Khusial, Darshanand et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 20, 2020

2019003181 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 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.
10/908,121 04/28/2005 Darshanand Khusial CA920040132US1 5121
11445 7590 10/20/2020
IBM Corporation - Endicott Drafting Center
1701 North Street
Building 256-3
Endicott, NY 13760
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, TAN D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3689
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/20/2020 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):
edciplaw@us.ibm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DARSHANAND KHUSIAL, VICTOR CHAN, and
MARK WILLIAM HUBBARD
____________

Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before MICHAEL W. KIM, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judge,
MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, and
ANTON W. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judges.

FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Darshanand Khusial, Victor Chan, and Mark William Hubbard
(Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of
claims 1–14, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
The Appellant invented a component based commerce system. Spec.,
para. 1.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added).
1. A method for adapting commerce system components in a
service oriented architecture (SOA) through business contexts,
the method comprising:
[1] providing an SOA comprising a context engine and a
component service,
the context engine comprising context related services
coupled to one or more business contexts
and
the component service comprising a component facade
comprising a component stateless session bean
programmed to invoke business logic within one or more

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal
Br.,” filed September 28, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed March
18, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed January 18, 2019),
and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed April 27, 2018).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
International Business Machines Corporation (Appeal Br. 2).

Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

3

commerce system components disposed with[in] a
component logic container [in] a commerce system,
each of the components comprising a controller command
having one or more task commands,
the controller command further being logically linked to
access logic configured to access persisted data in a
database;
[2] determining by a solution builder computer program
executing in memory by a processor of a computer
a set of required business processes for a proposed solution
specified through an interface to the solution builder
computer program;
[3]
identifying by the solution builder computer program
existing commerce system components
each programmed with executable program code for
interoperation with one another in the SOA
able to support said set of required business
processes
and
creating new commerce system components for the SOA
such that said existing ones of the commerce system
components and said created components in combination
support said set of required business processes for said
proposed solution;
[4] selecting by the solution builder a set of the business contexts
to adapt said existing ones of the commerce system
components and said created components
to support said set of required business processes for
said proposed solution;
and,
[5] creating by the solution builder through the facade an activity
for said proposed solution utilizing said selected set of contexts.
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

4

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Bennett US 6,597,366 B1 July 22, 2003
Fleming US 2002/0059264 A1 May 16, 2002
Audimoolam US 2005/0209732 A1 Sept. 22, 2005
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention.
Claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Audimoolam and Bennett.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Audimoolam, Bennett, and Fleming.
ISSUES
The issues of eligible subject matter turn primarily on whether the
claims recite more than abstract conceptual advice of results desired.
The issues of indefiniteness matter turn primarily on whether
Appellant clarified the claim terms as requested.
The issues of obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes
the claim limitations.

Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

5

FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES
The following enumerated Findings of Fact (FF) are believed to be
supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Facts Related to Claim Construction
01. The disclosure contains no lexicographic definition of “bean,”
“facade,” “solution,” or “activity.”
02. An SOA (Service Oriented Architecture) essentially can be
defined as a collection of services. These services
communicate with each other, which communication can
involve either simple data passing between two or more
services, activity coordinating by two or more services. Spec.,
para. 3.
03. In its JavaBeans application program interface for writing a
component, Sun Microsystems calls a component a “Bean” (thus
continuing their coffee analogy). A Bean is simply the Sun
Microsystems variation on the idea of a component. In object-
oriented programming and distributed object technology, a
component is a reusable program building block that can be
combined with other components in the same or other computers
in a distributed network to form an application.3
04. A component facade is used to group a set of related business
objects and provide support for the services associated with those
objects. The methods on the component facades represent

3 Bean Definition.
https://searchapparchitecture.techtarget.com/definition/Bean?vgnextfmt=pri
nt. Last visited Oct. 9, 2020 (attached as Exhibit A).
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

6

operations, also known as verbs, on WebSphere Commerce
nouns.4
05. To build solutions is marketing vernacular for creating software
that does something desired, which is referred to as a solution.5
Facts Related to Appellant’s Disclosure
06. Session management can be used to persist an activity across
multiple requests such that the context of the activity
associated with the requestor need not be re-established on
every request. Spec., para. 8.
07. The present invention is a business context model adapted for
use in a commerce system. Spec., para. 25.
08. The action servlet can be configured to invoke actions logically
linked both to a commerce application view and also to a
component facade programmed to invoke business logic within
one or more components disposed with the component logic
container. Spec., para. 27.
09. The component facade can be a component stateless session
bean (SSB) logically coupled to one or more components which
when combined form a commerce system solution. Spec.,
para. 28.

4 Component Façade Definition. IBM, https://www.ibm.com/support/
knowledgecenter/en/SSZLC2_7.0.0/com.ibm.commerce.component-
services.doc/concepts/cwvfacade.htm. Last visited Oct. 1, 2020.
5 See Free On-Line Computer Dictionary definition of Solution.
http://foldoc.org/solution. Last visited Oct. 9, 2020 (attached as Exhibit C).
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

7

10. The component service provides a facade to the commands and
facilities to instantiate and execute a command in the commerce
system. Spec., para. 30.
11. The Business Context Service Implementation class can be
accessed in many ways, including through a stateless session bean
and through a Web services wrapper. The Business Context
Service Implementation implementing the Business Context
Service Interface can be accessed indirectly through a Web
services wrapper via an access bean. Alternatively, the Business
Context Service Implementation can be accessed indirectly
through a service wrapper bean by way of a stateless session bean
for the wrapper. Spec., para. 45.
12. A call center solution can include an activity for the telephone
sales representative and an activity for each calling customer.
Spec., para. 48.
Facts Related to the Prior Art
Audimoolam
13. Audimoolam is directed to order-to-supply collaborative
management. Audimoolam, para. 17.
14. Audimoolam describes the organizational structure of an
enterprise value chain as mock-constructed as a framework model
where solutions are logically distributed through the organization
in accordance with the model. Product management, demand
management and inventory management are performed on an
exception basis and these processes are implemented
incrementally and organizationally such that enterprise activities
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

8

may be tracked and monitored, by exception, at multiple levels of
granularity. In a general aspect, the invention enables
collaborative ordering, forecasting, inventory and replenishment
management by implementing such systems through an enterprise
organizational model. Audimoolam, para. 18.
Bennett
15. Bennett is directed to distributed object systems, and more
particularly to a method for isolating shared objects for transparent
manipulation of the shared objects for a plurality of applications.
Bennett 1:7–10.
16. Bennett describes those Enterprise JavaBeans which have a
persistent state as being referred to as entity beans. The persistent
state of an entity bean is maintained in a relational or object
database. Bennett 1:27–28.
17. Bennett describes the persistent state implementation as utilizing
the transaction capabilities of the relational or object database to
maintain the persistent state of the beans. Bennett 1:35–37.
ANALYSIS
The application has been up for appeal before. The Examiner’s
rejections regarding eligibility, novelty, and obviousness were all affirmed in
the prior appeal. The claims have been significantly amended since the prior
appeal.

Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

9

Claim Construction
In this appeal, the claim uses metaphoric phrasing and several terms
of art. We therefore construe exemplary claim 1, and begin this by
analyzing the nature of the invention and what is covered by the claims.
We start with how the Specification describes the invention. The
Specification says the “invention relates to the field of commerce
computing and more particularly to component based commerce
systems.” Spec., para. 1. The Specification then says “information
technologists increasingly focus on architecting and implementing
complete commerce site solutions to reflect the entire life cycle of a
business in lieu of integrating multiple, disparate applications which
when combined reflect the business life cycle.” Spec., para. 2. The
context for the invention is therefore that of designing commerce site
solutions. The Specification then segues into discussing components and
services.
Commerce oriented applications are produced from one or
more components which can be individually re-used to create
business processes for different solutions. Each of these
components can expose itself as a set of services comporting
with computing standards for deploying enterprise level logic
that facilitate an open service oriented architecture (SOA).
An SOA essentially can be defined as a collection of services.
These services communicate with each other, which
communication can involve either simple data passing
between two or more services, activity coordinating by two or
more services. Consequently, as modern commerce sites can
be both large and distributed, commerce systems have been
configured to deploy complete e-commerce systems in as
seamless a fashion as possible.
Spec., para. 3. This and the succeeding discussions in the Specification
of components and services are generic. No implementation details for
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

10

components and services are described in the Specification. Although
the above discussion begins by describing how applications may be
produced from components, the Specification describes no
implementation details for doing so, and none of the claims recite such
applications or production of applications.
This discussion also defines the service oriented architecture (SOA)
recited in the claims as a collection of services. As stated above, the
services are described generically with no implementation details.
The Specification later describes the invention as
a business context model adapted for use in a commerce
system. In the present invention, the business context model
can include a method, system and apparatus for managing
business contexts for adaptable SOA components in the
commerce system. Specifically, a business context engine
can provide and manage the contexts that dictate the
behavioral characteristics of business components over the
lifetime of an activity in a commerce session. By selecting a
proper set of business contexts for a particular commerce
solution, the contexts can alter the output of the business
process of the solution based upon solution requirements
without requiring modifications to the SOA component code
forming the commerce solution.
Spec., para. 25. Thus, the invention is a model. It is used in a commerce
system. It is therefore a commerce model. It models business context
for the purpose of managing context descriptions. These descriptions
may be used in components to somehow dictate component behavioral
characteristics. Altering the context of a component can alter outputs of
processes a component is used in.
This is a variation on the aphorism that influence arises from both
nature (program equivalent) and nurture (context equivalent). This is a
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

11

manifestation of the program flow dichotomy that both data (context)
and code (program instructions) affect program behavior. Most
computer users have experienced this at its most basic level when they
enter a preferred language, such as English, as a parameter (context) at
start-up, which subsequently affects program behavior in textual output
language. In such an example, modelling business context for the
purpose of managing context description would mean modelling
different nationalities of customers as inputs to manage different
language descriptions.
Putting it all together, the Specification describes a commerce model
that models business context for the purpose of managing context
descriptions. The Specification describes the purpose as that of
subsequently using context data in components to somehow dictate
component behavioral characteristics, to in turn alter outputs of processes.
Spec. para. 9–11. This comes down to using a model to select data that
might be useful later in software processes. This in itself is a conceptual
idea, and no technological implementation details are disclosed.
We next take up claim interpretation to complete the construction.
The claims recite many terms of art and other terms that are not used as in
the common vernacular. Claim 1 is reasonably representative.
The preamble recites it is a method “for adapting commerce system
components in a service oriented architecture (SOA) through business
contexts.” On its face, the preamble says the claim adapts something
through business contexts. The something, viz. commerce system
components in a service oriented architecture (SOA), is further characterized
in the claim body. But to adapt something in some context is itself very
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

12

broad and can mean almost anything, as the word “adapt” has little intrinsic
meaning, instead depending heavily on context. Adaptation may refer to
doing something to or with what is adapted or doing something with activity
or context surrounding what is adapted. That something may be almost
anything, again depending on context.
The first limitation recites
providing an SOA comprising a context engine and a component
service, the context engine comprising context related services
coupled to one or more business contexts and the component
service comprising a component facade comprising a component
stateless session bean programmed to invoke business logic
within one or more commerce system components disposed
with[in] a component logic container [in] a commerce system,
each of the components comprising a controller command
having one or more task commands, the controller command
further being logically linked to access logic configured to access
persisted data in a database.
Claim 1, limitation 1.
An SOA is a collection of services. An engine in the context of
computer technology is a process performing the particular function of the
engine’s adjectival modifier. So claim 1 provides a collection of services
with a process and a service.
The service has a façade with stateless session beans. A façade in the
context of computer processes is something used to group a set of related
business objects and provide support for the services associated with those
objects. Grouping and providing support in this instance is done by
modularizing the objects and services. It is not itself an activity or structure
per se, but a generic organizational programming technique to encapsulate.
Some particular implementation may exhibit structure, but a generic façade
devoid of implementation detail is a programming technique for
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

13

modularizing objects and services. Program technique is not a machine
process, but is instead a conceptual way of writing code for a programmer to
follow. As such, it is conceptual ideas.
A bean is a component. A component stateless session bean is then a
component stateless session component. The attribute of being a stateless
session simply means the process does not recall its prior state and starts
anew. As such this is a component, which is a programming construct,
which by itself does not have reference to a prior state.
A component logic container is a container for component logic, i.e., a
module that contains instructional logic. It too is a programming style
construct. Controller and task commands are commands, i.e. programming
instructions. Logic configured to access persisted data in a database is data
retrieval instructions. Data retrieval is pretty much generic irrespective of
the nature of the data retrieved. Data in a database by definition persists by
virtue of being stored without change in the database.
Thus, limitation 1 means providing software that has services related
to described context. The services are written in a block whose content is
written as a set of component modules within a block, each component
module having instructions that are related to other instructions for accessing
data in a database. The limitations regarding a façade, bean, and container
are programming constructs, not process implementations. How the
constructs result in a technological computer operation might be
technological acts, were the implementation details recited, but they are not.
The limitations regarding commands and logic are conventional generic
software instructions, also devoid of implementation details.
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

14

The second limitation recites “determining by a solution builder
computer program executing in memory by a processor of a computer a set
of required business processes for a proposed solution specified through an
interface to the solution builder computer program.” Claim 1, limitation 2.
A solution builder computer program executing in memory by a
processor of a computer is a generic program somehow designed to build
solutions. To build solutions is marketing vernacular for creating software
that does something desired, which is referred to as a solution.
A set of required business processes for a proposed solution is
software that the proposed solution uses. An interface is a generic term for a
way to generate data input and output.
Thus, limitation 2 means finding processes required for a proposed
generic process specified using a generic conventional interface.
The third limitation recites
identifying by the solution builder computer program existing
commerce system components each programmed with
executable program code for interoperation with one another in
the SOA able to support said set of required business processes
and
creating new commerce system components for the SOA such
that said existing ones of the commerce system components and
said created components in combination support said set of
required business processes for said proposed solution.
Claim 1, limitation 3.
These two parts are similar, differing only in that the first identifies
existing components and second creates new components. In both cases the
components have software (executable program code) for interoperation.
This is a matter of programming style. The claims do not recite actual
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

15

interoperation or implementation details. They support the solution software
in some generic unspecified manner.
Thus, limitation 3 means identifying software written to interoperate
and support generic processes and create new software such that both
support the processes. No implementation details for such creating and
supporting are recited, or even described in the Specification.
The fourth limitation recites “selecting by the solution builder a set of
the business contexts to adapt said existing ones of the commerce system
components and said created components to support said set of required
business processes for said proposed solution.” Claim 1, limitation 4.
Selecting contexts is selecting data representing contexts. Thus, limitation 4
means selecting data representing context within which the software can
support the processes for the software.
The fifth limitation recites “creating by the solution builder through
the facade an activity for said proposed solution utilizing said selected set of
contexts.” Claim 1, limitation 5. Creating an activity is creating data
representing an activity. The claim does not recite implementing such an
activity. Using contexts is using data representing contexts. Thus,
limitation 5 means creating a description of an activity for the solution
within the context represented by the data.
Putting it all together, claim 1 recites creating data representing some
generic activity by selecting data representing some context after identifying
and creating software useful for doing so based on data representing
requirements using a set of software services. Claim 1 uses data to identify
other data. It recites several programming style techniques for doing so, but
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

16

no implementation details or process operation specifics. Claim 1 is
ultimately a programming style, and not a computer operation, invention.
Claims 1–14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial
exception without significantly more
STEP 16
Claim 1, as a method claim, nominally recites one of the enumerated
categories of eligible subject matter in 35 U.S.C. § 101. The issue before us
is whether it is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
STEP 2
The Supreme Court
set forth a framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws
of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that
claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts. First, . . .
determine whether the claims at issue are directed to one of those
patent-ineligible concepts. If so, we then ask, “[w]hat else is
there in the claims before us? To answer that question, . . .
consider the elements of each claim both individually and “as an
ordered combination” to determine whether the additional
elements “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-
eligible application. [The Court] described step two of this
analysis as 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.”
Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 217–18 (2014) (citations
omitted) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66 (2012)). To perform this test, we must first determine what the

6 For continuity of analysis, we adopt the steps nomenclature from 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

17

claims are directed to. This begins by determining whether the claims recite
one of the judicial exceptions (a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an
abstract idea). Then, if the claims recite a judicial exception, determining
whether the claims at issue are directed to the recited judicial exception, or
whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception, i.e., that the claims “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.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at
54. If the claims are directed to a judicial exception, then finally
determining whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the
additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the
recited judicial exception.
STEP 2A Prong 1
At a high level, and for our preliminary analysis, we note that method
claim 1 recites providing software services, invoking business logic,
determining business processes, identifying and creating components,
selecting context data, and creating activity data. Providing software
services and business logic are conventional data processing. Determining,
identifying, and selecting data are rudimentary data analysis. Thus, claim 1
recites processing, analyzing, and creating data. None of the limitations
recites technological implementation details for any of these steps, but
instead recite only results desired by any and all possible means.
From this we see that claim 1 does not recite the judicial exceptions of
either natural phenomena or laws of nature.
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

18

Under Supreme Court precedent, claims directed purely to an abstract
idea are patent in-eligible. As set forth in the Revised Guidance, which
extracts and synthesizes key concepts identified by the courts, abstract ideas
include (1) mathematical concepts7, (2) certain methods of organizing
human activity8, and (3) mental processes9. Among those certain methods
of organizing human activity listed in the Revised Guidance are commercial
or legal interactions. Like those concepts, claim 1 recites the concept of
managing business process activities. Specifically, claim 1 recites
operations that would ordinarily take place in advising one to create activity
descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent
new or existing business processes. The advice to create activity
descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent
new or existing business processes involves creating business activities,
which is an economic act, and selecting business contexts, which is an act
ordinarily performed in the stream of commerce management. For example,
claim 1 recites “creating . . . an activity,” which is an activity that would take
place whenever one is managing business process activities. Similarly,

7 See, e.g., Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 71–72 (1972); Bilski v.
Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010); Mackay Radio & Telegraph Co. v. Radio
Corp. of Am., 306 U.S. 86, 94 (1939); SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC,
898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
8 See, e.g., Bilski, 561 U.S. at 628; Alice, 573 U.S. at 219-20; Ultramercial,
Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed Cir. 2014); Smart Sys.
Innovations, LLC v. Chicago Transit Auth., 873 F.3d 1364, 1383 (Fed. Cir.
2017); In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160–61 (Fed.
Cir. 2018).
9 See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67; CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions,
Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1371–72 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

19

claim 1 recites “selecting . . . business contexts,” which is also characteristic
of managing business policy and procedure.
The Examiner determines the claims to be directed to a method for
managing business context. Final Act. 8. The preamble to claim 1 recites
that it is a method for adapting commerce system components in a service
oriented architecture (SOA) through business contexts. The steps in claim 1
result in managing business process activities by creating activity
descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent
new or existing business processes absent any technological mechanism
other than a conventional computer for doing so.
As to the specific limitations, limitations 1–5 as construed above
recite generic and conventional processing, analyzing, and creating of
business process data, which advise one to apply generic functions to get to
these results. The limitations thus recite advice for creating activity
descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent
new or existing business processes. To advocate creating activity
descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent
new or existing business processes is conceptual advice for results desired
and not technological operations.
The Specification at paragraph 1 describes the invention as relating to
component based commerce systems. Thus, all this intrinsic evidence
shows that claim 1 recites managing business process activities. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s determination.
This in turn is an example of commercial or legal interactions as a
certain method of organizing human activity because managing business
process activities is part of managing commercial interactions. The concept
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

20

of managing business process activities by creating activity descriptions by
selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent new or existing
business processes is one idea for applying policy and procedure to
particular contexts. The steps recited in claim 1 are part of how this might
conceptually be premised.
Our reviewing court has found claims to be directed to abstract ideas
when they recited similar subject matter. Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL,
Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed, Cir. 2018) (generic and conventional
information acquisition and organization steps); Intellectual Ventures I LLC
v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(organizing, displaying, and manipulating data).
From this we conclude that at least to this degree, claim 1 recites
managing business process activities by creating activity descriptions by
selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent new or existing
business processes, which is a commercial and legal interaction, one of
certain methods of organizing human activity identified in the Revised
Guidance, and, thus, an abstract idea.
STEP 2A Prong 2
The next issue is whether claim 1 not only recites, but is more
precisely directed to this concept itself or whether it is instead directed to
some technological implementation or application of, or improvement to,
this concept i.e. integrated into a practical application.10
At the same time, we tread carefully in construing this
exclusionary principle lest it swallow all of patent law. At some
level, “all inventions ... embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply

10 See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223, discussing Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S.
175 (1981).
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

21

laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas.” Thus, an
invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it
involves an abstract concept. “[A]pplication[s]” of such
concepts “ ‘to a new and useful end,’ ” we have said, remain
eligible for patent protection. Accordingly, in applying the § 101
exception, we must distinguish between patents that claim the
“‘buildin[g] block[s]’” of human ingenuity and those that
integrate the building blocks into something more.
Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (citations omitted).
Taking the claim elements separately, the operation performed by the
computer at each step of the process is expressed purely in terms of results,
devoid of implementation details. Steps 1–5 as construed above recite
generic computer processing expressed in terms of results desired by any
and all possible means and so present no more than conceptual advice. All
purported inventive aspects reside in how the data is interpreted and the
results desired, and not in how the process physically enforces such a data
interpretation or in how the processing technologically achieves those
results.
Viewed as a whole, Appellant’s claim 1 simply recites the concept of
managing business process activities by creating activity descriptions by
selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent new or existing
business processes as performed by a generic computer. This is no more
than conceptual advice on the parameters for this concept and the generic
computer processes necessary to process those parameters, and do not recite
any particular implementation.
Claim 1 does not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of
the computer itself. Nor does it affect an improvement in any other
technology or technical field. The 17-plus pages of the Specification do not
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

22

bulge with disclosure, but only spell out different generic equipment11 and
parameters that might be applied using this concept and the particular steps
such conventional processing would entail based on the concept of
managing business process activities by creating activity descriptions by
selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent new or existing
business processes under different scenarios. They do not describe any
particular improvement in the manner a computer functions. Instead, claim
1 at issue amounts to nothing significantly more than an instruction to apply
managing business process activities by creating activity descriptions by
selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent new or existing
business processes using some unspecified, generic computer. Under our
precedents, that is not enough to transform an abstract idea into a patent-
eligible invention. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 225–26.
None of the limitations reflects an improvement in the functioning of
a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field,
applies or uses a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or
prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implements a judicial
exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular
machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effects a transformation
or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or applies or
uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally
linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological
environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort

11 The Specification describes a general purpose computer, special purpose
computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus. Spec., para.
22.
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

23

designed to monopolize the exception. “Although written in technical
jargon, a close analysis of the claims reveals that they require nothing more
than this abstract idea.” Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Communication Technology
Holdings Ltd, 955 F3d 1317, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
We conclude that claim 1 is directed to achieving the result of
managing business process activities by advising one to create activity
descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to apply to pertinent
new or existing business processes, as distinguished from a technological
improvement for achieving or applying that result. This amounts to
commercial or legal interactions, which fall within certain methods of
organizing human activity that constitute abstract ideas. The claim does not
integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether claim 1 provides an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim provide significantly
more than the recited judicial exception.
The introduction of a computer into the claims does not generally alter
the analysis at Mayo step two.
the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a
patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.
Stating an abstract idea “while adding the words ‘apply it’” is not
enough for patent eligibility. Nor is limiting the use of an
abstract idea “‘to a particular technological environment.’”
Stating an abstract idea while adding the words “apply it with a
computer” simply combines those two steps, with the same
deficient result. Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a computer
amounts to a mere instruction to “implement[t]” an abstract idea
“on . . . a computer,” that addition cannot impart patent
eligibility. This conclusion accords with the preemption concern
that undergirds our § 101 jurisprudence. Given the ubiquity of
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

24

computers, wholly generic computer implementation is not
generally the sort of “additional feature[e]” that provides any
“practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort
designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.”
Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (citations omitted).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea [] on a generic
computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. They do not.
Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is purely conventional. Using a
computer for processing, analyzing, and creating data amounts to electronic
data query and retrieval—one of the most basic functions of a computer. All
of these computer functions are generic, routine, conventional computer
activities that are performed only for their conventional uses. See Elec.
Power Grp. LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See
also 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,’ . . . those functions can be achieved
by any general purpose computer without special programming”). None of
these activities is used in some unconventional manner nor does any produce
some unexpected result. Appellant does not contend it invented any of these
activities. In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions. As to the data operated upon, “even
if a process of collecting and analyzing information is ‘limited to particular
content’ or a particular ‘source,’ that limitation does not make the collection
and analysis other than abstract.” SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic LLC, 898
F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

25

Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of
Appellant’s claim 1 add nothing that is not already present when the steps
are considered separately. The sequence of data processing-analysis-
creation is equally generic and conventional. See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu,
LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (sequence of receiving, selecting,
offering for exchange, display, allowing access, and receiving payment
recited an abstraction), Inventor Holdings, LLC v. Bed Bath & Beyond, Inc.,
876 F.3d 1372, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (sequence of data retrieval, analysis,
modification, generation, display, and transmission), Two-Way Media Ltd. v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, 874 F.3d 1329, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
2017) (sequence of processing, routing, controlling, and monitoring). The
ordering of the steps is therefore ordinary and conventional.
We conclude that claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept
because the additional elements recited in the claim do not provide
significantly more than the recited judicial exception.
REMAINING CLAIMS
Claim 1 is representative. The remaining method claims merely
describe process parameters. We conclude that the method claims at issue
are directed to a patent-ineligible concept itself, and not to the practical
application of that concept.
As to the structural claims, they
are no different from the method claims in substance. The
method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic
computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer
components configured to implement the same idea. This Court
has long “warn[ed] ... against” interpreting § 101“in ways that
make patent eligibility ‘depend simply on the draftsman’s art.’
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

26

Alice, 573 U.S. at 226. As a corollary, the claims are not directed to any
particular machine.
LEGAL CONCLUSION
From these determinations, we further determine that the claims do
not recite an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or to any
other technology or technical field, a particular machine, a particular
transformation, or other meaningful limitations. From this we conclude the
claims are directed to the judicial exception of the abstract idea of certain
methods of organizing human activity as exemplified by the commercial and
legal interaction of managing business process activities by advising one to
create activity descriptions by selecting the relevant business context to
apply to pertinent new or existing business processes, without significantly
more.
APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS
Appellants cite Berkheimer for the proposition that evidence of
something being conventional is necessary. Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 881
F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Appeal Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 2–11. Support for
this finding is provided under Step 2B supra. Appellant also refers to the
Office Guidance. Reply Br. 2–11. The analysis supra is in a canonical
format from the Guidance.
Claims 1–14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the invention
The Examiner rejected these claims because two sets of limitations
were unclear to the Examiner. Final Act. 3. The Examiner did not make
determinations that such lack of clarity would extend to one of ordinary
skill. Thus, the rejections were little more than requests for clarity. We are
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

27

persuaded by Appellant's argument that such clarity was provided. Appeal
Br. 6.
Claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Audimoolam and Bennett
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that
the claim language presented in claim I requires “each of the
components comprising a controller command having one or
more task commands, the controller command further being
logically linked to access logic configured to access persisted
data in a database”. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner
elected not to address this claim language--at all.
Appeal Br. 11 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner does not show where the
references describe this in the Final Office Action or Answer. Instead the
Examiner only finds the use of databases for persistent data and that generic
commands are inherent. Final Act. 21–23.
Claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Audimoolam, Bennett, and Fleming
These are dependent claims and so the arguments as to the parent
claims apply here as well.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The rejection of claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a
judicial exception without significantly more is proper.
The rejection of claims 1–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to
particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is improper.
The rejection of claims 1, 4–8, and 11–14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Audimoolam and Bennett is improper.
Appeal 2019-003181
Application 10/908,121

28

The rejection of claims 2, 3, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Audimoolam, Bennett, and Fleming is improper.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1–14 is affirmed.

In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14 101 Eligibility 1–14
1–14 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–14
1–8, 11–14 103 Audimoolam,
Bennett
1, 4–8, 11–14
2, 3, 9, 10 103 Audimoolam,
Bennett, Fleming
2, 3, 9, 10
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED