Juan J. Liu et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 4, 2019

13797663 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 4, 2019)

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.
13/797,663 03/12/2013 Juan J. Liu PARC-20120331-US-NP 3865
35699 7590 10/04/2019
PVF -- PARC
c/o PARK, VAUGHAN, FLEMING & DOWLER LLP
2820 FIFTH STREET
DAVIS, CA 95618-7759
EXAMINER
MEINECKE DIAZ, SUSANNA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2019 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):
sy_incoming@parklegal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JUAN J. LIU, MILPITAS and OLIVER BRDICZKA
____________

Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663
Technology Center 3600
____________

BEFORE JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and JASON J.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to finally reject claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 25, and
27.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to detecting anomalous behavior of an
individual within an organization and providing an interactive user interface
for presenting anomaly detection outcomes associated with the organization.
Spec. ¶¶ 3–6.

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Palo Alto Research Center.
App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 6, 9, 15, 17, 21, 24, and 26 were canceled previously.
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

2

Exemplary Claim
1. A system for presenting anomaly-detection outcomes
associated with an organization to a user, the system
comprising:
a processor;
a memory;
a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to
the processor storing instructions that, when executed by the
processor, cause the system to perform a method comprising:
receiving, at a server with the processor, user activity
data from a plurality of client machines associated with the
organization, wherein the user activity data includes electronic
activities of a respective user performed on a respective client
machine associated with the organization;
analyzing, by the processor, the user activity data
associated with the electronic activities to determine anomalies,
which include detecting an employee with anomalous behavior;
in response to receiving user input, expanding a node to
display anomaly information associated with employee
members of an organizational unit represented by the node;
in response to receiving user input to select the
employee, displaying an anomaly report associated with the
employee, which includes:
displaying a time-varying anomaly score associated with
the employee; determining a disgruntlement measure that varies
with time and represents a level of disgruntlement of the
employee;
determining a maximum disgruntlement measure for a
particular time period, wherein the maximum disgruntlement
measure correlates to one or more employment-related events
associated with the employee during the particular time period;
displaying the disgruntlement measure over the particular
time period; and displaying visual representations of the
employment-related events, which correspond to the maximum
disgruntlement measure within the particular time period.
App. Br. 37–38 (Claims Appendix).

Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

3

REJECTION
Claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 25, and 27 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as being directed to a judicial exception, without
significantly more. Final Act. 6–10; Ans. 2–15.3

THE INELIGIBILITY REJECTION
The Examiner states “the claims are directed to detecting, scoring,
and displaying information related to anomalous behavior of employees in
an organization,” and this “underlying evaluation process is a mental process
of managing behavior that could be performed in the human mind, or by a
human using a pen and paper. Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner adds “the
claims manage concepts relating to interpersonal and intrapersonal activities
(see the July 2015 Update: Interim Eligibility Guidance Identifying Abstract
Ideas), the claims also incorporate the abstract idea of organizing human
activity.” Id. The Examiner further determines that the additional elements
including (1) a processor; (2) a memory; (3) non-transitory computer
readable medium; (4) a server; and (5) client machines do not add
significantly more than the abstract idea, but merely recite generic
computing components. Final Act. 8–10.
Appellants argue the claims are not directed to an abstract idea, but
rather, the claimed invention recites an improvement of computer related
technology, namely data mining and data visualization, citing Enfish, LLC v.

3 Throughout this Opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action delivered
April 6, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed September 5, 2017
(“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer delivered October 13, 2017
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed December 6, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

4

Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016) and McRO, Inc. v. Bandai
Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016). App. Br. 20–22.
Appellants add, similar to BASCOM Global Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T
Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claimed invention as a
whole amounts to significantly more to the purported abstract idea by
reciting an unconventional solution to a technical problem involving
presenting anomalous activity to a security analyst based on massive
amounts of data. App. Br. 32–34. The Appellants additionally argue the
claimed invention prevents broad preemption of the relevant technological
field. App. Br. 22.

ISSUE
Under § 101, has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claimed
invention as directed to ineligible subject matter? This issue turns on
whether the claims are directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether
additional elements recited—considered individually and as an ordered
combination—transform the nature of the claims into a patent-eligible
application of that abstract idea.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
An invention is patent-eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l,
573 U.S. 208, 216 (2014) (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

5

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.
(15 How.) 252, 267–68 (1854))); and manufacturing flour (Benson, 409 U.S.
at 69 (citing Cochrane v. Deener, 94 U.S. 780, 785 (1876))).
In Diehr, the claim at issue recited a mathematical formula, but the
Supreme Court held that “[a] claim drawn to subject matter otherwise
statutory does not become nonstatutory simply because it uses a
mathematical formula.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 187; see also id. at 191 (“We
view respondents’ claims as nothing more than a process for molding rubber
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

6

products and not as an attempt to patent a mathematical formula.”). That
said, 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 (citation 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 USPTO published revised guidance on the
application of § 101. See 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised
Guidance”). Under that 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
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

7

human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and
(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) (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to
whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, and conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.

THE INELIGIBILITY ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1, 10, and 19 recite analogous limitations.
Appellants present a unitary argument directed towards independent claims
1, 10, and 19 together. App. Br. 35. Accordingly, we select claim 1 for
discussion as representative of the rejected claims. We refer to the rejected
independent claims collectively herein as “claim 1.” See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We must determine whether the claimed invention is directed to a
judicial exception, namely an abstract idea. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. To
this end, we determine (1) whether the claimed invention recites a judicial
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

8

exception (Revised Guidance Step 2A — Prong 1) and, if so, (2) whether the
identified judicial exception is integrated into a practical application
(Revised Guidance Step 2A — Prong 2). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52–55.
Revised Guidance Step 2A –– Prong 1
In Revised Step 2A –– Prong 1, we (1) identify the claim’s specific
limitations that recite an abstract idea, and (2) determine whether the
identified limitations fall within certain subject matter groupings, namely (a)
mathematical concepts;4 (b) certain methods of organizing human activity5;
or (c) mental processes.6 We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 6–8) that
claim 1 recites a judicial exception. Here, apart from (1) a processor; (2) a
memory; (3) non-transitory computer readable medium; (4) a server; and (5)
client machines recited in independent claim 1, the claimed invention’s
recited limitations, which collectively are directed to gathering, analyzing,
organizing and displaying the analyzed and organized data, fit squarely
within at least one of the above categories of the agency’s guidelines.

4 Mathematical concepts include mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
5 Certain methods of organizing human activity include fundamental
economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating
risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of
contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or
behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships
or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and
following rules or instructions). See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
6 Mental processes are concepts performed in the human mind including an
observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion. See Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52.
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

9

First, the claimed invention recites steps recite certain methods of
organizing human activity, including managing personal behavior or
relationships following rules or instructions, such as monitoring the behavior
of an individual within an organization for anomalous behavior. See Spec.
¶ 4 (“detecting anomalous behaviors of an individual, the organization may
intervene . . . a military base may monitor behaviors of soldiers”). For
example, claim 1 recites (1) “receiving . . . user activity data from a
plurality of client machines associated with the organization, wherein the
user activity data includes electronic activities of a respective user
performed on a respective client machine associated with the organization”;
(2) “analyzing . . . the user activity data associated with the electronic
activities to determine anomalies, which include detecting an employee with
anomalous behavior”; (3) “in response to receiving user input, expanding a
node to display anomaly information associated with employee members of
an organizational unit represented by the node”; (4) “in response to
receiving user input to select the employee, displaying an anomaly report
associated with the employee, which includes: displaying a time-varying
anomaly score associated with the employee”; (4a) “determining a
disgruntlement measure that varies with time and represents a level of
disgruntlement of the employee”; (4b) “determining a maximum
disgruntlement measure for a particular time period, wherein the maximum
disgruntlement measure correlates to one or more employment-related
events associated with the employee during the particular time period”; (4c)
“displaying the disgruntlement measure over the particular time period”;
and (4d) “displaying visual representations of the employment-related
events, which correspond to the maximum disgruntlement measure within
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

10

the particular time period” (App. Br. 37–38 (Claims Appendix) (emphases
added)), which involve certain methods of organizing human activity
including managing interactions between people following rules or
instructions.
The relevant case law establishes limitations (1)–(4d) recite an
abstract idea. Cf. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“receiving e-mail (and other data file)
identifiers, characterizing e-mail based on the identifiers, and
communicating the characterization—in other words, filtering
files/e-mail—is an abstract idea”); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), II
(“CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY,” Section D,
example v, citing Symantec); Dealertrack v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333
(Fed. Cir. 2012) (“receiving data from one source . . . , selectively
forwarding the data . . . , and forwarding reply data to the first source”
constituted certain methods of organizing human activities, which is a type
of abstract idea); MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), II (“CERTAIN METHODS OF
ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY,” Section A, citing Dealertrack). Similar to
the data gathering (1), (3), and (4) and selective transmission of content
based on user characteristics, such as user activity data (2) and (4a)–(4d),
shown above, our reviewing court in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital
One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2017) found that retrieving data
from a user profile and tailoring transmitted content based on a “user’s
personal characteristics” constituted certain methods of organizing human
activities, which is a type of abstract idea. 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70; see also
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), II (“CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN
ACTIVITY,” Section C, citing Capital One Bank (USA)).
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

11

Specifically, limitations (1), (3), and (4) recite gathering data such as
user activity data and user input in furtherance of organizing human activity,
namely, managing the personal behavior of an employee. The Specification
discloses gathering user activity data amounts to monitoring the behavior of
an employee to detect “abnormal behavior” (Spec. ¶ 26) so that the personal
behavior of the employee can effectively be managed through investigation,
intervention or prevention techniques (Spec. ¶ 4). Furthermore, data
gathering with user input merely recites an interaction between a sender and
a recipient. In Symantec, our reviewing court found claim limitations
reciting
identifying characteristics of data files comprising: receiving,
on a processing system, file content identifiers for data files
from a plurality of file content identifier generator agents
(emphasis added) constitute certain methods of organizing human activities,
which is a type of abstract idea related to retrieving data using data file
identifiers. See Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307 at 1313; see also Content
Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d
1343, 1345–49 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding ineligible claims reciting (1)
receiving output representing diverse types of hard copy documents from an
automated digitizing unit, and (2) storing information from those documents
into memory); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366,
1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that limitations reciting obtaining information
about transactions that have used an Internet address identified with a credit
card transaction can be performed by a human who simply reads records of
Internet credit card transactions from a pre-existing database).
Furthermore, limitations (2) and (4a)–(4d) recite using the data
gathered in limitations (1), (3), and (4) to determine that wanted and
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

12

unwanted content may be defined according to user activity data and user
input data and sending content for display based on the determination. Our
reviewing court has found that email filtering with user-set criteria
constitutes certain methods of organizing human activities, which is a type
of abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838
F.3d 1307, 1313, 1317–19 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also MPEP
§ 2106.04(a)(2), II (“CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN
ACTIVITY,” Section D, example v, citing Symantec). Additionally, user
customizable content filtering of information retrieved from the Internet was
similarly found to constitute certain methods of organizing human activities,
which is a type of abstract idea. See BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc.
v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1345–46 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also
MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), II (“CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN
ACTIVITY,” Section C, example i, citing BASCOM). These cases are
relevant because user-customization means that wanted and unwanted
content may be defined according to user related data. Retrieval of
information defining the wanted and unwanted content in a multi-user
environment requires use of the user related data. See, e.g., BASCOM,
supra. Although the claimed invention involves modifying content rather
than blocking or allowing access to requested content like these cases, the
use of recipient information to modify content transmitted to a recipient, i.e.,
steps (4)–(6), similarly recites a certain method of organizing human activity
that is an abstract idea.
Furthermore, the Specification indicates (2) “analyzing . . . the user
activity data associated with the electronic activities to determine
anomalies, which include detecting an employee with anomalous behavior”
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

13

under an aspect of the invention, can be carried out by simple counting of
anomalous behaviors. Spec. ¶ 41 (emphasis added). Additionally, with
respect to (4a) and (4b), under an aspect of the invention, determining a
disgruntlement measure under an aspect of the invention, can be carried out
by a data comparison, such as a “sudden change in the productivity or
punctuality.” See Spec. ¶ 54; see also id. ¶ 57 (“psychological state (such as
his disgruntlement measure)”). Our reviewing court in Capital One Bank
(USA) reviewed analogous claim limitations and determined tailoring of
content transmitted to a recipient based on “matching personal
characteristics in a user profile” with “information identifiers” is a
fundamental practice long prevalent in our system, i.e., a certain method of
organizing human activity that is an abstract idea.. 792 F.3d 1363, 1369–70
(internal citations and quotations omitted); see also MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2),
II (“CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY,” Section C,
citing Capital One Bank (USA)).
We add that the above-noted recited functions (with emphasis added)
of (2) “analyzing . . . the user activity data associated with the electronic
activities to determine anomalies, which include detecting an employee with
anomalous behavior”; (4a) “determining a disgruntlement measure that
varies with time and represents a level of disgruntlement of the employee”;
and (4b) “determining a maximum disgruntlement measure for a particular
time period, wherein the maximum disgruntlement measure correlates to one
or more employment-related events associated with the employee during the
particular time period” can also be generally performed as a mental process
by merely thinking about these identifications and determinations, or writing
them down—both involving mere observation and logical reasoning. Cf.
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

14

CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (noting that a recited step that utilized a map
of credit card numbers to determine the validity of a credit card transaction
could typically be performed entirely mentally by merely using logical
reasoning to identify a likely instance of fraud by merely observing that
numerous transactions using different credit cards all originated from the
same IP address). Additionally, mental processes generally remain
unpatentable even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what
once could have been done with pen and paper. See CyberSource, 654 F.3d
at 1375 (“That purely mental processes can be unpatentable, even when
performed by a computer, was precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in
Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
We disagree with Appellants’ argument that the claimed invention is
distinguishable from CyberSource since “CyberSource merely recites
obtaining information about credit card transactions, and does not include
receiving data from any machines” (App. Br. 18) unpersuasive since
CyberSource concluded obtaining information about transactions from a
preexisting database on a machine, even if a physical step is required to
obtain the database information, such as clicking a mouse, amounts to data
gathering steps that cannot alone confer patentability. See id. at 1372.
Moreover, as noted supra, our reviewing court in Symantec concluded that
filtering content retrieved from an internet computer network constitutes
certain methods of organizing human activities, which is a type of abstract
idea. See Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307 at 1314.
We also conclude Appellants’ argument (e.g., App. Br. 23–25) that
the claimed invention cannot recite a mental process because of the “massive
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

15

amounts of data associated with anomalies” unavailing because any speed
increase comes from the capabilities of the generic computer
components—not the recited process itself. See FairWarning IP, LLC v.
Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (alteration in original)
(citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can. (U.S.), 687
F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[T]he fact that the required calculations
could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter
the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.”)); see also Intellectual
Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 711 F. App’x 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (unpublished) (“Though the claims purport to accelerate the process
of finding errant files and to reduce error, we have held that speed and
accuracy increases stemming from the ordinary capabilities of a general-
purpose computer ‘do[] not materially alter the patent eligibility of the
claimed subject matter.’”) (alteration in original) (citation omitted). Like the
claims in FairWarning, the focus of claim 1 is not on an improvement in
computer processors as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that
use generic computing components as tools. See FairWarning, 839 F.3d at
1095. Additionally, claim 1 does not require “analyzing massive amounts of
data,” but rather recites “analyzing . . . user activity data associated with the
electronic activities” from two or more client machines. App. Br. 37
(Claims Appendix).
Therefore, the recited determining anomalies, determining a
disgruntlement measure, and determining a maximum disgruntlement
measure also fall squarely within the mental processes category of the
agency’s guidelines and, therefore, recites an abstract idea for that additional
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

16

reason. See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary mental
processes including observation and evaluation).
Accordingly, limitations (1)–(4d) reciting gathering, analyzing,
organizing and displaying the analyzed and organized data falls squarely
within the certain methods of organizing human activity category of the
agency’s guidelines and, therefore, recite an abstract idea. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (listing exemplary methods of organizing
human activity, including managing personal behavior or relationships
following rules or instructions).
Revised Guidance Step 2A — Prong 2
Although claim 1 recites both an abstract idea categorized as a method
of organizing human activity and also an abstract idea categorized as a
mental process, we, nevertheless, must still determine whether the abstract
idea is integrated into a practical application, namely whether the claim
applies, relies on, or uses the abstract idea in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the abstract idea, such that the claim is more than a
drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea. See Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55. To this end, we (1) identify whether there
are any additional recited elements beyond the abstract idea, and (2) evaluate
those elements individually and collectively to determine whether they
integrate the exception into a practical application. See id.
Here, we agree with the Examiner (e.g., Final Act. 7–8) that claim 1
recites a judicial exception apart from (1) a processor; (2) a memory; (3)
non-transitory computer readable medium; (4) a server; and (5) client
machines recited in independent claim 1, but these additional elements do
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

17

not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when reading the
claimed invention as a whole.
First, we are not persuaded that the claimed invention improves the
computers or its components’ functionality or efficiency, or otherwise
changes the way those devices function, at least in the sense contemplated
by the Federal Circuit in Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., and McRO, Inc. v.
Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., despite Appellants’ arguments to the
contrary (App. Br. 20–23). The claimed self-referential table in Enfish was a
specific type of data structure designed to improve the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1339. To the extent
Appellants contend that the claimed invention uses such a data structure to
improve a computer’s functionality or efficiency, or otherwise change the
way that device functions, there is no persuasive evidence on this record to
substantiate such a contention.
Rather, the additional element of (1) a generic processor executing
automated process steps is merely a tool used to implement the abstract idea.
Spec. ¶ 70 (“or other programmable-logic devices now known or later
developed”), ¶ 27 (“any type of computer system”). With respect to
additional elements (2) (¶ 30 “any type of system for storing data”); (3) (¶ 68
“computer-readable storage medium . . . may be any device or medium that
can store code . . . now known or later developed”); (4) (¶¶ 29–31 “nodes on
a network . . . other electronic computing devices with network connectivity
. . . server 114 includes any computational node”); (5) (¶ 29 “other electronic
computing devices with network connectivity”) the Specification identifies
these additional elements as likewise generic computer components.
Although paragraph 31 discloses server 114 has a mechanism “for running
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

18

anomaly-detection algorithms,” the step of anomaly detection, recited in step
(2) recites an abstract idea, both in the category of certain methods of
organizing human activity, and in the category of a mental process, as
discussed supra. Beyond using an algorithm carrying out an abstract idea,
the server itself is “any computational node”, defined as generic in
paragraph 29.
Furthermore, in McRO, the claimed process used a combined order of
specific rules that rendered information in a specific format that was applied
to create a sequence of synchronized, animated characters. McRO, 837 F.3d
at 1315. Notably, the recited process automatically animated characters
using particular information and techniques—an improvement over manual
three-dimensional animation techniques that was not directed to an abstract
idea. Id. at 1316. But, unlike the claimed invention in McRO that improved
how the physical display operated to produce better quality images, the
claimed invention here merely uses a generic processor to receive and
request user provided data to identify and update files in a database.
Furthermore, in McRO, our reviewing court found that “by incorporating the
specific features of the rules as claim limitations, claim 1 is limited to a
specific process for automatically animating characters” (emphasis added).
Id.; see also id. at 1307–08 (claim 1 includes specific features of rules such
as “defin[ing] output morph weight set stream as a function of phoneme
sequence and time”; “generating an intermediate stream of output morph
weight sets and a plurality of transition parameters between two adjacent
morph weight sets by evaluating said plurality of sub-sequences against said
first set of rules”; “final stream of output morph weight sets at a desired
frame rate from said intermediate stream of output morph weight sets and
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

19

said plurality of transition parameters”; “applying said final stream of output
morph weight sets to a sequence of animated characters to produce lip
synchronization”). The claimed invention recited in claim 1, unlike McRO,
does not recite specific features or rules as claim limitations. Rather they
broadly recite an abstract idea (e.g., “analyzing . . . user activity to determine
anomalies”; “determining a disgruntlement measure”, etc.) implemented on
generic tools. This generic computer implementation is not only directed to
certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, but also
does not improve a display mechanism as was the case in McRO. See SAP
Am. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (distinguishing
McRO).
Furthermore, the Specification indicates the improvement relates to
the abstract idea, as noted supra, of a certain method of organizing human
activity, by gathering data of an employee in an organization, and sending
anomalous activities to an analyst who can investigate and further address
the anomalous activity of the employee through intervention or other means,
rather than a technological improvement. Spec. ¶ 4. Moreover, the claims
do not reflect how computer technology is improved. When a claim directed
to an abstract idea contains no restriction on how an asserted improvement is
accomplished and the asserted improvement is not described in the claim,
then the claim does not become patent eligible on the basis of the asserted
improvement. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d
1307, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Second, Section 2106.05(c) of the MPEP guides: “Another
consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more is
whether the claim effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

20

to a different state or thing.” “‘[T]ransformation and reduction of an article
‘to a different state or thing’ is the clue to the patentability of a process claim
that does not include particular machines.’” Bilski, 561 U.S. at 604 (quoting
Benson, 409 U.S. at 70). If such a transformation exists, the claims are
likely to be significantly more than any recited judicial exception. Bilski
emphasizes that although the transformation of an article is an important
clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. MPEP § 2106.05(c).
Appellants argue that similar to Diehr, the claimed computer system
implements a process designed to solve a problem in conventional industry
practice, namely:
Similar to Diehr, the claimed embodiments perform
additional steps of data mining to determine anomalies from
large quantities of user activity data, and displaying anomaly
information regarding a group and an employee within an
organization in a manner that allows a security analyst to
quickly comprehend both the anomalies within the group (e.g.
claims 2 and 5), and the specific anomalies associated with an
employee. The claimed invention detects anomalies and
presents anomaly information at different organizational levels
so that the security analyst can quickly comprehend the security
issues within the organization. As in Diehr, the additional steps
of the claimed invention improve an existing technological
process. Here, the claimed embodiments improve the existing
technological process for data mining, data visualization, and
machine-human interaction in presenting security information
to a security analyst.
App. Br. 31.
However, our reviewing court guides that, if not appropriately
limiting, “[t]he mere manipulation or reorganization of [electronic] data,
however, does not satisfy the transformation prong.” CyberSource, 654 F.3d
at 1375. Furthermore, in Diehr, the Supreme Court found a transformation
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

21

existed because the claims recited “a physical and chemical process for
molding precision synthetic rubber products” which included “in detail a
step-by-step method for accomplishing such, beginning with the loading of a
mold with raw, uncured rubber and ending with the eventual opening of the
press at the conclusion of the cure.” Diehr, 450 U.S. at 184. Here, no such
physical components other than generic computing components, are recited.
Additionally, as discussed above, limitations (with emphases added)
reciting (3) “in response to receiving user input, expanding a node to display
anomaly information associated with employee members of an
organizational unit represented by the node”; (4) “in response to receiving
user input to select the employee, displaying an anomaly report associated
with the employee, which includes: displaying a time-varying anomaly
score associated with the employee”; (4c) “displaying the disgruntlement
measure over the particular time period”; and (4d) “displaying visual
representations of the employment-related events, which correspond to the
maximum disgruntlement measure within the particular time period” not
only recite an abstract idea of organizing human activity using generic
computing components, but this display function is also insignificant
post-solution activity and, therefore, does not integrate the exception into a
practical application for that additional reason. See Flook, 437 U.S. at 590
(insignificant post-solution activity held insufficient to impart patentability);
Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354–55 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting
and analyzing information, without more . . . is abstract as an ancillary part
of such collection and analysis”); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371
(discussing Flook); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc.
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

22

v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (claimed steps of
displaying an advertisement in exchange for access to copyrighted media
was an “idea,” but this concept could also be considered organizing human
activity because the claim describes advertising). Accord Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)). Therefore, we
conclude the method of claim 1 fails to satisfy the transformation prong of
the Bilski machine-or-transformation test. See id.
Nor do Appellants argue that the method claims on appeal are tied to a
particular machine. See MPEP § 2106.05(b) “Particular Machine.”
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Third, we conclude Appellants’ argument the claimed invention
prevents broad preemption of data mining and data visualization unavailing.
App. Br. 22. Our reviewing court provides applicable guidance: “While
preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of
complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.” Ariosa
Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015);
Ultramercial, 722 F.3d at 1346.
Additionally, dependent claims 2, 3, 5–7, 9, 10, 12–14 16, 17, 19, and
20 are not argued separately with sufficient particularity. See App. Br. 10;
see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). For the above-stated reasons, we
conclude the additional elements recited in the claimed invention, beyond
the judicial exceptions, whether considered alone or in combination, do not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.

Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

23

Revised Guidance, Step 2B
Under the Revised Guidance, if a claim: (1) recites a judicial
exception, and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical
application, we then look to whether the claim adds a specific limitation
beyond the judicial exception that is not “well-understood, routine,
conventional” in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or, simply appends
well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
On the record before us, we disagree with Appellants that the claims
add a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, [and] conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)). We find no reversible error in the Examiner’s determination
that additional elements, such as (1) a processor; (2) a memory; (3)
non-transitory computer readable medium; (4) a server; and (5) client
machines recited in independent claim 1, are nothing more than generic
elements using conventional concepts. See Final Act. 8–10. In fact, the
Specification supports the Examiner’s finding that additionally recited
elements are, at best, generic computer elements performing generic
computer functions, by providing non-limiting and exemplary descriptions
of generic computer components that are used to carry out recording a call
and transcribing a recorded call. Spec. ¶ 70 (“or other programmable-logic
devices now known or later developed”); ¶ 27 (“any type of computer
system”); ¶ 30 (“any type of system for storing data”); ¶ 68 (“computer-
readable storage medium . . . may be any device or medium that can store
code . . . now known or later developed”); ¶¶ 29–31 (“nodes on a network
Appeal 2018-001696
Application 13/797,663

24

. . . other electronic computing devices with network connectivity . . . server
114 includes any computational node”); and ¶ 29 (“other electronic
computing devices with network connectivity”).
Appellants do not argue dependent claims 2, 3–7, 9, 12–14, 16, 17,
and 20 separately with particularity, but assert the rejection of those claims
should be withdrawn for at least the same reasons as argued for independent
claim 1. App. Br. 35. In light of the foregoing, we conclude that each of
claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16, 18–20, 22, 23, 25, and 27, considered as a
whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated
into a practical application, and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16,
18–20, 22, 23, 25, and 27.7

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5, 7, 8, 10–14, 16,
18–20, 22, 23, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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

7 To the extent Appellants have not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims, or other issues, such arguments are waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).