International Business Machines Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2021000950 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 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.
15/131,978 04/18/2016 Aly Megahed ARC1P047/
ARC920150091US1
1086
50548 7590 06/30/2021
ZILKA-KOTAB, PC- IBM
1155 N. 1ST ST.
SUITE 105
SAN JOSE, CA 95112
EXAMINER
TORRICO-LOPEZ, ALAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
zk-uspto@zilkakotab.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALY MEGAHED, HAMID REZA MOTAHARI NEZHAD, and
PEIFENG YIN
____________

Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,9781
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, JAMES P. CALVE, and TARA L.
HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
Final Rejection2 of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies International Business Machines
Corporation as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 All references to the Final Office Action refer to the Final Office Action
mailed on May 18, 2020.
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

2

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
Appellant states the invention relates “to bound estimation, and more
specifically, this invention relates to estimating the future bounds of various
metrics.” Spec. ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A computer-implemented method for planning for
capacity needs of a multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture,
comprising:
collecting, by a hardware processor of a system within the
multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture, utilization values
for resources within the multi-tenant client-server cloud
architecture, the resources including processing power and
peripherals of the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture,
utilizing an Internet connection between the system and other
systems within the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture;
for each time period of two or more time periods,
calculating, by the hardware processor of the system, a variance
of a resource utilization metric based on one or more values of
the resource utilization metric for the time period, where the one
or more values of the resource utilization metric include the
resource utilization values within the multi-tenant client-server
cloud architecture;
for each time period of the two or more time periods,
calculating, by the hardware processor of the system:
a lower bound of a historical value based on one or
more values of the resource utilization metric and the
variance for the time period, and
an upper bound of the historical value based on the
one or more values of the resource utilization metric and
the variance for the time period;
fitting, by the hardware processor of the system, a first
curve to the two or more lower bounds of historical values, and
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

3

fitting a second curve to the two or more upper bounds of
historical values, including:
finding parameters w0, w1, . . . , wn to minimize an
objective function of:

wherein X comprises historical resource utilization
metrics, t comprises the time period, and λ comprises a
predefined value between 0.01 and 1;

determining, by the hardware processor of the system, a
polynomial order n for the first curve and the second curve based
on a trade-off between a curve fitness and an exponential penalty
for model complexity discounted by a number of available data
points, including minimizing a metric of:

where α comprises a predefined positive value that
controls a penalty for a high polynomial order, N comprises a
number of data points that the first curve and the second curve
is being fit to, and Fit(n,X) comprises a fitness score of the
polynomial order n on the historical resource utilization metrics
X;
determining, by the hardware processor of the system for
each of one or more future points in time, a future lower bound
and a future upper bound for a future value of the resource
utilization metric at the future point in time utilizing the first
curve and the second curve, where the future value of the
resource utilization metric includes a future resource utilization
value within the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture;
and
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

4

performing, by the hardware processor of the system,
planning for future capacity needs of the multi-tenant client-
server cloud architecture, utilizing the future lower bound and
the future upper bound for the future resource utilization value
within the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture.

THE REJECTION
Claims 1–18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on 2–8 in the Final
Office Action and on pages 3–7 in the Examiner’s Answer, concerning the
35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection.

ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 101 REJECTION
We will affirm the rejection of claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Appellant argues claims 1–7 as a group. (Appeal Br. 9).
Appellant also argues claims 8–14 and claims 15–18 as separate groups
(Appeal Br. 14, 15), but refers to the arguments advanced for the group of
claims 1–7 as those for these remaining two groups. Thus, claim 1 is the
representative claim for this group, and so the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
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
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

5

implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, 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,
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
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

6

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,
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)
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

7

(“Guidance”).3 “All USPTO personnel are, as a matter of internal agency
management, expected to follow the guidance.” Id. at 51;4 see also October
2019 Update at 1.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, we first look to whether the claim
recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes) (“Step 2A, Prong One”); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h) (9th
Ed., Rev. 10.2019, June 2020)) (“Step 2A, Prong Two”).5
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–55.

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.
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 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

8

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.
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.
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

9

The Specification states:
Diversified sales pipeline metrics are designed to predict
values that will be realized in the future. For example, a predicted
conversion rate may predict a proportion of current pipeline
values that are in a won stage. As another example, a predicted
growth rate may predict the proportion of won values appearing
in the future before the end of a given time period (e.g., month,
quarter, year, etc.).
Spec. ¶ 2.
The preamble of claim 1 states it is for “for planning for
capacity needs.” Claim 1 recites in pertinent part (emphasis added):
collecting, . . . , utilization values for resources within the
multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture, the resources
including processing power and peripherals of the multi-tenant
client server cloud architecture. . . ;
for each time period of two or more time periods,
calculating. . . , a variance of a resource utilization metric based
on one or more values of the resource utilization metric for the
time period, where the one or more values of the resource
utilization metric include the resource utilization values within
the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture;
for each time period of the two or more time periods,
calculating, by the hardware processor of the system:
a lower bound of a historical value based on one or
more values of the resource utilization metric and the
variance for the time period, and
an upper bound of the historical value based on
the one or more values of the resource utilization metric
and the variance for the time period;
fitting. . . , a first curve to the two or more lower bounds
of historical values, and fitting a second curve to the two or more
upper bounds of historical values, including:
finding parameters w0, w1, . . . , wn to minimize an
objective function of:

Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

10

wherein X comprises historical resource utilization
metrics, t comprises the time period, and λ comprises a
predefined value between 0.01 and 1;

determining, by the hardware processor of the system, a
polynomial order n for the first curve and the second curve based
on a trade-off between a curve fitness and an exponential penalty
for model complexity discounted by a number of available data
points, including minimizing a metric of:

where α comprises a predefined positive value that
controls a penalty for a high polynomial order, N comprises a
number of data points that the first curve and the second curve is
being fit to, and Fit(n,X) comprises a fitness score of the
polynomial order non the historical resource utilization metrics
X;
determining, by the hardware processor of the system for
each of one or more future points in time, a future lower bound
and a future upper bound for a future value of the resource
utilization metric at the future point in time utilizing the first
curve and the second curve, where the future value of the
resource utilization metric includes a future resource utilization
value within the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture;
and
performing, by the hardware processor of the system,
planning for future capacity needs of the multi-tenant client-
server cloud architecture, utilizing the future lower bound and
the future upper bound for the future resource utilization value
within the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture.

Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

11

The Examiner found, “[t]he identified recited limitations in the claims
describe[e] fitting curves to historical resource utilization metric and metric
boundary data for capacity planning …. Final Act. 4.
We find that claim 1 is directed to a mental process employing
mathematical formulas for planning future capacity needs utilizing future
lower and upper bounds to determine resource utilization.
Accordingly, all this intrinsic evidence shows that claim 1 recites a
mental process. As shown above, the verbs highlighted in italics each
constitute a mental process step, and hence are ones of certain methods of
organizing human activity that are judicial exceptions. Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52. These steps mimic human thought processes of observation,
evaluation, judgment, and opinion, perhaps with paper and pencil, where the
data interpretation is perceptible only in the human mind. See In re TLI
Commc’ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 611 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Claim 1 moreover employs mathematical formulas to effect the fitting
of a first curve to the two or more lower bounds of historical values, and the
fitting a second curve to the two or more upper bounds of historical values,
including:
finding parameters w0, w1, . . . , wn to minimize an objective function
of:

wherein X comprises historical resource utilization metrics, t
comprises the time period, and λ comprises a predefined value between 0.01
and 1.
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

12

Claim 1 next employs another mathematical formula to determine a
polynomial order n for the first curve and the second curve based on a trade-
off between a curve fitness and an exponential penalty for model complexity
discounted by a number of available data points, including minimizing a
metric of:
where α comprises a predefined positive value that controls a penalty for a
high polynomial order, N comprises a number of data points that the first
curve and the second curve is being fit to, and Fit(n,X) comprises a fitness
score of the polynomial order n on the historical resource utilization metrics
X.
Thus, claim 1 also is directed to mathematical concepts—
mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations,
mathematical calculations which are enumerated exceptions. See Diehr, 450
U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded the protection
of our patent laws”) (citing Benson, 409 U.S. at 71–72). See also Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Turning to the second prong of the “directed to” test, claim 1 only
requires “a hardware processor,” a multi-tenant client-server, and
“peripherals of the multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture.” These
components are described in the Specification at a high level of generality.
See Spec. ¶¶ 19–22, Figs. 1 and 2. We fail to see how the generic recitations
of these most basic computer components and/or of a system so integrates
the judicial exception as to “impose[] a meaningful limit on the judicial
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

13

exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the judicial exception.” Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 53.
Thus, we find that the claims recite the judicial exceptions of a mental
process and mathematical formulas.
That the claims do not preempt all forms of the abstraction or may be
limited to server cloud architecture, 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).
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

14

Concerning this step the Examiner found the following:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient
to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception
because as discussed above with respect to integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements
amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception
using a generic computer component.
Final Act. 5.
We agree with the Examiner. “[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
the data as a result amounts to electronic data query and retrieval—one of
the most basic functions of a computer. 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. 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. ¶¶ 19–24,
Figs. 1 and 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 225–26.
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

15

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 (collecting,
calculating/fitting/determining/determining/performing) and storing is
equally generic and conventional or otherwise held to be abstract. 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.
As to the structural claims (15–18), 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 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72). As a corollary, the
claims are not directed to any particular machine.
We have reviewed all the arguments Appellant has submitted
concerning the patent eligibility of the claims before us that stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (Appeal Br. 9–15; Reply Br. 2–10). We find that our
analysis above substantially covers the substance of all the arguments, which
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

16

have been made. But, for purposes of completeness, we will address various
arguments in order to make individual rebuttals of same.
Appellant argues, “[i]mportantly, claims that do not recite subject
matter that falls within these enumerated groupings of abstract ideas should
not be treated as reciting abstract ideas.” Appeal Br. 10.
We disagree with Appellant. Although the Examiner articulates the
abstract idea as one included in “Certain Methods of Organizing Human
Activity” (Final Act. 4), and we articulate it at a higher level of abstraction as
a mental process employing mathematical formulas, we find this to be an
insufficient basis to persuasively argue that the claim language has been
mischaracterized or that the Examiner has failed to consider the claims as a
whole. Cf. Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (“An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of
abstraction. ”). Notwithstanding, as set forth above, claim 1 is directed to
both a mental process and mathematical formulas, any one of which
constitutes a judicial exception.
Appellant argues:
Additionally, as shown above, in independent Claim 1 appellant
specifically claims the performance of planning for future
capacity needs of a multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture
by identifying future lower and upper bounds for resource
utilization within the cloud architecture. These calculated
bounds avoid extreme cases (such as outliers), and account for
general trends impacting resource utilization value data (see
Paragraph [0065] of appellant’s specification), which overcomes
existing problems in the field of technical field of multi-tenant
cloud management (see Paragraph [0003] of appellant’s
specification) (emphasis omitted).
Appeal Br. 13.
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

17

We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s argument because the multi-
tenant client-server cloud architecture technology recited in the claim is not
recited as conducting the calculations according to any specified software
programming. Rather, the claim simply recites functional results to be
achieved by any means. See, e.g., Content Extraction & Transmission LLC
v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221.
Limiting the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological
environment, e.g., a multi-tenant client-server cloud architecture, does not
make a claim less abstract. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223. These limitations, at
best, link the method to a technological environment, which does not, in and
of itself, render the claim any less abstract. See Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 55.
Second, calculating bounds to avoid extreme cases (such as outliers),
and to account for general trends impacting resource utilization value data is
an abstraction. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.
Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90).
Appellant argues,
[m]ore specifically, by determining future lower and upper
bounds for resource utilization within a multi-tenant client-server
cloud architecture, and performing planning for future capacity
needs of the cloud architecture based on the bounds, appropriate
resources may be provided within the cloud architecture to
accommodate determined future resource utilization, which may
improve a performance of hardware resources within the cloud
architecture (see Paragraphs [0063]-[0065] of appellant’s
specification). As such, the above claim language constitutes an
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

18

improvement in the functioning of a computer, as well as an
improvement to the technical field of multi-tenant computing,
and not directed to a judicial exception, as alleged by the
Examiner (emphasis omitted).
Appeal Br. 12.
We disagree with Appellant because “[w]hile running a particular
process on a computer undeniably improves efficiency and accuracy,
cloaking an otherwise abstract idea in the guise of a computer-implemented
claim is insufficient to bring it within section 101.” MySpace, Inc. v.
GraphOn Corp., 672 F.3d 1250, 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Although we agree with Appellant that the claims must be read, as a
whole (Appeal Br. 13–14), we nevertheless find, on balance, that claim 1 is
directed to a mental processes including the computation of mathematical
formulas for the reasons specified above with respect to our “directed to”
findings. As found supra, claim 1 only recites using the generically recited
“system hardware processor” to make the claimed calculations. What
remains in the claim after disregarding these device limitations, are
abstractions, i.e., “determining, …for each of one or more future points in
time, a future lower bound and a future upper bound for a future value of the
resource utilization metric at the future point in time utilizing the first curve
and the second curve.” “[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract
idea.” Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1151 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90).
For the reasons identified above, we will sustain the Examiner’s § 101
rejection of claims 1–18.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–18 under
35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal 2021-000950
Application 15/131,978

19

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–18 101 Eligibility 1–18

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