Jorge A. Arroyo et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 18, 2020

14709181 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 18, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/709,181 05/11/2015 Jorge A. Arroyo RSW920140083US2 2815
75949 7590 03/18/2020
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: Fabian Vancott
215 South State Street
Suite 1200
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
BOYCE, ANDRE D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2020 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):
patents@fabianvancott.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JORCE A. ARROYO, STEPHEN P. KRUGER,
PATRICK J. O’SULLIVAN, and LUCIANO SILVA

Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before CYNTHIA L. MURPHY, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
KENNETH G. SCHOPFER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MURPHY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–14
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101 and 103. We sustain the rejection of claims 1–14
under 35 U.S.C. § 101; we sustain the rejection of claims 1–8 and 12–14
under 35 U.S.C. § 103; and we do not sustain the rejection of claims 9–11
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As we sustain at least one rejection for all of the
claims on appeal, we AFFIRM.2

1 The Appellant is the “applicant” (e.g., “the inventor or all of the joint
inventors” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. “The real party in interest is
International Business Machines Corporation.” (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 and
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Appellant’s invention involves a “customer relationship
management (CRM) system[].” (Spec. ¶ 2.) A CRM system “gather[s],
organize[s], automate[s], and synchronize[s] sales,” and “[t]his information
is stored in the CRM system’s memory.” (Id.) And when “this information
is retrieved,” it can be “analyzed to allow a company to better target various
customers.” (Id.)
Independent Claims on Appeal
1. A method for determining a policy change for an
opportunity, the method comprising:
[(a)] monitoring factors and outcomes associated with
opportunities stored in a customer relationship management
(CRM) system;
[(b)] extracting the factors and the outcomes associated
with the opportunities stored in the CRM system into a
queryable database, the factors including an identification of a
number of personalities associated with different opportunities,
identification of products and versions involved with different
opportunities and historical patterns of customers involved with
different opportunities;
[(c)] analyzing, via the queryable database, the factors
and the outcomes associated with the opportunities to identify
patterns related to the outcomes of the opportunities; and
[(d)] based on a similarity between a first opportunity and
a number of other opportunities for which data is extracted to
the database, changing a policy regarding the first opportunity
based on factors of the number of other opportunities to which
the first opportunity bears a similarity.

8. A method for determining a policy change for an
opportunity performed with a processor, a memory in
communication with the processor, and an interface to allow the
processor to access a queryable database, the database
populated with data from a Customer Relationship Management
(CRM) system the method comprising:
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

3
[(e)] comparing data in the database regarding a number
of different opportunities, wherein at least some of the
opportunities are characterized as successful or unsuccessful, a
dataset for each opportunity comprising a listing of factors
associated with the opportunity; and
[(f)] based on a similarity between a first opportunity and
a number of other opportunities, changing a policy regarding
the first opportunity based on factors of the number of other
opportunities to which the first opportunity bears a similarity.
References of Record
Boppana US 2004/0102995 A1 May 27, 2004
Andrews US 2007/0714110 A1 July 26, 2007
Hunt US 2009/0018996 A1 Jan. 15, 2009
Cushman US 2009/0198686 A1 Aug. 6, 2009
Hsu US 2010/0185968 A1 July 22, 2010
Brydon US 7,877,266 B2 Jan. 25, 2011
Lee US 2011/0113057 A1 May 12, 2011
Uthmann US 2012/0059767 A1 Mar. 8, 2012
Parker US 2012/0102036 A1 Apr. 26, 2012
Yaseen US 2012/0278091 A1 Nov. 1, 2012
Kidder US 2013/0218640 A1 Aug. 22, 2013
Lanxner US 2014/0278804 A1 Sept. 18, 2014
Rejections
I. The Examiner rejects claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. (Final Action 2.)
II. The Examiner rejects claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lanxner and Hunt. (Final Action 5.)
BACKGROUND
As indicated above, the Appellant provides a method that “allow[s] a
company to better target various customers.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Thus, the
Appellant’s method focuses on a company’s commercial interactions with
customers (i.e., it comprises commercial-interaction steps).
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

4
A business’s commercial activities can be called “opportunities,” with
each opportunity having an “outcome” and “factors” that contribute to this
outcome. (See Spec. ¶¶ 27–30.) “[O]pportunities may include a business’s
sales and/or interaction with current customers, future customers, or
combinations thereof.” (Id. ¶ 30.) An “outcome” is “a determination of
whether an opportunity is successful or unsuccessful”, and may include
“success based on obtained sales.” (Id. ¶ 27.) A “factor” is “an element
associate[d] with an opportunity that contributes to the outcome” and factors
can include “products sold,” “sellers,” “timing,” and “combinations thereof.”
(Id. ¶ 26.)
In a brick-and-mortar setting, a sales manager can store a company’s
commercial-interaction information in a convenient place (e.g., a file
cabinet) for future reference. “[S]ales patterns can be observed and
identified” (i.e., “patterns of sales successes and failure”) from this
information, and “[t]hese patterns offer a window into future buying
behavior.” (Yaseen ¶ 3.) In other words, the sales manager analyzes data
produced by actual purchases to improve insight into customer behavior.
More specifically, the sales manager’s records contain insightful data about
the company’s past commercial interactions, which can be analyzed for
patterns, and relied upon to improve the company’s future commercial
interactions.
For example, suppose a business is a shovel-selling company and its
sales manager has commercial-interaction records about the company’s past
opportunities A–L. Each of these records will contain insightful data about
the opportunity’s outcome (e.g., high or low sales), and factors contributing
to this outcome (e.g., salesperson, product, sales cycle). (See e.g., Yaseen
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

5
¶¶ 18, 22.). The sales manager can organize this data on a table, such as the
data table shown below.
Outcome Salesperson Products Sales Cycle
A High Sales PersonX Garden Shovels May 2014
B Low Sales PersonX Garden Shovels December 2014
C Low Sales PersonX Snow Shovels May 2014
D High Sales PersonX Snow Shovels December 2014
E Low Sales PersonY Garden Shovels May 2014
F Low Sales PersonY Garden Shovels December 2014
G Low Sales PersonY Snow Shovels May 2014
H Low Sales PersonY Snow Shovels December 2014
I High Sales PersonZ Garden Shovels May 2014
J Low Sales PersonZ Garden Shovels December 2014
K Low Sales PersonZ Snow Shovels May 2014
L High Sales PersonZ Snow Shovels December 2014
The sales manager can analyze the above data table to identify
patterns corresponding to successful outcomes (high sales) and patterns
corresponding to unsuccessful outcomes (low sales). This analysis would
reveal a pattern indicating that garden shovels sell well in May but not
December.3 When the sales manager is considering a policy for a future
opportunity (e.g., promoting garden shovels in 2015), he/she can compare

3 This analysis would be premised on both PersonX and PersonZ having
high sales for garden shovels in May and low sales for garden shovels in
December. This analysis would also reveal a pattern indicating that PersonY
is an underperforming salesperson because he/she does not have high sales
for garden shovels in May. Thus, if a current policy for a future opportunity
involves PersonY selling shovels, a change in personnel could be warranted.
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

6
the proposed factors for this opportunity with those forming the identified
patterns.
If, for example, a current policy for a future Opportunity M involves
promoting garden shovels during December 2015, the sales manager can
compare these factors (i.e., garden shovels, month of year) with identified
patterns having similar factors. As an identified pattern in the data table
indicates that garden shovels sell well in May but not December, the sales
manager would want to make a “policy change” to Opportunity M. More
specifically, based on the similarity between Opportunity M and other
opportunities on the data table, the policy could be changed so that
Opportunity M involves promoting garden shovels in May 2015, not
December 2015.4
Thus, the sale manager uses lessons learned from the company’s past
commercial interactions to improve the company’s future commercial
interactions.
The Appellant’s method is “for determining a policy change for an
outcome related to an opportunity.” (Spec. ¶ 3.) With the Appellant’s
method, the sales manager does not need to keep paper records about past
opportunities, and does not need to compile the outcome/factor data
associated with these past opportunities into a table. Rather, with the
Appellant’s method, “factors and outcomes associated with opportunities”
are “stored in a customer relationship management (CRM) system.” (Id.)
Also, with the Appellant’s method, “the factors and the outcomes associated

4 A “policy change” is “a change in a factor for an opportunity that results in
a change for an outcome,” and “a policy change may include changing the
timing for an opportunity.” (Spec. ¶ 28.)
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

7
with the opportunities stored in the CRM system” are extracted “into a
queryable database” for analysis. (Id.)
REJECTION I
The Examiner rejects claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed
to a judicial exception without significantly more. (Final Action 2.) We
sustain this rejection for claims 1–14.
Judicial Exceptions
The Patent Act defines subject matter eligible for patent protection as
“any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of
matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” (35 U.S.C. § 101.)
Yet the Supreme Court has “long held” that this provision contains an
important implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas are not patentable.” (Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v.
Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U. S. 576, 589 (2013).) These three concerns are
“judicially created exceptions to § 101,” or more concisely, “judicial
exceptions.” (McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299,
1311 (Fed. Cir. 2016).) Thus, an “abstract idea” is a judicial exception to
subject matter (e.g., a method) that would otherwise be deemed patent
eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Alice Test
In Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the Supreme
Court provided a two-step test to detect when an attempt is being made to
patent an abstract idea in isolation. (Id. at 217–18.) In Alice step one, a
determination is made as to whether the claim at issue is “directed to” an
abstract idea. (Id. at 218.) When analyzing a claim under Alice step one,
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

8
attention can be given to whether an abstract idea recited in the claim has
been integrated into a practical application. (See id. at 217.) While a
judicial exception (e.g., an abstract idea) cannot be patented, “an
application” of a judicial exception “to a known structure or process may
well be deserving of patent protection.” (Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175,
187 (1981); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).)
If the claim at issue is “directed to” an abstract idea, Alice step two
must be performed. (See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18.) In the second step of
the Alice test, a determination is made as to whether “additional elements” in
the claim, both individually and as an ordered combination, contribute
“significantly more” than the abstract idea. (Id.) When analyzing a claim
under Alice step two, attention is given to whether additional elements, and
any ordered combination thereof, are “well-understood,” “routine,” or
“conventional.” (Id. at 225.)
The 2019 Guidance
The 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019
§ 101 Guidance”) provides us with specific steps for discerning whether a
claim passes the Alice test for patent eligibility. (2019 § 101 Guidance,
84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) These steps are “[i]n accordance with judicial
precedent” and consist of a two-pronged Step 2A and a Step 2B. (Id. at 52.)
Analysis
In the first prong of Step 2A (“Prong One”), we determine whether
the claim “recites” an abstract idea. (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 54.) The Guidance “extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by
the courts as abstract ideas,” and these concepts include “[c]ertain methods
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

9
of organizing human activity,” and, more particularly “commercial or legal
interactions.” (Id. at 52.)
For example, the Federal Circuit has held that a commercial entity’s
interaction with customers for commercial reasons constitutes an abstract
idea. In Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed, Bath & Beyond, Inc. 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017), a claim reciting a merchant’s interaction with
a customer for item-payment reasons was held to recite an abstract idea;
and in Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014),
a claim reciting a content-sponsoring entity’s interaction with a customer
for advertising reasons was held to recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites “[a] method for determining a policy
change for an opportunity” comprising steps (a)–(d). (Appeal Br., Claims
App.) These steps can be discussed in the context of our brick-and-mortar
example in which the sales manager for the shovel-selling company
determines that a policy for future opportunity (e.g., promoting garden
shovels during December in the upcoming year) should be changed to
improve the success of this future commercial interaction.
Step (a) recites “monitoring factors and outcomes associated with
opportunities.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In our example, the sales
manager keeps records about the shovel-selling company’s past commercial
interactions, and stores this insightful information in a convenient place.
This insightful data includes the outcome of each stored opportunity (e.g.,
high sales or low sales) and factors contributing to this outcome (e.g.,
salesperson, type of shovel, and sales cycle). More specifically, this
insightful data would include an “identification of a number of personalities
associated with different opportunities” (PersonX, PersonY, PersonZ), an
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

10
“identification of products and versions involved with different
opportunities” (snow shovels and garden shovels) and “historical patterns of
customers involved with different opportunities” (e.g., sales cycles in 2014).
(Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Step (b) recites extracting “the factors and the outcomes associated
with the opportunities.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In our example, the
sales manager reviews his/her records and organizes the insightful data
contained therein (i.e., outcomes and factors) on a data table.
Step (c) recites analyzing “the factors and the outcomes associated
with the opportunities to identify patterns related to the outcomes of the
opportunities.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In our example, the sales
manager analyzes the data table to identify patterns corresponding to
successful outcomes (high sales) and patterns corresponding to unsuccessful
outcomes (low sales). And these identified patterns would reveal that
garden shovels sold well in May 2014 but not December 2014.
Step (d) recites “changing a policy regarding the first opportunity
based on factors of the number of other opportunities to which the first
opportunity bears a similarity.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) In our example,
the sales manager changes the timing of the future opportunity (e.g.,
promoting garden shovels during December in the upcoming year), so that
garden shovels will be promoted in May, not December. This policy change
is “based on a similarity between [the] first opportunity and a number of
other opportunities” shown on the data table. (Id.)
Independent claim 8 similarly recites “[a] method for determining a
policy change for an opportunity” comprising steps (e) and (f). (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) Step (e) recites comparing data “regarding a number of
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

11
different opportunities,” this data including the outcome of each opportunity
(i.e., it is “characterized as successful or unsuccessful”) and “a listing of
factors associated with the opportunity.” (Id.) Step (f), like step (d) in
independent claim 1, recites “changing a policy regarding the first
opportunity based on factors of the number of other opportunities to which
the first opportunity bears a similarity.” (Id.)
Thus, independent claims 1 and 8 recite steps that a sales manager
would take in order to use lessons learned from a company’s past
commercial interactions to improve the success rate of the company’s future
commercial interactions. More succinctly, independent claims 1 and 8 recite
a method comprising commercial-interaction steps, and, therefore, recite a
certain method of organizing human activity that constitutes an abstract idea.
(See 2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.)
Consequently, under Prong One of Step 2A, independent claims 1
and 8 recite an abstract idea, and we proceed to the second prong of Step 2A
(“Prong Two”).
In Prong Two, we evaluate whether the claim contains additional
elements that “integrate” the abstract idea “into a practical application.”
(2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) “A claim that integrates a
judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use 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.” (Id.) And “[a]dditional elements” are
“claim features, limitations, and/or steps that are recited in the claim beyond
the identified judicial exception.” (Id. at 55, n. 24) Thus, the “additional
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

12
elements” in independent claims 1 and 8 are those “beyond” the
commercial-interaction steps performed in our brick-and-mortar example.
When an additional element in a claim is a “computer,” the relevant
question is not whether the claim requires the computer to accomplish a
recited function. (Alice, 573 U.S. at 223.) Rather, “the relevant question” is
whether the claim does more than simply “instruct the practitioner to
implement the abstract idea” on a computer. (Id. at 225.) The mere
recitation of a computer in the claim, and/or words simply saying “apply”
the abstract idea “with a computer,” will not transform the abstract idea into
a patent-eligible invention.” (Id. at 223.) In short, the sheer introduction of
a computer into the claim is not enough to “impart patent eligibility.” (Id.)
Independent claim 1 requires the data to be extracted “into a
queryable database,” and independent claim 8 requires “a queryable
database” to be “populated with” this data. (Appeal Br., Claims App.)
Thus, claims 1 and 8 instruct a practitioner to implement a commercial-
interaction step (i.e., organizing commercial data on a data table) with a
computer via a queryable database.
Independent claim 8 also recites, in its preamble, that the “method” be
“performed with a processor, a memory in communication with the
processor, and an interface to allow the processor to access [the] queryable
database.” (Id.) However, claim 8 does not specify how these computer
components are actually used in steps (e) and (f). Thus, independent
claim 8, at most, instructs a practitioner to use these computer components
to implement commercial-interaction steps (e) and (f).
Independent claim 1 further requires the data to be “stored in a
customer relationship management (CRM) system,” and independent
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

13
claim 8 further requires this data to be “from a Customer Relationship
Management (CRM) system.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) According to the
Appellant, a “classical CRM system” is a system that “monitors sources
such as current customers and potentially future customers to gather
information to better target various customers.” (Spec. ¶ 40.) Thus, a CRM
system performs the same commercial-interaction steps as the sales manager
does when he/she gathers information about past opportunities so as to
improve policies for future opportunities. And, insofar as the recital of a
“CRM system” implicates a computer, independent claims 1 and 8 simply
instruct the practitioner to use this computer when implementing
commercial-interaction steps (a), (b), (e), and (f).
Thus, the additional elements recited in independent claims 1 and 8 do
not, individually, integrate the abstract idea (i.e., the recited commercial-
interaction steps) into a practical application.
That being said, the 2019 § 101 Guidance requires us to also look at
independent claims 1 and 8 as a whole in our evaluation of whether the
abstract idea has been integrated into a practical application. (See 2019
(2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.) “It is critical” that we “consider
the claim as a whole when evaluating whether the judicial exception is
meaningfully limited by integration into a practical application of the
exception.” (Id. at 55.) Even when additional elements are not enough on
their own to meaningfully limit an exception, the claimed combination of
these additional elements may still provide the practical application. (Id.)5

5 Indeed, the Federal Circuit has held that it is possible for “an inventive
concept” to reside in “the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of
known, conventional pieces,” such as “a set of generic computer
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

14
Here, however, independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite a specific
relationship of the recited computer components with each other and/or with
the commercial-interaction steps. At most, the claims recite that the data in
the queryable database comes from the CRM system, but they do not specify
the interaction or arrangement which allows this to happen. And, as
discussed above, claim 8 does not specify how the computer components
recited in its preamble are actually used in commercial-interaction steps (e)
and (f).
Consequently, under Prong Two of Step 2A, the additional elements
in independent claims 1 and 8 do not integrate the abstract idea (i.e., the
recited commercial-interaction steps) into a practical application, and we
proceed to Step 2B.
In Step 2B, we evaluate whether “additional elements recited in the
claim[] “provide[] ‘significantly more’ than the recited judicial exception.”
(2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.) More particularly, we evaluate
whether these additional elements “add[] a specific limitation or combination
of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity,” or
whether they instead “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.” (Id.)
If the additional elements consist of a conventional arrangement of
well-understood, routine, conventional computer components, they will not
amount to significantly more, and the claim fails the Alice test for patent
eligibility. (2019 § 101 Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.) Here, the

components.” (BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility
LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2016).)
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

15
Specification describes (at a high level of generality), the additional
elements (i.e., the CRM system, the queryable database, the processor, the
memory, and the interface) as conventional computer components arranged
in a conventional manner. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 16–23, 32–39, 51, Fig. 1.)
Consequently, under Step 2B, the additional elements in independent
claims 1 and 8 do not provide significantly more than the recited abstract
idea (i.e., the commercial-interaction steps).
We therefore agree with the Examiner that independent claims 1 and 8
fail the Alice test for patent eligibility.
The Appellant’s Arguments
The Appellant argues that the “policy change” required by
independent claims 1 and 8 “is the result of work that a human being cannot
reasonably do because of the volume of data involved.” (Appeal Br. 17.)
The Specification does disclose that “[o]ften, a CRM system includes
thousands of opportunities,” and “[w]ith thousands of opportunities in the
CRM system, manually analyzing each of the opportunities can be a
burdensome task for the user.” (Spec. ¶ 24; see also id. ¶¶ 65, 67.)
However, independent claims 1 and 8 do not require any particular
magnitude of opportunity data. Moreover, using a computer to perform an
abstract-idea task “more quickly or more accurately” than a human is not a
ticket into patent-eligible territory. (OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
The Appellant argues that “making the CRM system self-updating is
an improvement to computer related technology.” (Appeal Br. 18; see also
Reply Br. 16–17.) However, independent claims 1 and 8 do not require the
post-policy-change version of the “first opportunity” to be added to the
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

16
CRM system. (See id., Claims App.) Additionally, this “updating” would be
equivalent to the sales manager monitoring the policy-updated opportunity
(i.e., the promotion of garden shovels in May 2015) and adding its
outcome/factors to the data table to enhance his/her future ability to
accurately identify patterns in the data table.6
The Appellant argues that the claimed method “effects at least two
transformations.” (Appeal Br. 20.) According to the Appellant, a first
“transformation[]” occurs when “extracting” the insightful data stored in the
CRM system into the queryable database; and a second “[t]ransformation”
occurs when “changing” the policy. (Id.; see also Reply Br. 17–18.) Such
data extraction and policy change are, at most, “manipulation or
reorganization of data,” which are not considered “transformations.”
(CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1376 (Fed. Cir.
2011).)
The Appellant argues that independent claims 1 and 8 are “entirely
analogous” to the claims under review in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com,
L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). (Appeal Br. 21.) In DDR, the Federal
Circuit held that “the claimed solution [was] necessarily rooted in computer
technology in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm
of computer networks.” (DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.)7 According to the

6 Insofar as the Appellant is comparing the “queryable database” to the
claimed “set of rules” in McRO (see Appeal Br. 17–18), we note that
independent claims 1 and 8 do not recite any specifics as to how this
database is analyzed (e.g., compared), how patterns are identified, and/or
how similarities are determined.
7 In DDR, the claims addressed “the problem of retaining website visitors
that, if adhering to the routine, conventional functioning of Internet
hyperlink protocol, would be instantly transported away from a host’s
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

17
Appellant, the same is true here because the claimed subject matter
“populates a new queryable database” and “results in a changed policy for a
specific opportunity using data mining of the queryable database.” (Appeal
Br. 21.) But the Appellant does not assert that there is a computer-
technology problem that arises when, much less a computer-technology
problem that is solved by, populating a queryable database and/or mining
data from a queryable database.
The Appellant argues that it “has not merely recited any queryable
database without more” because it “has specifically recited a queryable
database formed by extracting specific types of information from a CRM
system.” (Reply Br. 14.) However, “specific types of information” are the
outcomes (e.g., high sales or low sales) of past commercial interactions and
the factors (e.g., salesperson, type of product sold, and sales cycle)
contributing to this outcome. These “specific types of information” would
be important whenever a company wants to use lessons learned from past
commercial interactions to improve future commercial interactions.8 And,

website after ‘clicking’ on an advertisement and activating a hyperlink.”
(DDR, 773 F.3d at 1257.) This problem was solved by a method in which
“upon the click of an advertisement for a third-party product displayed on a
host’s website, the visitor is no longer transported to the third party’s
website.” (Id.) Thus, the claims at issue in DDR “specif[ied] how
interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result—a
result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events
ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink.” (Id. at 1358.)
8 Even if the claimed method stored and analyzed some “new” data which
previously was not considered when looking at the outcome/factors
associated with past commercial interactions, this “new” data would not be
an additional element, and thus could not be a non-conventional additional
element. Rather, this “new” data would represent an improvement to the
commercial-interaction steps constituting the abstract idea. And even a
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

18
as discussed above, the CRM system is the computerized version of a file
cabinet storing insightful data about past commercial interactions, and the
queryable database is the computerized version of a data table organizing
this insightful data for analysis.
The Appellant argues that, per Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360
(Fed. Cir. 2018), there must be some evidence in the record that the
additional elements recited in claims 1 and 8, and the ordered arrangement
thereof, are well-understood, routine, and/or conventional. We do not
disagree. However, as discussed above, the Specification describes the
additional elements (i.e., the CRM system, the queryable database, the
processor, the memory, and the interface) as conventional computer
components arranged in a conventional manner. (See e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 16–23,
32–39, Fig. 1.)9 References of record likewise reflect the conventionality of

“brilliant” abstract idea “does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry.”
(Myriad 569 U.S. at 591.)
9 The Specification does state that the functions diagrammed in the
illustrated flowcharts “can be implemented by special purpose hardware-
based systems that perform the specified functions or acts or carry out
combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.”
(Spec. ¶ 22, bolding added.) But the Specification gives no insight into why
this implementation could not be accomplished with conventional computer
hardware. Thus, for the purposes of this appeal, we assume that the only
thing special about the Appellant’s recited computer components is that they
are programmed to perform the recited customer-interaction steps. A
general purpose computer would not become a special purpose computer
just because its programming corresponds to these customer-interaction
steps. Insofar as the Federal Circuit may have implied otherwise in In re
Alappatt 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1993), the Federal Circuit has expressly
held that any such implication in Alappatt “has been superseded” by Bilski
and Alice. (Eon Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 785 F.3d
616, 623 (Fed. Cir. 2015).)
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

19
using CRM systems, queryable databases, processors, memories, and
interfaces in such an arrangement. (See Boppana ¶¶ 44–45, 52–54; Andrews
¶¶ 2–4, Fig. 9; Hunt ¶¶ 2–3, 289, 291, 1693; Cushman ¶¶ 103, 27; Hsu ¶¶ 3,
127; Brydon 2:1–5, 6:62–65; Lee ¶¶ 40–49, Fig 1; Parker ¶¶ 1, 2; Yassen
¶¶ 3–5, 25, 86–88; Kidder ¶¶ 2–3, 38, 99, Fig. 1; Uthmann ¶¶ 2, 30.)
The Appellant argues that the “claims clearly do not pre-empt or
monopolize all use of any identified abstract idea.” (Appeal Br. 19.) But
“questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101
analysis.” (Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379
(Fed. Cir. 2015) (citing Alice, 573 U.S. at 216).) Although “preemption may
signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption
does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” (Id.)
Thus, after careful consideration of the Appellant’s arguments, we
still agree with the Examiner that independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to
a judicial exception without significantly more.
Summary
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The dependent claims are not argued separately for
this rejection (see Appeal Br. 16–21), and so we likewise sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–7 and 9–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
REJECTION II
The Examiner rejects claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Lanxner and Hunt. (Final Action 5.) We sustain this
rejection for claims 1–8 and 12–14; and we do not sustain this rejection for
claims 9–11.
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

20
Obviousness
“Rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).)
However, an obviousness evaluator “need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim” as “the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ” can be taken into account.” (Id. at 419.) For example, “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to
be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (Id.
at 416.)
Analysis
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite a “method for determining a policy
change for an opportunity.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds
that Lanxner teaches a policy-changing method. (See Final Action 5–6.)
Lanxner discloses a method for re-pricing item(s) that a seller is offering for
sale in an electronic market place. (See Lanxner ¶ 2.) Lanxner’s method is
performed by a “re-pricing system” that “monitors the trade activity,”
“collects the commerce information,” “predict[s] variables,” and “then takes
one or more actions for adjusting the price of the one or more items
according to [a] set of price setting rules.” (Id. ¶¶ 97–99.)
Independent claim 1 recites “factors and outcomes associated with
opportunities.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 8 recites
“opportunities” and “a dataset for each opportunity comprising a listing of
factors associated with the opportunity.” (Id.) The Examiner finds that
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

21
Lanxner’s collected commerce information is data about opportunities
having factors and outcomes associated therewith. (See Final Action 6.)
Lanxner discloses that the collected commerce information can include data
about “sale transactions,” “views” of the items, “prices set,” “rankings” of
offers, “consumers rating,” “shipping” process, “ranking of offers,”
“inventory level,” and “terms of payment” of the seller and/or other
competing sellers. (Lanxner ¶ 16.)
Independent claim 1 recites analyzing “the factors and the outcomes
associated with the opportunities to identify patterns related to the outcomes
of the opportunities.” (Appeal Br. Claims App.) Independent claim 8
recites comparing data “regarding a number of different opportunities.” (Id.)
The Examiner finds that Lanxner teaches analyzing and comparing data
about opportunities, factors, and outcomes. (See Final Action 6–7.)
Lanxner discloses that there is “continuous adjustment” of the seller’s price
according to “real time analysis” made on the collected commerce
information. (Lanxner ¶ 76.) Specifically, “[the] current ranking of the
offer made by the seller compared to offers made by the competitor sellers is
evaluated, a price adjustment is applied to the offer of the seller and
commerce information is collected for another analysis which may result in
another price adjustment.” (Id.)
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite “changing a policy regarding [a]
first opportunity.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that
Lanxner teaches such a policy change. (See Final Action 7.) Lanxner
discloses that “sellers may manipulate the prices of the items they offer for
sale in order to increase their sales and/or profits.” (Lanxner ¶ 6.) As such,
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

22
Lanxner’s price adjustment is “a factor for an opportunity that results in a
change for an outcome.” (Spec. ¶ 28.)
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite that the policy change is “based on
a similarity between [the] first opportunity and [the] number of other
opportunities,” and thus “based on factors of the number of other
opportunities to which the first opportunity bears a similarity.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Lanxner’s price adjustments are
based on such similarities. (See Final Action 7.) Lanxner’s price adjustment
is based upon collected commerce information about competing sellers
offering similar items for sale. (See Lanxner ¶ 16.)
Independent claims 1 and 8 recite a “queryable database.” (Appeal
Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Hunt teaches using a queryable
database to effectively process sales data. (See Final Action 8.) Hunt
discloses that a “database” can contain, and can be queried about,
information such as “the collection of sales and marketing-relating facts.”
(Hunt ¶ 120.)
Independent claim 1 recites “extracting” the factors and the outcomes
“into [the] queryable database,” and “analyzing” the factors and outcomes
“via the queryable database.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent
claim 8 recites “comparing data in the [queryable] database.” (Id.) The
Examiner finds that Hunt teaches extracting, analyzing, and comparing
elements. (See Final Action 8.) Hunt discloses a data harvester that
“extract[s]” data from data sources into a queryable database (Hunt ¶ 128),
and a calculation engine that “perform[s] query generation and
computations” (id. ¶ 146).
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

23
The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to combine
Lanxner’s re-pricing elements with Hunt’s data extracting, querying, and
analyzing elements. (See Final Action 8.) Thus, in the Examiner’s proposed
combination of the prior art, Lanxner’s collection of commerce information
is extracted into a queryable database for analysis and comparison, so that,
based on this analysis/comparison, Lanxner’s repricing system can
appropriately adjust pricing for the seller. The Examiner explains that this is
“a combination of old elements,” each element in this combination performs
“the same function as it did separately,” and that results of this combination
would have been “predictable.” (Id.)
Independent claim 1 recites that the “opportunities” extracted into the
queryable database are “stored in a customer relationship management
(CRM) system.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) Independent claim 8 recites
that the queryable database is “populated with data from a Customer
Relationship Management (CRM) system.” (Id.) The Examiner finds that
Lanxner’s re-pricing system can be considered a CRM system. (See Final
Action 6; see also Answer 16.) Lanxner’s repricing system collects
commerce information, and automatically adjusts pricing, so that seller can
get a “high ranking” which may result “in winning many sale transactions
and increasing sales and profits.” (Lanxner ¶ 4.)10
Independent claim 1 further requires the factors to include “an
identification of a number of personalities associated with different

10 The Appellant defines a CRM system as a system that “uses techniques and
methods to gather, organize, automate, and synchronize sales, for marketing,
customer service, and technical support.” (Spec. ¶ 2.) Moreover, Hunt
teaches that a queryable database can work in conjunction with “customer
relationship management applications.” (Hunt ¶ 289, see also Fig. 88.)
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

24
opportunities, identification of products and versions involved with different
opportunities and historical patterns of customers involved with different
opportunities.” (Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Lanxner
teaches these factors. (See Final Action 6.) As indicated above, Lanxner’s
commerce information can include data about competing sellers (different
personalities), views of items (identification of products and versions), and
customer ratings (historical patterns of customers).11 (See Lanxner ¶ 16.)
Independent claim 8 further requires that “at least some of the
opportunities are characterized as successful or unsuccessful.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Lanxner teaches such
characterizations. (See Answer 14–15.) Lanxner discloses that its
commerce information can include “tracking performance indicators” such
as “profit[s]” (Lanxner ¶ 160), and that “[a]lerts may be generated” for a
“drop in profit” (id. ¶ 162).
We therefore agree with the Examiner that the record sufficiently
supports a determination that the methods set forth in independent claims 1
and 8 would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Lanxner and
Hunt.
The Appellant’s Arguments
The Appellant argues that “Lanxner does not address and never
mentions a CRM system.” (Appeal Br. 13.) According to the Appellant,
“[t]he term ‘CRM system’” has a “specific definition” which requires it to

11 Lanxner expressly teaches that the commerce information can also include
“past commerce information” and that “[a]nalyzing the past commerce
information” may be done to “provide more accurate pricing compared to
previous pricing of one or more competitor sellers, identify trade patterns
and/or make predictions for future trade patterns.” (Lanxner ¶ 149.)
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

25
“compile information on customers across different channels,” such as “the
company’s website, telephone, live chat, direct mail, marketing materials
and social media.” (Id., italics omitted) This “specific definition” differs
from the one provided in the Specification which defines a CRM system as a
“system [that] uses techniques and methods to organize, automate, and
synchronize sales, for marketing, customer service, and technical support.”
(Spec. ¶ 23.) And, as discussed above, Lanxner’s re-pricing system satisfies
the definition provided by the Specification. (See Lanxner ¶ 4.)
The Appellant argues that, if Lanxner and Hunt were combined, this
combination would be “a system for repricing products according to a
ruleset, as in Lanxner, along with a searchable database for those products
by product category, as in Hunt.” (Appeal Br. 15) The Appellant seems to
be saying that Hunt’s teachings are limited to a queryable database for
product categories. However, Hunt expressly teaches its analytic platform
“may provide on-demand pricing insights solution.” (Hunt ¶ 1224.)
Moreover, independent claims 1 and 8 do not require the queryable database
to change the policy, the queryable database is only responsible for the
analysis/comparison on which the policy change is based.
The Appellant argues that opportunities “characterized as successful
or unsuccessful” are not “taught or suggested in the cited references.”
(Appeal Br. 9–10.) According to the Appellant, “[r]eporting sales, as in
Lanxner, is simply not the same thing as a database with records of
opportunities that are characterized as successful or unsuccessful.” (Reply
Br. 5.) However, as discussed above, Lanxner also discloses “tracking
performance indicators” such as “profit.” (Lanxner ¶ 160.) Lanxner’s
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

26
tracking performance indicator characterizes an opportunity as successful or
unsuccessful in generating profits.12
Thus, after careful consideration of the Appellant’s arguments, we
still agree with the Examiner that the record sufficiently supports a
determination that the methods set forth in independent claims 1 and 8
would have been obvious over the combined teachings of Lanxner and Hunt.
Dependent Claim 9
Dependent claim 9 recites that the change in policy comprises “a
change in at least one of the components in a package offered for sale.”
(Appeal Br., Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Lanxner teaches this
because it discloses adjusting the “quantity size” and this is “a change in at
least one of the components in a package offered for sale.” (See Final
Action 10–11.) Lanxner does teach adjusting the “discount for purchase of
large quantity of the one or more items.” (Lanxner ¶ 68.) However, the
Examiner does not adequately explain how a discount adjustment for a given
number of items in a package is the same as a change in components (i.e., a
change in the number of items) in the package for sale. (See Appeal Br. 11.)
Thus, the record does not sufficiently support the Examiner’s
determination that the method set forth in dependent claim 9 (and claim 10

12 The Appellant implies that outcomes “can be recorded without being
characterized as successful or unsuccessful.” (Appeal Br. 10.) But the
Appellant does not point to, and we are unable to locate, disclosure in the
Specification as to how, where, and/or when these characterizations are
recorded. In the context of the claims on appeal, “the term ‘outcome’ is
meant to be understood broadly as a determination whether an opportunity is
successful or unsuccessful,” and success may be “based on obtained sales,”
and failure may be “based on missed sales.” (Spec. ¶ 27.)
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

27
depending therefrom) would have been obvious over the combined teachings
of Lanxner and Hunt.
Dependent Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 recites that the change in policy comprises “a
change in personnel involved with the first opportunity.” (Appeal Br.,
Claims App.) The Examiner finds that Lanxner teaches a change in
personnel because it discloses an algorithm taking into account that “a seller
who ships within of maximum 2 days may be preferred over another seller
who ships in up to 3 days.” (Final Action 12.) Lanxner does teach that, an
“algorithm” can be used to determine the “contribution” of certain adjustable
attributes in “producing orders” for the seller. (Lanxner ¶ 134.) One of
these attributes could be the seller’s “shipping time,” which could be
adjusted to align with the preferred shipping time (e.g., maximum 2 days).
But the change in policy resulting from this information would be the
seller’s shipping time, not a change in personnel. (See Appeal Br. 11–12.)
Thus, the record does not sufficiently support the Examiner’s
determination that the method set forth in dependent claim 11 would have
been obvious over the combined teachings of Lanxner and Hunt
Summary
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 8
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Dependent claims 2–7 and 12–14 are not argued
separately (see Appeal Br. 9–16), and so we likewise sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2018-006393
Application 14/709,181

28
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14 101 Eligibility 1–14
1–14 103 Lanxner, Hunt 1–8,
12–14
9–11
Overall
Outcome
1–14

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED]