generic computer. Examiner
notes that Appellant’s disclosure and the technology use proves
otherwise.
For instance, the additional elements or combination of
elements other than the abstract idea itself include the elements
such as a “processing device” recited at a high level of generality.
These elements do not themselves amount to an improvement to
the computer, to a technology or another technical field. This is
consistent with Appellant’s disclosure [quoting Spec. ¶ 80,
which states, in pertinent part, “[t]his apparatus . . . may
comprise a general-purpose computing system specifically
programmed by a computer program stored in the computing
system.”]
. . . . Accordingly, the claimed “processing device” read in
light of the specification can be a “general-purpose computing
system”. Thus, the claimed structure amounts to appending
generic computer elements to the abstract idea comprising the
body of the claim. The computing elements are only involved at
a general, high level, and do not have the particular role within
any of the functions but to be a generically claimed “processing
device”. Therefore, the claimed invention is merely
implementing the judicial exception on generically claimed
computer structure that has been defined in the specification as a
general-purpose computing system. Therefore, the Examiner
respectfully submits that the claimed invention be interpreted
under Step 2B as failing to provide significantly more to the
judicial exception.
Ans. 12–14
Accordingly, we determine that representative claim 1 does not recite
additional elements that, either individually or as an ordered combination,
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception within the meaning
of the 2019 Guidance. 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55; MPEP § 2106.05(d). We
therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.

Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
19
35 U.S.C. § 103
Claim 1
Because Appellant argues only claim 1 separately with particularity
(see Appeal Br. 20–24 (arguing claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
collectively, and basing arguments against the rejections of claims 6, 8, 9,
14, 15, and 20 on those arguments, adding only that the additional references
fail to cure the deficiencies with respect to claim 1)), we review claim 1, and
do not further mention the remaining claims until our ultimate decision.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
arguments. We agree with the Examiner that claim 1 is not patentable over
the combination of Diaz, Smith, Kirshenbaum, and Ullman. Final Act. 10–
24; Ans. 14–26.
Appellant argues error in the rejection of claim 1’s limitation:
delivering, by the processing device, the first portion of
the user interface with a second portion of the user interface to
an application window displayable within a display of the client
computing device, wherein the second portion of the user
interface comprises a plurality of selector elements with which
to update a weight given to the indicators within the two-
dimensional plot.
Appeal Br. 22–25 (quoting claim 1). Appellant acknowledges that the
rejection is based on the combined teachings of Diaz, Smith, and Ullman. Id.
at 23 (“The Office Action cites to a combination of Diaz, Smith, and Ullman
for teaching these features.”). Appellant contends “[w]hile [Diaz’s list of
ranked search results of candidates,] may be considered ‘a first portion’ of
the user interface, there is no second portion of the user interface and the
selector elements recited as being within the second portion of the user
interface are also missing in Diaz,” so “there is no motivation or reason to
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
20
combine Diaz with a reference that does teach selector elements.” Id. at 23–
24 (referring to Smith Fig. 6). Appellant also argues Smith’s graphs “are
illustrated without any ‘second portion of the user interface [in] the
application window,’” and “does not teach or suggest ‘wherein the second
portion of the user interface comprises a plurality of selector elements with
which to update a weight given to the indicators within the two-dimensional
plot.’” Id. at 24 (referring to Smith Figs. 1A, 1B, 1C). Regarding Ullman,
Appellant argues error because, Ullman’s search query “is the type of
inefficiency in accessing plotted evaluation data that claim 1 is meant to
avoid” and while Ullman’s search results may be refined, as depicted in
Figures 36 and 38, “this is a list of search results (similar to Diaz), not a two-
dimensional plot, where ‘ each indicator [of the two-dimensional plot]
indicating a weighted performance of one of a set of candidates in an
evaluation,’ as set forth in claim 1.” Id. at 24–25. Appellant contends that,
because the combination of references dos not teach or suggest the limitation
quoted above, the combination also does not disclose additional elements
related to updating the plots based on received user input. Id. at 25.
Appellant continues by arguing Kirshenbaum alone, then again argues Diaz
alone, then again argues Ullman alone. Id. at 25–28.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s response to Appellant’s
arguments. Ans. 13–26. Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive primarily
for failure to consider the combined teachings of the references. As the
Examiner correctly points out, one cannot show nonobviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus,
Appellant’s arguments against the references individually are unpersuasive.
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
21
Moreover, Appellant argues beyond the scope of the claim. For
instance, Appellant argues with respect to Ullman that Ullman’s search
query “is the type of inefficiency in accessing plotted evaluation data that
claim 1 is meant to avoid, e.g., linking (or browsing) from one search results
page to another, to another and so on.” Appeal Br. 24; see Reply Br. 10–12.
Appellant’s claim 1, however, does not recite these limitations and does not
preclude them.
One of Appellant’s Reply Brief arguments is particularly exemplary
of Appellant’s failure to consider the combined teachings of the references
and arguing beyond the scope of the claims. Specifically, Appellant argues
as follows:
Thus, Diaz teaches updating the ranking during a time in which
candidates are still being interviewed, e.g., during the event(s),
and thus their ranking is still fluid because interview data is still
being generated.
Claim 1, in contrast, is based on “a set of evaluation data
from a candidate evaluation system” and, in contrast to Diaz,
dynamically updates the position of the at least one of the
indicators within the two-dimensional plot of the first portion of
the user interface using the plurality of combined weightings “in
response to the receiving the first update and the second update
through the second portion of the user interface.” Emphasis
added.
Reply Br. 12.
Further, Appellant argues unpersuasively by missing the Examiner’s
rejection. For example, Appellant argues “the graphs illustrated in FIGs. 1A,
1B, and 1C of Smith are for public perception, stress perception, and private
perception, and are illustrated without any ‘second portion of the user
interface [in] the application window,’ as set forth in claim 1.” Id. at 24. The
argument is unpersuasive because Smith is not cited for first and second
Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
22
window portions but rather for the graphs being two-dimensional plots. See
Final Act. 17. Ullman, not Smith is relied on for the argued limitation. See
id. at 21–22.
Accordingly, for the reasons we explain above and the reasons stated
by the Examiner, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1.

Appeal 2020-003225
Application 14/548,048
23
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 4–10, 13–
16, 19, 20
101 Eligibility 1, 4–10, 13–
16, 19, 20

1, 4–5, 7,
10, 13, 16,
19
103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum,
Ullman
1, 4–5, 7,
10, 13, 16,
19

6 103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum,
Ullman, Parmar
6
8, 14 103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum,
Ullman, Data
8, 14
9, 15, 20 103 Diaz, Smith,
Kirshenbaum,
Ullman, Manser
9, 15, 20
Overall
Outcome
1, 4–10, 13–
16, 19, 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