Jeffrey Killian

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 1, 2021

2020003680 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 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.
14/450,042 08/01/2014 Jeffrey A. Killian KILLIAN.U1 3449
94488 7590 02/01/2021
Miracle IP
1020 Dennison Avenue
Suite 101
Columbus, OH 43201
EXAMINER
KAZIMI, HANI M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3691
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2021 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):
USPTO@dockettrak.com
info@miracle-law.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY A. KILLIAN
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
Technology Center 3600
Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAWFORD, 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, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, and 22. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM and designate our affirmance a new ground of rejection
under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).

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 Jeffrey A. Killian.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an automated social security eligibility
transmittal system. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A computerized method for determining overlooked eligibility
for social security disability insurance (SSDI)/adult child
benefits through a computer network, the method comprising the
steps of:
(a) providing a computer processor and a computer
readable media;
(b) providing access to a Federal Social Security database
through the computer network, wherein the Federal Social
Security database provides records containing information
relating to a person's status of SSDI adult child benefits and/or
parental and/or marital information relating to SSDI adult child
benefit eligibility;
(c) providing access to a State database through the
network, wherein the State database provides records containing
information relating to persons receiving treatment for
developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State
licensed care facility;
(d) selecting at least one person from the State database
who is identified as receiving treatment for developmental
disabilities and/or mental illness;
(e) creating an electronic data record comprising
information relating to at least the identity of the person and
social security number, wherein the electronic data record is
recorded on the computer readable media;
(f) retrieving the person's Federal Social Security record
containing information relating to the person's status of SSDI
adult child benefits through the network;
(g) determining whether the person is receiving SSDI
adult child benefits based on the SSDI status information
contained within the Federal Social Security database record
through the computer network;
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
3
(h) indicating in the electronic data record whether the
person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits or is not receiving
SSDI adult child benefits;
for at least one electronic data record of persons indicated
as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits, comprising the steps
of:
(a) providing a caseworker display system;
(b) generating a data collection input screen display to the
caseworker display system relating to the electronic data record
of persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits;
(c) caseworker identifying and inputting parental and/or
marital names and Social Security numbers into the electronic
data record of the person indicated in the electronic data record
as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits;
(d) retrieving parental and/or marital Social Security
record(s) from the Federal Social Security database through the
computer network in order to identify information for
determining eligibility for SSDI adult child benefits;
(e) determining whether the person indicated in the
electronic data record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child
benefits based on the identified information for determining
eligibility of SSDI adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit
legal requirements; and
(f) indicating in the electronic data record whether the
person is eligible for SSDI adult child benefits or is not eligible
for SSDI adult child benefits.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
OPINION
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
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
4
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. Id. 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 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
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 176; see also id. at 191 (“We
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
5
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. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO published revised guidance on the application of § 101.
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, we first look to whether
the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
6
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (“MPEP”) § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
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, conventional” in the field (see
MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Guidance.
Prong One of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance
The Appellant argues independent claims 1, 8, and 15 together as a
group. Appeal Br. 19–33. We select claim 1 as representative. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The claimed invention is titled an “AUTOMATED SOCIAL
SECURITY ELIGIBILITY TRANSMITTAL SYSTEM.” Spec. 1. The
Specification states that the “present invention pertains to . . . a system and
method which is used for determining eligibility for Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits through a computer network.” Spec. ¶ 2; see
also id. ¶ 10 (“a computerized method and system for determining the
eligibility for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits”), ¶¶ 11–14
(“method for determining [the] eligibility for Social Security Disability
Insurance benefits”), ¶ 34 (“a system for automated Social Security
eligibility”). The preamble of claim 1, currently and in its original form, is a
“computerized method for determining overlooked eligibility for social
security disability insurance (SSDI)/adult child benefits through a computer
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
7
network.” The penultimate step of claim 1, in the first set of recited steps
within the claim, recited immediately prior to “indicating” the results, is
“determining whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child benefits
based on the SSDI status information contained within the Federal Social
Security database record through the computer network.” In claim 1, if the
person is determined to not be receiving benefits, the method then further
recites “determining whether the person indicated in the electronic data
record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child benefits based on the
identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI adult child benefits
and current SSDI benefit legal requirements.”
The Examiner states “method claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea of
determining eligibility for social security disability insurance (SSDI)
benefits.” Final Act. 3 (emphasis omitted).
The Appellant’s arguments begin with the contention that the
“claimed process is not merely ‘the concept of determining eligibility for
Social Security Disability Insurance benefits (hereinafter ‘SSDI’) as
specifically recited by the Examiner, but identifies overlooked individuals
who are currently eligible for SSDI . . . relating to persons receiving
treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State
licensed care facility.” Appeal Br. 18 (emphasis added). We agree.
Claim 1 recites steps for “selecting at least one person . . . who is
identified as receiving treatment,” and “determining whether the person is
receiving SSDI adult child benefits.” The “determining” step is described in
the Specification as follows: “In step 520, process 500 determines whether
the selected person is either receiving SSDI or not receiving SSDI based on
the SSDI status information contained within the Federal Social Security
database record through the computer network. The determination is
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
8
programmed to be automatically determined by the system.” Spec. ¶ 64
(cited at Appeal Br. 8). The “determining” is thus accomplished by
“determining,” according to the Specification. No additional detail is set
forth about the determining. However, it is clear from the description that
the determining is essentially looking at a list to see if the person’s name, or
other identifying information, is on it.
A second set of steps in claim 1 is performed only for “persons
indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits,” and is thus a set of
steps that are performed only on that condition. In that set of steps, the
second “determining” step recites “determining whether the person indicated
in the electronic data record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child
benefits based on the identified information for determining eligibility of
SSDI adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit legal requirements.” The
Specification describes this step as follows:
Once all available information is collected and the persons
record has been updated, process 600 determines in step 630
whether the person is eligible for receiving SSDI benefits based
on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI
benefits contained in the person's data record and current SSDI
benefit law and legal requirements.
Spec. ¶ 70 (cited at Appeal Br. 9). The second determining step thus is
also accomplished by “determining.”
The Specification describes that:
States have not been able to develop and maintain efficient
processes in order to maximize Social Security Disability
Insurance recovery. What is lacking from State efforts is a timely
process that determines who is not currently receiving monthly
Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, who has been
overlooked to receive Social Security Disability Insurance
benefits on a current basis, what steps are needed to secure the
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
9
current monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefits,
and a process that constantly monitors the new eligibility status
for future monthly Social Security Disability Insurance benefits.
Spec. ¶ 8.
For individuals who are identified as receiving treatment, and
identified as not receiving SSDI benefits, but eligible for those benefits, the
Specification describes that “the caseworker applies for SSDI benefits on
behalf of the eligible person.” Id. ¶ 70.
The Specification is silent on what happens after SSDI benefits have
been applied for. We interpret the determination of eligibility described to
not be outcome determinative for whether the person actually will receive
those benefits, because we assume this determination is outside the scope of
the claims, and made by the US Social Security Administration. See Spec.
¶ 6. We thus construe the second claimed determining step to be a
prediction of eligibility.
Claim 1 is thus not a method of “determining eligibility,” as the
Examiner finds (Final Act. 3), but instead is a search algorithm for
identifying people who may be eligible for SSDI benefits they are not
receiving. Though the claim performs a brute force search,2 it is limited to
people who are “receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or
mental illness,” and only those receiving treatment “from a State licensed
care facility,” according to claim 1. This is consistent with the Appellant’s
characterization of the claimed invention. See Appeal Br. 18 (“Appellant’s
claimed process . . . identifies overlooked individuals who are currently
eligible for SSDI”); Reply Br. 3 (“a specific step by step method, system,

2 See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute-force_search.
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
10
and product which identifies overlooked SSDI benefits relating to persons
receiving treatment for developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from
a State licensed care facility”).
To that end, claim 1 recites these steps that are essential to this
purpose:
(d) selecting at least one person from the State database who is
identified as receiving treatment for developmental disabilities
and/or mental illness;
(g) determining whether the person is receiving SSDI adult child
benefits based on the SSDI status information contained within
the Federal Social Security database record . . . ;
for at least one . . . data record of persons indicated as not
receiving SSDI adult child benefits, comprising the steps of:
(c) caseworker identifying . . . parental and/or marital names and
Social Security numbers . . . of the person . . . ;
(e) determining whether the person indicated in the . . . data
record is eligible for receiving SSDI adult child benefits based
on the identified information for determining eligibility of SSDI
adult child benefits and current SSDI benefit legal requirements.
These steps can be performed by a human, using “observation,
evaluation, judgment, [and] opinion,” because they involve making
determinations and identifications, which are mental tasks humans routinely
do. Guidance at 52; see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc.,
654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by
human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent-eligible
under § 101.”). As such, claim 1 recites an abstract mental process.
Guidance at 52.
Neither the Appellant nor the Examiner contemplate on the record that
the claim recites an abstract mental process. See, generally, Final Act. 3–8;
Answer 3–14; Appeal Br. 18–37; Reply Br. 3–8. Therefore, because our
determination of the nature of the abstract idea recited by the claim differs
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
11
from that of the Examiner, we designate our affirmance a new ground of
rejection.
Prong Two of Revised Step 2A of the Guidance
Turning to the next step in the Guidance, we determine if the claimed
method is integrated into a “Practical Application.” Guidance at 54. We use
the term “additional elements” for “claim features, limitations, and/or steps
that are recited in the claim beyond the identified judicial exception.” See
Guidance at 55 n.24.
Claim 1 recites several data gathering steps and portions of steps in
the always-performed steps:
(b) providing access to a Federal Social Security database
through the computer network, wherein the Federal Social
Security database provides records containing information
relating to a person's status of SSDI adult child benefits and/or
parental and/or marital information relating to SSDI adult child
benefit eligibility;
(c) providing access to a State database through the network,
wherein the State database provides records containing
information relating to persons receiving treatment for
developmental disabilities and/or mental illness from a State
licensed care facility;
(f) retrieving the person's Federal Social Security record
containing information relating to the person's status of SSDI
adult child benefits through the network.
The claim also recites several data gathering steps in the
conditionally-performed steps:
(b) generating a data collection input screen display to the
caseworker display system relating to the electronic data record
of persons indicated as not receiving SSDI adult child benefits;
(c) caseworker identifying and inputting parental and/or marital
names and Social Security numbers into the electronic data
record of the person indicated in the electronic data record as not
receiving SSDI adult child benefits;
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
12
(d) retrieving parental and/or marital Social Security record(s)
from the Federal Social Security database through the computer
network in order to identify information for determining
eligibility for SSDI adult child benefits.
In addition, several steps in both parts of the claim recite steps that
amount to the output of results:
(e) creating an electronic data record comprising information
relating to at least the identity of the person and social security
number, wherein the electronic data record is recorded on the
computer readable media;
(h) indicating in the electronic data record whether the person is
receiving SSDI adult child benefits or is not receiving SSDI adult
child benefits.
The first two sets of limitations involve receiving data, and is thus a
data gathering step. See Bilski v. Kappos, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir.
2008) (en banc), aff'd sub nom Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)
(characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity).
Similarly, the “creating” and “indicating” are output steps, are appropriately
categorized as insignificant extra-solution activity. See Bilski v. Kappos,
561 U.S. at 610–11; see also Guidance at 55.
Taking the claims as a whole, and setting aside the abstract idea steps
and insignificant extra-solution activity, we are left with the non-
insignificant (for purposes of Prong Two) “additional elements” of the
claim. Id. at 55, n.24, n. 31. The “additional elements” in claim 1 for use in
Prong Two, therefore, are as follows:
(a) providing a computer processor and a computer readable
media;
(g) . . . through the computer network;
(a) providing a caseworker display system;
(c) . . . electronic (data record)
(e) . . . electronic (data record).
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
13
Continuing the analysis, we note the method, at least according to the
Specification, “pertains to . . . determining eligibility for Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits through a computer network” (Spec. ¶ 2), or, as
we surmise, is “a search algorithm for identifying people who may be
eligible for SSDI benefits they are not receiving” (see above at Step 2A). As
such, the claimed method does not improve another technology, because any
improvement recited by the claims concerns improvements to determining
eligibility for SSDI benefits, via the claimed search algorithm. Guidance at
55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(a).
The Specification describes that the claimed method “may be
performed by any suitable computer system.” Spec. ¶ 42 (cited at Appeal
Br. 7); see also Spec. ¶ 41 (“exact configuration and device connected to the
processing system in each individual device in the network may vary”).
Because a particular computer is not required for the method, the claim also
does not define or rely on a “particular machine.” Guidance at 55; see also
MPEP § 2106.05(b). Further, the method does not transform matter.
Guidance at 55; see also MPEP § 2106.05(c). The method has no other
meaningful limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(e)), and thus merely recites
instructions to execute the recited judicial exceptions on a computer as a tool
(MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Guidance at 55; see also Spec. ¶ 10 (“a computerized
method and system for determining the eligibility for Social Security
Disability Insurance benefits through a computer network which is
automated, easy to use, and efficient – which saves time and State and
Federal funds”).
As such, based on the guidelines articulated in the Guidance and
MPEP, we determine that claim 1 does not integrate the recited judicial
exceptions into a “practical application.”
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
14
Step 2B of the Guidance
In Step 2B, we consider whether an “additional element,” or
combination of “additional elements,” adds a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field, which would be considered “something
more” than the judicial exception. Guidance at 56.
However, in claim 1, the “additional elements,” including the data
gathering and output elements, are a “computer processor,” “computer
readable media,” “computer network,”, “caseworker display system,”
electronic form of data record on a computer, the access to and retrieval
from electronic data storage records, and input of data into electronic data
storage records.
The operations of storing, analyzing, receiving, and writing data are
primitive computer operations found in any computer system. See In re Katz
Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“Absent a possible narrower construction of the terms ‘processing,’
‘receiving,’ and ‘storing,’ discussed below, those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming.”). As to the
data operated upon, “even if a process of collecting and analyzing
information is ‘limited to particular content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that
limitation does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract.”
SAP Am. Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Also
see Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d 1372,
1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (holding that considering claims reciting data
retrieval, analysis, modification, generation, display, and transmission as an
“ordered combination” reveals that they “amount to ‘nothing significantly
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
15
more’ than an instruction to apply [an] abstract idea” using generic computer
technology).
Further, implied in the Examiner’s citation to the case at page 5 of the
Final Action to “Electric Power Group,” claims involving data collection,
analysis, and display are directed to an abstract idea. Elec. Power Grp. v.
Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that “collecting
information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and
analysis” are “a familiar class of claims ‘directed to’ a patent-ineligible
concept”).
Therefore, we do not discern anything in claim 1 that provides an
“inventive concept.”
For these reasons, we agree that the claims are directed to abstract
mental processes, which do not integrate the processes into a “practical
application,” and which do not recite an “inventive concept.”
The Appellant’s Arguments
We have considered the Appellant’s arguments. They primarily extol
the benefits of the claimed method (Appeal Br. 18–22, 24), contend the
Examiner failed to provide reasoning or a prima facie case (id. at 20, 23–25),
assert the claims are not mathematical concepts, or certain methods of
organizing human activity (id. at 23–25), and recite “concrete steps” (id. at
26–27). See also Reply Br. 3–8.
These arguments are unpersuasive because they are not responsive to
our new characterization of the claims as reciting abstract mental processes,
or because we have addressed them in the above analysis.
The Appellant also argues the “Examiner has not provided a prima
facie case or identified support showing that the recited claim elements are
well-understood, routine, or conventional.” Appeal Br. 28 (citing
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
16
Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Similar arguments
about the novelty and non-routine nature of the claims continue at pages 28–
36.
None of these arguments are persuasive, because they misunderstand
the holding Berkheimer, and of the “inventive concept” in subject matter
eligibility. Even unconventional abstract ideas are still unpatentable. See
SAP America, Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1018 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
“What is needed is an inventive concept in the non-abstract application
realm.” SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1168. See also Mayo, 566 U.S. at 90 (holding
that a novel and nonobvious claim directed to a purely abstract idea is,
nonetheless patent-ineligible); and Synopsys Inc. v. Mentor Graphics
Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract
idea is still an abstract idea.”) (emphasis omitted).
As to the Appellant’s argument that the claims “reflect an
improvement in the functioning of the computer network of the Social
Security Administration” and “improve . . . computer function” (Appeal Br.
at 26), the difficulty with Appellant’s position is that these are not
technological improvements or improvements to a technological area. The
alleged improvement lies in the abstract idea itself, not to any technological
improvement. See BSG Tech LLC v. Buyseasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281,
1287–88 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The alleged improvements identified by
Appellant does not “enable[] a computer . . . to do things it could not do
before.” Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1305 (Fed. Cir.
2018). Indeed, “[t]he [S]pecification is silent as to any specific structural or
inventive improvements in computer functionality related to this claimed
system.” See Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d
1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
17
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under Section
101.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5–8, 12–15, 19, 20, and
22 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as ineligible subject matter is AFFIRMED.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 5–8, 12–15, 19,
20, 22
101 Ineligibility 1, 5–8, 12–15,
19, 20, 22

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
This decision contains new grounds of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) (2008). 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 Appellant, 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. . . .
Appeal 2020-003680
Application 14/450,042
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
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)