International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2020004361 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 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.
15/349,693 11/11/2016 Vishal S. Batra POU920160235US1 3684
137494 7590 12/02/2020
Proactive Patents LLC
900 West Bethany Drive
Suite 380
Allen, TX 75013
EXAMINER
ARAQUE JR, GERARDO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 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):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
legal@proactivepatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte VISHAL S. BATRA, PRALHAD D. DESHPANDE,
PRAVEEN JAYACHANDRAN, PALANIVEL A. KODESWARAN,
VENKATRAMAN RAMAKRISHNA, and SAYANDEEP SEN
____________

Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,6931
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, and
CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant2 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Non–final rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Appellant identifies International Business Machines (IBM) Corporation as
the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We reverse and enter a new ground of rejection. (37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b)).

THE INVENTION
Appellant states, “[t]his application relates to identifying smart
contract information from a blockchain and more particularly to anticipating
and monitoring transactions in the blockchain to determine whether the
smart contract requirements can be enforced.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method, comprising:
identifying, via a contract auditor, contract terms and a
metric configuration associated with a smart contract stored in a
blockchain;
receiving, via the contract auditor, a notification of an
event logged in the blockchain, the event being part of the
metric configuration and performed by a contract member;
determining, via the contract auditor, whether the event
supports requirements of the smart contract;
determining, via the contract auditor, whether a smart
contract policy in the smart contract matches a system policy;
identifying, via the contract auditor, that the requirements
of the smart contract are supported by the event or that the
smart contract policy matches the system policy;
identifying, via the contract auditor, a level of risk
associated with the event;
comparing, via the contract auditor, the identified level of
risk to a threshold level of risk stored in the blockchain; and
transmitting, via the contract auditor, an alert to the
blockchain indicating that the identified level of risk is greater
than or equal to the threshold level of risk, wherein the alert
causes the blockchain to transmit a notification to the contract
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

3

member.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Belt US 2016/0117471 A1 Apr. 28, 2016
The following rejection is before us for review.
Claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Belt.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Belt Discloses:
Third party providers such as device manufacturers,
medication manufacturers, agencies providing medication data,
and commerce related functions (coupons, rebates), monitoring
services, can all connect to and extend functionality within
exemplary embodiments of the medication management system
by registering through the third party connection system
provided. These “apps” and applications can make use of
technologies such as OAuth2 for authorizing applications to
perform functions such as read and write data on behalf of
patients into and out of the system. Hooks may be provided by
the system for third party developers and their applications to
register for events from the system.
Belt ¶ 75.
2. Belt discloses:
In an example application, the system may include any
one or more additional data sources to assist in the medical
management. For example, immunization records may be
retrieved and used when a patient is determined to have recently
traveled, such as through the location input devices. Therefore,
if the doctor knows the patient recently was out of the country
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

4

in a particular high risk location, the doctor may make an
informed diagnosis or may prescribe certain medication
combinations knowing there may be possible complications
with drugs associated with the immunization or possible
disease.
Id. ¶ 70.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Each of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 recites in one form or
another:
identifying, via the contract auditor, a level of risk
associated with the event;
comparing, via the contract auditor, the identified level of
risk to a threshold level of risk stored in the blockchain; and
transmitting, via the contract auditor, an alert to the
blockchain indicating that the identified level of risk is greater
than or equal to the threshold level of risk, wherein the alert
causes the blockchain to transmit a notification to the contract
member.
The Examiner found, concerning these limitations that Belt discloses,
the following:
Belt discloses a system and method that performs a risk
analysis based on the monitoring of collected data and
comparing it against preset thresholds prescribed in a plan in
order to determine that the threshold has been exceeded, i.e.
non-compliance has been identified (wherein non-compliance is
a result of the threshold being exceeded), and providing a
notification in response to the determination of non-compliance
(¶ 6, 53, 70, 78).
. . . .
. . . One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to use blockchain technology as this would result in
system data to be decentralized and not rely on a central
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

5

database owned by only one entity. One of ordinary skill in the
art would have found it obvious to add into the system of Belt
to serve as an auditing system that communicates information
to the blockchain's ledger as a means of verifying and tracking
information in a manner where it cannot be altered or deleted,
while also providing increased security to the data stored within
the blockchain and increasing the versatility of the audit trail of
Belt as a blockchain records information in a chronological
order.
Non-Final 4, 8.
Appellant argues:
The mere disclosure that BELT can use a blockchain and
smart contracts does not reasonably disclose or suggest any
particular implementation or way of using the blockchain and
smart contracts to accomplish the BELT invention.
In fact, BELT does not even mention comparing an
identified level of risk to a threshold level of risk. BELT only
mentions risk in three locations:
 ¶ 6 — the patient is generally ill informed about the risks of
non-compliance orlack of adherence to the prescribed
treatment plan;
 ¶ 27 — Patients are not consistently informed of the risks of
non-compliance orlack of adherence; and
 ¶ 70 — Therefore, if the doctor knows the patient recently
was out of the country in a particular high risk location, the
doctor may make an informed diagnosis or may prescribe
certain medication combinations knowing there may be
possiblecomplications with drugs associated with the
immunization or possible disease.
None of these portions of BELT disclose or suggest
identifying, via the contract auditor, a level of risk associated
with the event; comparing, via the contract auditor, the
identified level of risk to a threshold level of risk stored in the
blockchain; and transmitting, via the contract auditor, an alert to
the blockchain indicating that the identified level of risk is
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

6

greater than or equal to the threshold level of risk, wherein the
alert causes the blockchain to transmit a notification to the
contract member[], as recited by claim 1.
Appeal Br. 10.
We agree with Appellant. Our review of Belt, particularly at
paragraph 75, reveals the third party participation in the system is limited to
the functions of “read and write data on behalf of patients into and out of the
system” and registering for events (FF. 1). It is not apparent, and the
Examiner does not explain, how the enumerated limited authorized tasks of
“read and write data” functions could include the more elevated hierarchical
function of comparing the identified level of risk to a threshold level of risk
stored in the block chain.
Moreover, the Examiner does not show where Belt discloses the
required risk threshold level and comparing the level of risk as greater than
or equal to the threshold level of risk. At best, Belt discloses that a doctor
discerns whether a patient recently was out of the country in a particular
high risk location, so that the doctor may make an informed diagnosis or
may prescribe certain medication combinations (FF. 2). But, this does not
equal or is the obvious equivalent of the claimed “comparing, via the
contract auditor, the identified level of risk to a threshold level of risk stored
in the blockchain; and transmitting, via the contract auditor.”
Since claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20 depend from claims 1, 8, and 15
and since we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 15, the rejection
of claims 3–7, 10–14, and 17–20 likewise cannot be sustained.

Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

7

NEW GROUND UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) we enter a new
ground of rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101.
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573
U.S. 208, 216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with
that framework, we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.”
See id. 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,
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

8

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
Supreme Court held that “a claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). Having
said that, the Supreme Court also indicated that a claim “seeking patent
protection for that formula in the abstract . . . is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws, and this principle cannot be circumvented by attempting
to limit the use of the formula to a particular technological environment.”
Id. (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. (alterations in original) (quoting Mayo,
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

9

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.
In January 2019, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
published revised guidance on the application of § 101. 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019)
(“Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency
management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51; see also October
2019 Update at 1.4
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance and the October 2019 Update, 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) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and

3 In response to received public comments, the Office issued further
guidance on October 17, 2019, clarifying the 2019 Revised Guidance.
USPTO, October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility (the “October
2019 Update”) (available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf).
4 The 2019 Revised Guidance supersedes MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING
PROCEDURE (“MPEP”) § 2106.04 and also supersedes all versions of the
USPTO’s “Eligibility Quick Reference Sheet Identifying Abstract Ideas.”
See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51 (“Eligibility-related guidance issued prior
to the Ninth Edition, R-08.2017, of the MPEP (published Jan. 2018) should
not be relied upon.”). Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments challenging the
sufficiency of the Examiner’s rejection will not be addressed to the extent
those arguments are based on now superseded USPTO guidance.
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

10

(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5
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, under
Step 2B, 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.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–56. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry applies a stage-one filter
to claims, considered in light of the [S]pecification, based on whether ‘their
character as a whole is directed to excluded subject matter.’” Enfish, LLC v.
Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Internet
Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2015)). It asks whether the focus of the claims is on a specific improvement
in relevant technology or on a process that itself qualifies as an “abstract
idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool. See Enfish,
822 F.3d at 1335–36.

5 This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a
practical application. See Guidance - Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–
55.
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

11

In so doing, as indicated above, we apply a “directed to” two prong
test: 1) evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, and 2) if the
claim recites a judicial exception, evaluate whether the claim “appl[ies],
rel[ies] on, or use[s] 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.” Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 53; see also MPEP §§ 2106.04–2106.05.
Independent claim 1
The Specification states:
In a blockchain configuration, contractual workflows are
driven by proof of compliance and fulfilled obligations. Such
proof can be in the form of human attestation or automated
sensors. Such proof must meet a level of assurance agreed
upon by the contracting parties in order for the contract
workflow to proceed smoothly and to avoid future disputes.
Imprecisely formulated contract terms with ambiguity in a
specification of proof levels and providers/attesters make
breaches and disputes inevitable. Similarly, mechanical or
logistical failures during a runtime may result in inconsistent
views, failures to meet contractual obligations, and legal
disputes.
Spec. ¶ 2.
[A] contract can be scanned and terms can be identified/parsed
and backend system entities, such as supply chain entities,
finance entities, etc., can be identified and examined before
deployment on a blockchain to detect whether associated
technology is sufficient to support/enforce the contractual
terms. At each stage of contract execution, monitoring
operations may include evaluating associated third party system
technology for availability and operational validity. In the
event that a mismatch between contract terms and another
entity or process is discovered or identified, for example,
between a contract term and a third party, an alert, alarm,
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

12

notification, etc., can be created and used to identify interested
parties, such as a seller, purchaser, and financer, that the
standards have not been met and that the contract requires
attention.
Spec. ¶ 19
Understood in light of the Specification, claim 1 recites in pertinent
part:
identifying, via a contract auditor, contract terms and a
metric configuration associated with a smart contract …;
receiving, via the contract auditor, a notification of an
event …, the event being part of the metric configuration and
performed by a contract member;
determining, via the contract auditor, whether the event
supports requirements of the smart contract;
determining, via the contract auditor, whether a smart
contract policy in the smart contract matches a system policy;
identifying, via the contract auditor, that the requirements
of the smart contract are supported by the event or that the
smart contract policy matches the system policy;
identifying, via the contract auditor, a level of risk
associated with the event;
comparing, via the contract auditor, the identified level of
risk to a threshold level of risk…; and
transmitting, via the contract auditor, an alert …
indicating that the identified level of risk is greater than or
equal to the threshold level of risk, wherein the alert causes…
to transmit a notification to the contract member.
Accordingly, we find that claim 1 recites an event driven contract
monitoring process using an auditor which alerts a contract member of
failure of compliance based on identified level of risk that is greater than or
equal to a threshold level of risk. Claim 1 recites elements of contract
adherence such as, “determining, via the contract auditor, whether the event
supports requirements of the smart contract,” “determining, via the contract
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

13

auditor, whether a smart contract policy in the smart contract matches a
system policy,” and “identifying, via the contract auditor, that the
requirements of the smart contract are supported by the event or that the
smart contract policy matches the system policy.” Items like these which
concern “agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations,” are ones of
certain methods of organizing human activity that are judicial exceptions.
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only
generically requires “a blockchain.” This component is described in the
Specification at a high level of generality. See Spec. ¶¶ 21–26, Fig. 2. We
fail to see how the generic recitations of a basic computer
implementation/components so integrates the judicial exception as to
“impose[] a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is
more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.”
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53. We find no indication in the Specification,
nor does Appellant direct us to any indication, that the operations recited in
independent claim 1 invoke any assertedly inventive programming, require
any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components,
i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is implemented using
other than generic computer components to perform generic computer
functions. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“[A]fter Alice, there can remain no doubt: recitation
of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim
patent-eligible.”).
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

14

Thus, we find that the claims recite the judicial exception of a certain
method of organizing human activity that is not integrated into a practical
application.
That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to contract execution, does not make them any less abstract. See OIP
Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
(“And that the claims do not preempt all price optimization or may be
limited to price optimization in the e-commerce setting do not make them
any less abstract.”).
Turning to the second step of the Alice analysis, because we find that
the claims are directed to abstract ideas/judicial exceptions, the claims must
include an “inventive concept” in order to be patent-eligible, i.e., there must
be an element or combination of elements sufficient to ensure that the claim
in practice amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
Concerning this step, we find the claims do not include additional
elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
exception because the claims recite a generic computer component that
performs functions. The functions are generic computer functions that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
the industry. “[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more
than simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer to retrieve, select, and apply decision criteria to data and modify
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

15

the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer. Limitation such as, “determining,
via the contract auditor, whether a smart contract policy in the smart contract
matches a system policy,” is not a step, but a recitation of data
characterization, viz. an expectation, which is aspirational. All of these
computer functions are well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom
S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also In re Katz Interactive
Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In
short, each step does no more than require a generic computer to perform
generic computer functions. The claims do not, for example, purport to
improve the functioning of the computer itself. In addition, as we stated
above, the claims do not effect an improvement in any other technology or
technical field. The Specification spells out different generic equipment and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
information access under different scenarios (see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 21–26, Fig.
2). Thus, the claims at issue amount to nothing significantly more than
instructions to apply the abstract idea using some unspecified, generic
computer. Under our precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract
idea into a patent-eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–226.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are
considered separately. The sequence of data reception-analysis
(identifying/receiving/determining/identifying/comparing/transmitting) and
storing is equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract.
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

16

See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
(sequence of receiving, selecting, offering for exchange, display, allowing
access, and receiving payment recited an abstraction); Inventor Holdings,
LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(holding that sequence of data retrieval, analysis, modification, generation,
display, and transmission was abstract); Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast
Cable Commc’ns, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding
sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring was abstract).
The ordering of the steps is, therefore, ordinary and conventional.
The remaining claims merely describe process parameters. We
conclude that the claims at issue are directed to a patent-ineligible concept
itself.
As to the structural claims 8, 10–14, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic
computer components configured to implement the same idea.
This Court has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in
ways that make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the
draftsman’s art.’”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3–8, 10–15,
and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

17

We enter a new ground of rejection of claims 1, 3–8, 10–15, and 17–
20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b). 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides “[a] new ground of
rejection pursuant to this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial
review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the appellants, WITHIN TWO
MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of
the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to
avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment
of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims
so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the
examiner, in which event the prosecution will be remanded to
the examiner . . . .
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be
reheard under § 41.52 by the Board upon the same record.
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).

Appeal 2020-004361
Application 15/349,693

18

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed New
Ground
1, 3–8,
10–15,
17–20
103 Belt 1, 3–8,
10–15,
17–20

1, 3–8,
10–15,
17–20
101 Eligibility 1, 3–8,
10–15,
17–20
Overall
Outcome
1, 3–8,
10–15,
17–20
1, 3–8,
10–15,
17–20
REVERSED; 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)