Kevin Wang

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 26, 2021

2021000125 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/717,594 09/27/2017 Kevin Sunlin Wang 10235-3-CIP 7732
22442 7590 02/26/2021
Sheridan Ross PC
1560 Broadway
Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
EXAMINER
FADOK, MARK A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3625
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
e-docket@sheridanross.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte KEVIN SUNLIN WANG
____________

Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, BRADLEY B. BAYAT, and
TARA L. HUTCHINGS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Kevin S. Wang (Appellant)1 appeals pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the decision rejecting claims 1–4, 7–13, 15, and 40–57, which
constitute all pending claims before us for review,2 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Bynfor,
Inc.” Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 5, 6, 14, and 16–39 are canceled. Appeal Br., Claims App.
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Invention
Appellant’s “disclosure relates generally to online auctions, and more
particularly, to a system and method for sealed bid reverse online auctions
for tangible or intangible goods and/or services that include anything of
value (e.g., goods, services, space, financial resources, etc.).” Spec. ¶ 2.
The Abstract section of the disclosure describes the invention as a
system and method for sealed bid reverse online auctions through
remote computer devices according to a set of predetermined rules,
where the reverse auction includes sealed bids, and assigned
random identification numbers for auction bidders. The system
allows bidders to opt into one of two different bidding categories.
Category one requires payment of the winning bid amount.
Category two requires a commitment to purchase a price-protection
policy, allowing recalculation of the final winning bid amount
based on a price-protection formula calculated by subtracting the
price-protection fee from a sum of the lowest or winning bid
amount and an amount equal to a predetermined percentage of a
difference between a next lowest bid amount and the lowest
winning bid amount. The system also allows for the allocation of at
least a portion of the price-protection fee.

Claimed Subject Matter
System claim 1 and method claim 43 recite substantially similar
subject matter. Claim 43, reproduced below with added emphases, is
representative of the subject matter on appeal.
43. A computer-implemented method for an online sealed bid
reverse auction, comprising:
transferring for display, on one or more remote computing
devices associated with one or more remote bidders in
communication with the auction server via a network, at least a
portion of data related to an auction subject for the online sealed
bid reverse auction;
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

3
receiving, by the auction server, one or more sets of bid
data from the one or more remote computing devices, wherein
each of the one or more sets of bid data comprises a bid amount;
receiving, by the auction server, one or more sets of
commitment data, wherein each set of commitment data
comprises a commitment to pay a committed amount for
adjusting a winning bid amount upon winning the reverse
auction;
storing, by the auction server, the one or more sets of bid
data and the one or more sets of commitment data;
transferring for display, by the auction server, on the one
or more remote computing devices, a first representation of the
online sealed bid reverse auction comprising one or more
different identifiers corresponding to the one or more sets of bid
data, respectively; and
responsive to a closing of the online sealed bid reverse
auction:
determining the winning bid amount for a winning bidder
based on a first predetermined ranking;
identifying, based on a second predetermined ranking, a
second bid amount higher than the winning bid amount;
responsive to the winning bid amount being associated
with at least one of the one or more sets of commitment data
comprising a respective committed amount :
automatically re-calculating, by the auction server,
the winning bid amount to be paid to the winning bidder
for providing the auction subject based on at least a portion
of data related to the winning bid amount, the second bid
amount, and the respective committed amount;
transferring for display, on the one or more remote
computing devices, a second representation of the online
sealed bid reverse auction comprising data related to the
winning bid amount; and
transferring for display, on the one or more remote
computing devices, related to allocation of at least a
portion of the respective committed amount to the one or
more bidders.
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

4
OPINION
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court, however, has long interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014).
The Supreme Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-step framework
previously set forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus
Laboratories, Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim
laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim
patent-eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217.
The first step in that analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are
directed to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. If the claims are not
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea, the inquiry
ends. Otherwise, the inquiry proceeds to the second step where the elements
of the claims are considered “individually and ‘as an ordered combination’”
to determine whether there are additional elements that “‘transform the
nature of the claim’ into a patent-eligible application.” Id. (quoting Mayo,
566 U.S. at 78, 79). This is “a search for an ‘inventive concept’ — i.e., an
element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to ensure that the
patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the
[ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (citation
omitted).
In rejecting claims 1–4, 7–13, 15, and 40–57 as directed to an abstract
idea without significantly more, the Examiner evaluated the claims under the
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

5
Alice framework and the 2019 Revised Guidance.3 Final Act. 3–31.
Appellant argues all claims as a group. Appeal Br. 6–20. We select claim
43 as representative of the group, with claims 1–4, 7–13, 15, 40–42, and 44–
57 standing or falling therewith. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)(2019).
Statutory Categories under § 101
To determine subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the
Examiner first determines if claim 43 falls into one of the four statutory
categories of invention: processes, machines, manufactures, or composition
of matter. See MPEP § 2106.03. The Examiner determines, and we agree,
that claim 43 is directed to a process, which is a proper statutory category of
invention under § 101. See Final Act. 10.
We now turn to the two step Alice framework.
Step One of the Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2A)
Step 2A, Prong One
The first step in the Alice framework is to determine whether the
claim at issue is “directed to” a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract
idea. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217. This first step, as set forth in the 2019
Revised Guidance (i.e., Step 2A), consists of a two-prong test. Prong One of

3 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) published revised
guidance for use by USPTO personnel in evaluating subject matter
eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 REVISED PATENT SUBJECT MATTER
ELIGIBILITY GUIDANCE, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 57 (Jan. 7, 2019) (the “2019
Revised Guidance”). That guidance revised the USPTO’s examination
procedure with respect to the first step of the Alice framework by
(1) “[p]roviding groupings of subject matter that [are] considered an abstract
idea”; and (2) “clarifying that a claim is not ‘directed to’ a judicial exception
if the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that
exception.” Id. at 50.

Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

6
Step 2A involves whether the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g., one of
the following three groupings of abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts;
(2) certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental
economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions); and (3)
mental processes. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
Claim 43 is drawn to a method for a sealed bid reverse auction. As
discussed above, the claimed method allows bidders to opt into one of two
different bidding categories: Category 1 requires payment of the winning bid
amount and Category 2 requires a commitment to purchase a price-protection
policy. To that end, claim 43 recites the steps of (1) receiving bid data
comprising a bid amount and (2) receiving commitment data comprising a
commitment to pay a committed amount for adjusting a winning bid amount
upon winning the reverse auction. A bid amount is received from a
Category (1) bidder without “any commitment to pay a protection fee.”
Spec. ¶ 50. A Category (2) bidder “commit[s] to paying a fee to purchase the
price-protection policy should his/her bid be deemed the winning bid.” Id.
Claim 43 further recites: “responsive to a closing of the online sealed
bid reverse auction: determining the winning bid amount for a winning
bidder based on a first predetermined ranking; identifying, based on a
second predetermined ranking, a second bid amount higher than the winning
bid amount”; and responsive to the winning bid amount being associated
with commitment data comprising a respective committed amount: re-
calculating the winning bid amount to be paid to the winning bidder based
on at least a portion of data related to the winning bid amount, the second
bid amount, and the respective committed amount.
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

7
The Specification indicates that “[t]he winning bid selected will
preferably be the lowest bid received, but can be preset by the buyer in
advance of the auction in the form of a ranking (e.g., the winning bid may be
set as the second lowest bid, or the third lowest bid, and so on).” Spec.
¶ 105. For example, if the winning bidder is determined to be a Category 1
bidder, “then the winning bidder will be obligated to and agrees to provide
the auction subject to the buyer for the bid amount submitted.” Id. ¶ 58. If a
“Category 2 bidder were to submit a winning bid, then he/she would have a
chance of increasing the final winning bid amount to which he/she is entitled”
by, for example, “provid[ing] the auction subject to the buyer for a recalculated
winning bid amount which is potentially higher than the winning bid amount.”
Id. ¶ 50. According to disclosure, a “price-protection formula is used after the
close of the reverse auction to compute the final Recalculated Price the buyer
has to pay for the good/service auctioned when a Category 2 bidder wins” (id.
¶ 83).
Appellant’s scheme for conducting a sealed bid reverse auction
“utilizes alternate classifications for bidders such that at least one category
of bidder commits to pay a fee to participate in the auction, where the fee
may be allocated in various ways.” Spec. ¶ 9. To illustrate how a Category
2 buyer’s price-protection plan works according to the invention, the
following examples are provided below in which a buyer submits a reverse
auction request for a good/service. Id. ¶ 84.
Example 1 shows a reverse auction conducted with three
(3) bidders submitting respective bids of $10, $100 and $101,
where the buyer chose, prior to submission of any bids or at the
beginning of the auction, to have the Lowest Bid be the Winning
Bid. The buyer also chose the Predetermined Percentage (PPCT)
for the auction to be 20%, and chose the Price-Protection Fee
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

8
Percentage (PPP) to be 10%. At the close of the auction (e.g., the
expiration of a time period predetermined by the buyer for the
auction), if the winning bid/bidder is a Category 2 bid/bidder,
then the Recalculated Price, RP, as determined using Equation 1,
with a Winning Bid of $10, Next Lowest Bid of $100,
Predetermined Percentage of 20%, and Price-Protection Fee
Percentage of 10%, is calculated as follows:
RP=$10+[20%*($100-$10)]-[10%*($10)]=$10+$18-$1=$27.
The Recalculated Price here is $27, so even though the winning
bid was only $10, the buyer must pay the winning bidder $27 for
the goods and/or services instead of the $10 actually bid. Had the
winning bidder not selected to be a Category 2 bidder, then he
would have only received the $10 actual bid amount for the
auctions good/service.

Example 3 shows a reverse auction conducted with three
(3) bidders submitting respective bids of $30, $50, and $75,
where the buyer chose, prior to submission of any bids, to have
the Lowest Bid be the Winning Bid. The buyer in this example
chose the Predetermined Percentage and the Price-Protection Fee
Percentage to be 10%. Therefore, upon closing of the auction, if
the winning bid/bidder is a Category 2 bid/bidder, then the
Recalculated Price, RP, as determined using Equation 1, with a
Winning Bid of $30, Next Lowest Bid of $50, Predetermined
Percentage of 10%, and Price-Protection Fee Percentage of 10%,
is calculated as follows: RP=$30+[10%*($50-$30)]-
[10%*($30)]=$30+$2-$3=$29. The Recalculated Price here is
$29, which is less than the $30 actual bid. In this instance, the
Winning Bidder would actually receive $1 less than the actual
bid submitted. Therefore, it will be appreciated that there is a
level of risk in choosing to be a Category 2 bidder.

Id. ¶¶ 84, 86.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation and consistent with
Appellant’s disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that the steps of claim
43 (not italicized) as a whole describe the concept of mitigating risk related
to reverse sealed bid auctions and the optimization of bidder benefits (Ans.
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

9
3), which is a fundamental economic practice akin to Alice’s “mitigat[ion] of
settlement risk” and “risk hedging in Bilski.” Final Act. 13 (“Concepts
related to managing relationships or transactions between people, or
satisfying or avoiding a legal obligation is considered to also be a “Certain
Methods of Organizing Human Behavior”). The Examiner explains that
the abstract idea recited here is also not meaningfully different from the idea
found to be abstract in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350 (Fed.
Cir. 2014). Id. at 13–14.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, Appellant argues that the rejection fail to
identify “any courts’ decision in which the concept” characterized by the
Examiner “was found to be an abstract idea.” Appeal Br. 7. This argument
is without merit because the Examiner is not required to identify the exact
abstract idea in a prior court decision. Since the Alice case, courts have been
“compar[ing] claims at issue to those claims already found to be directed to
an abstract idea in previous cases.” See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822
F.3d 1327, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet
Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1294 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he decisional
mechanism courts now apply [to identify an abstract idea] is to examine
earlier cases in which a similar or parallel descriptive nature can be seen—
what prior cases were about, and which way they were decided.”) (emphasis
added).
As discussed, the Examiner compares Appellant’s claim with at least
three prior court decisions, which Appellant appears to merely distinguish
literally than their parallel descriptive abstract concepts. See Reply Br. 3. It
is well-established that “fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in
our system of commerce” are abstract ideas. Alice Corp., 573 at 219. In
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

10
Alice and Bilski, the Supreme Court found hedging financial risk and
intermediated settlement qualified as fundamental economic practices. Id.
In buySAFE, the Federal Circuit built on these precedents and found
transaction performance guarantees are abstract ideas. buySAFE, 765 F.3d
at 1355.
Here, Appellant “collects a ‘price-protection fee’. . . from a winning
bidder who opted to participate in a presented ‘price-protection policy,’
which functions as consideration for being allowed to participate in an
auction, and which gives each seller the option to protect himself/herself
from, for example, significantly undervaluing his/her goods/services.”
Spec. ¶ 42 (emphasis added). Similar to buySafe, this commitment or
consideration creates a contractual relationship that in turn can “mitigate
risk” and help balance and “optimize the buyer or bidder interests.” Id.
And, re-calculating the winning bid amount to be paid based on that
respective commitment is a simple mathematical calculation that, as
demonstrated by the examples above, can practically be performed in the
human mind, which is a mental process and an abstract idea. 2019 Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52 (“Mental processes—concepts performed in
the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment,
opinion).”).
Appellant acknowledges “that the present invention is directed to the
mitigation of risks related to online reverse sealed bid auctions and the
optimization of buyer-bidder benefits,” yet contends that this “is
significantly more than simply limiting risk in an auction.” Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant argues that the Examiner “has not properly considered the novel
features of the claimed invention, which provide a technical solution to a
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

11
technical problem.” Id. According to Appellant, those three novel features
include: (1) “receive a commitment to pay a committed amount for adjusting
the winning bid amount upon winning the reverse auction”; (2) recalculate
the winning bid amount for the winning bidder based on at least a portion of
data related to the winning bid amount, the second bid amount, and the
respective committed amount; and” (3) “allocate at least a portion of the
respective committed amount to the one or more bidders.” Id.
We are unpersuaded at least because this argument is more
appropriately considered at the second step of the Alice test and under Prong
Two of Step 2A, in evaluating whether the abstract idea is integrated into a
practical application. To the extent Appellant is arguing that its invention
must claim an auction with no variation to be related to the abstract idea of
an auction, we disagree. The inquiry at this first prong is whether the claim
at issue recites an abstract idea. We must consider if the claim before us is
drawn to the concept of an auction, as the Court in Alice determined that
those claims were drawn to the concept of intermediated settlement. A
variation on the abstract idea does not necessarily render the claim non-
abstract. buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355 (The “narrowing of [a] long-familiar
commercial transaction[] does not make the idea non-abstract for section
101 purposes.”).
Putting aside the implementation of the steps by a computer, not only
are auctions extensively discussed in the Specification, claim 43 also
substantively describes steps for carrying out an auction and, as discussed,
creating a contractual relationship by: receiving bids; receiving a
commitment amount upon winning the sealed bid reverse auction; upon
closing of the auction: determining the winning bid amount and identifying a
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

12
second bid amount higher than the winning bid amount; and responsive to
the winning bid amount being associated with a committed amount: re-
calculating the winning bid amount to be paid. The abstract nature of the
claimed invention is underscored by the above-mentioned examples from the
Specification which describe how a price-protection plan works when a
buyer submits a reverse auction request for a good/service. Receiving a
price-protection fee as consideration and re-calculating the winning bid
based in part on the fee, which Appellant alleges are novel features, do not
make the mitigation of risks related to reverse sealed bid auctions any less
abstract. And, the allocation feature recited as part of the display step,
which Appellant indicates as the third novel feature, is identified by the
Examiner as an additional element considered under Prong Two.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
determining that claim 43 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Having concluded that claim 43 recites a judicial exception, i.e. an
abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One), the Examiner next considers whether the
claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two). 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 51. When a claim recites a judicial exception and fails to
integrate the exception into a practical application, the claim is “directed to”
the judicial exception. Id. A claim may integrate the judicial exception
when, for example, it reflects an improvement to technology or a technical
field. Id. at 55.
The Federal Circuit has explained that “the ‘directed to’ inquiry
applies a stage-one filter to claims, considered in light of the specification,
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

13
based on whether ‘their character as a whole is directed to excluded subject
matter.’” Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir.
2016) (quoting Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d
1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). In the context of computer-implemented
inventions, the court has clarified that a relevant inquiry is “to ask whether
the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus
being directed to an abstract idea.” Id. The court contrasted claims
“directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer” with claims
“simply adding conventional computer components to well-known business
practices,” or claims reciting “use of an abstract mathematical formula on
any general purpose computer,” or “a purely conventional computer
implementation of a mathematical formula,” or “generalized steps to be
performed on a computer using conventional computer activity.” Id. at
1338.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the Examiner determines that the
additional elements recited in claim 43 (italics) include: “transferring for
display” steps, “storing” step, “remote computing devices,” “auction server,”
communications network, and “automatically” recalculating. Final Act. 12,
17. According to the Examiner, these additional elements do not reflect “an
improvement to the functionality of a computer or other technology or
technical field” and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. Id. at 19.
As discussed above, Appellant similarly argues that “[t]he rejection
does not provide reasoning or explanation as to why the Three Novel
Features of the present invention are not considered ‘meaningful
limitations.’” Appeal Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 6. According to Appellant:
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

14
“Since the Three Novel Features recalculate the winning bid amount to a
different amount, it is obvious that the Three Novel Features put additional
or meaningful limitations on a traditional or conventional auction because
the winning bid amount is changed to more or less than the original bid
amount.” Id. at 13–14.
This argument is unpersuasive, in part, because the first two features
Appellant relies upon are part of the abstract idea but the evaluation under
Prong Two of Step 2A is whether the additional elements integrate the
judicial exception into a practical application. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 51. The third allocation feature Appellant relies upon is recited
in claim 43 as “transferring for display, on the one or more remote
computing devices, related to allocation of at least a portion of the respective
committed amount to the one or more bidders.” The transferring of data
(e.g., allocation data) for display is described in the Specification as
performed by any generic “computing device known in the art.” Spec. ¶ 48
(“User device 400 may be any computing device known in the art, such as,
for example, a personal desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, a smart TV, a
gaming system, in-vehicle computer or navigation system, or any other
computing device.”). As such, the “transferring for display” steps merely
invoke generic computing devices as tools to present information to a user,
rather than reflecting an improvement in computer functionality. See
Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (Instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display
in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to
achieve the desired result, is insufficient to show an improvement in
computer functionality.).
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

15
We recognize that “[s]oftware can make non-abstract improvements
to computer technology just as hardware improvements can, and sometimes
the improvements can be accomplished through either route.” Enfish, 822
F.3d at 1335. However, “to be directed to a patent-eligible improvement to
computer functionality, the claims must be directed to an improvement to
the functionality of the computer or network platform itself.” Customedia
Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(citing Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1336–39). Claim 43 recites generic computing
components (i.e., computing devices and a server) arranged in no particular
way to perform standard functions of transferring data for display, receiving,
storing, determining, identifying, and calculating without improving
computers or networks. The Specification’s description of these
components makes clear that they are generic components that do not
improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, and which are
used merely as tools in their ordinary capacity to implement the abstract
idea. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 45–49, 114–120, Figs. 1A, 1B, 4. When considered
as a whole, claim 43 fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical
application because the additional elements fail to apply or use the judicial
exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, claim 43 is directed to a judicial exception.
Step Two of the Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
The Examiner next considers whether claim 43 recites additional
elements, individually, or as an ordered combination, that provide an
inventive concept. Alice, 573 U.S. at 217–18. The second step of the Alice
test is satisfied when the claim limitations involve more than performance of
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

16
well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to
the industry. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
The Examiner finds that claim 43 lacks additional elements that are
sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Final
Act. 28–31. The Examiner finds the Specification shows the use of
conventional computer components in a known technological environment
(i.e., Internet) that perform well-understood, routine, or conventional
functions, which amount to no more than generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to the particular technological environment. Id. at 30.
Appellant argues that the “Three Novel Features” discussed above are
“by no means ‘generic computer functions’ because no computer has
performed them previously.” Appeal Br. 16. We disagree.
The “commitment” and “allocation” features of “receiving, by the
auction server, one or more sets of commitment data” and “transferring for
display, on the one or more remote computing devices” are each described in
the Specification as being performed by generic and conventional computing
components. See Spec. ¶¶ 45–49, 114–120, Figs. 1A, 1B, 4. And, it is well-
established by now, “[t]hat a computer receives and sends the information
over a network—with no further specification—is not even arguably
inventive.” buySAFE, 765 F.3d at 1355; In re Katz Interactive Call
Processing Patent Litig., 639 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (Absent a
possible narrower construction of the terms processing, receiving, and
storing functions can be achieved by any general purpose computer without
special programming).
The “re-calculation” feature of processing data and carrying out
mathematical calculations, as demonstrated in the examples from the
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

17
Specification above, represent the most basic function of any computer. The
Federal Circuit has recognized that “an invocation of already-available
computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for
use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a
recitation of what is ‘well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.”’ SAP
Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration
in original) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 73). Simply appending well-
understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the
industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception fails
to qualify as “significantly more.” Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225.
As an ordered combination, the additional elements provide no more
than when they are considered individually. Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They
recite generic computer components that perform well-understood and
conventional functions. They are used as tools to implement the judicial
exception. See SAP Am., 898 F.3d at 1169–70 (limitations of various
databases and processors did not improve computers but used already
available computers and available functions as tools to execute the claimed
process); Inventor Holdings LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc., 876 F.3d
1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (considering the method steps of the
representative claims as an “ordered combination” reveals that they “amount
to ‘nothing significantly more’ than an instruction to apply [an] abstract
idea” using generic computer technology). Thus, we agree with the
Examiner that claim 43 lacks an inventive concept sufficient to transform the
abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments, but we find
them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent
Appeal 2021-000125
Application 15/717,594

18
claim 43 as directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and
claims 1–4, 7–13, 15, 40–42, and 44–57, which fall with claim 43.
CONCLUSION
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is affirmed.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/
Basis 
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–13,
15, 40–57
101 Eligibility   1–4, 7–13,
15, 40–57

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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