Lutnick, Howard W. et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 30, 2020

13584455 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 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.
13/584,455 08/13/2012 Howard W. Lutnick 09-2308-C1 8275
63710 7590 03/30/2020
INNOVATION DIVISION
CANTOR FITZGERALD, L.P.
110 EAST 59TH STREET (6TH FLOOR)
NEW YORK, NY 10022
EXAMINER
WONG, ERIC TAK WAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3692
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2020 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):
lkorovich@cantor.com
patentdocketing@cantor.com
phowe@cantor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HOWARD W. LUTNICK, DEAN P. ALDERUCCI,
MICHAEL SWEETING, and THOMAS D. BRADSHAW
____________

Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN A. EVANS, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 38–
42, and 44. Appeal Br. 10. Claims 3, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19–32, 35–37, and
43 were cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant states the real party in interest is CFPH, LLC.
Appeal Br. 3.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed August 31, 2018, “Appeal Br.”), the Reply
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for rating a likelihood of
payment of one or more cash flows. See Abstract.
Invention
Claims 1, 33, 38, 41, and 44 are independent. Appeal Br. 10. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1,
which is reproduced in Table I.
Rejection3
Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 38–42, and 44 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. Final Act. 2–8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 14, 17, 18,
33, 34, 38–42, and 44 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Brief. Any other arguments which Appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). We provide the following explanation to
highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for

Brief (filed January 25, 2019, “Reply Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer (mailed
November 27, 2018, “Ans.”), the Final Action (mailed March 21, 2018,
“Final Act.”), and the Specification (filed August 13, 2012, “Spec.”) for
their respective details.
3 The present application was examined under the pre-AIA first to invent
provisions. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

3
emphasis. We consider Appellant’s arguments as they are presented in the
Appeal Brief, pages 10–20.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 38–42, AND 44:
INELIGIBLE SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant designates Claim 1 as representative and argues the claims
as a group in view of the recitations of Claim 1. Appeal Br. 12, 20.
Therefore, we decide the appeal of the § 101 rejection on the basis of
representative Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims collectively herein as
“the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re King, 801 F.2d 1324,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Rejection and Appellant’s Contentions.
The Examiner finds the claims are directed to determining debt
instrument/portfolio cash flow ratings, which is a fundamental economic
practice, certain method of organizing human activity, and a mathematical
calculation and therefore an abstract idea. Final Act. 2.
Appellant contends “the claims amount to an improvement to
computer performance through generating electronic signals to generate a
first window of a graphical user interface to allow a range of information to
be selected and generate a second window to display cash flow based on the
selected information.” Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues
the claimed invention “may help control the number of commands and
transactions being transmitted over the network and control computer
workload including computer resources such as memory resources,
processor resources, and network resources such as network bandwidth.
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

4
This allows the computer to perform a function not previously performable
by a computer.” Id. 13 (emphasis omitted).
De novo review.
We reviewed the record de novo. SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade
Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“Whether a claim is drawn
to patent-eligible subject matter is an issue of law that we review de novo.”).
Based upon our review of the record in light of recent policy guidance with
respect to patent-eligible subject matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101,4 we
affirm the rejection of Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 8–11, 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 38–42, and
44 for the specific reasons discussed below.
Preemption.
Appellant contends “the features of the instant claims, including the
specificity and ordered combination of the claimed elements, do not preempt
all ways of filtering content on the Internet because the claimed recitations
are very specific and do not cover all possible approaches.” Appeal Br. 18
(emphasis omitted).
While preemption may denote patent ineligibility, its absence does not
demonstrate patent eligibility. See FairWarning, IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc.,
839 F.3d 1089, 1098 (Fed. Cir. 2016). For claims covering a patent-
ineligible concept, preemption concerns “are fully addressed and made
moot” by an analysis under the Mayo/Alice framework. Ariosa Diagnostics,
Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015). We conduct
such an analysis below.

4 See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed.
Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019) (“Revised Guidance”).
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

5
35 U.S.C. § 101
Section 101 provides that a patent may be obtained for “any new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new
and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. The Supreme Court has
long recognized, however, that § 101 implicitly excludes “[l]aws of nature,
natural phenomena, and abstract ideas” from the realm of patent-eligible
subject matter, as monopolization of these “basic tools of scientific and
technological work” would stifle the very innovation that the patent system
aims to promote. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 216
(2014) (quoting Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.,
569 U.S. 576, 589 (2013)); see also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v.
Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72–78 (2012); Diamond v. Diehr, 450
U.S. 175, 185 (1981).
Under the mandatory Revised Guidance, we reconsider whether
Appellant’s claims recite:
1. any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas
(i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human
interactions such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes), and
2. additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a
practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)–(c), (e)–(h)).
Only if a claim, (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not integrate
that exception into a practical application, do we then reach the issue of
whether the claim:
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

6
3. adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that is not
“well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field (see MPEP
§ 2106.05(d)); or
4. simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of
generality, to the judicial exception.
A. Whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
The Revised Guidance extracts and synthesizes key concepts
identified by the courts as abstract ideas to explain that the abstract-idea
exception includes the following groupings of subject matter, when recited
as such in a claim limitation(s) (that is, when recited on their own): (a)
mathematical concepts,5 i.e., mathematical relationships, mathematical
formulas, equations,6 and mathematical calculations7; (b) certain methods of
organizing human activity—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

5 Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“The concept of hedging . . .
reduced to a mathematical formula . . . is an unpatentable abstract idea.”).
6 Diehr, 450 U.S. at 191 (“A mathematical formula as such is not accorded
the protection of our patent laws”); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594
(1978) (“[T]he discovery of [a mathematical formula] cannot support a
patent unless there is some other inventive concept in its application.”).
7 SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2018)
(holding that claims to a “series of mathematical calculations based on
selected information” are directed to abstract ideas).
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

7
relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or
instructions)8; and (c) mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).9
The preamble of Claim 1 recites: “[a]n apparatus, comprising.” The
limitations recited in the body of the claim are analyzed in Table I against
the categories of abstract ideas as set forth in the Revised Guidance. Our de
novo review renders moot any argument that the Examiner failed to follow
any eligibility guidelines directed to Examiners. See Appeal Br. 11.
TABLE I
Claim 1 Revised Guidance, p. 52
[a]10 at least one processor of at
least one computer in electronic
communication with at least one
other computer via an electronic
communications network; and
Generic computer component.
[b] a memory that stores
instructions which, when executed
Generic computer component.

8 Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20 (concluding that use of a third party to mediate
settlement risk is a “fundamental economic practice” and thus an abstract
idea); see Revised Guidance, at 52 n.13 for a more extensive listing of
“certain methods of organizing human activity” that have been found to be
abstract ideas.
9 Mayo, 566 U.S. at 71 (“‘[M]ental processes[ ] and abstract intellectual
concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and
technological work’” (quoting Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67
(1972))).
10 Step designators, e.g., “[a],” were added to facilitate discussion.
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

8
by the at least one processor, directs
the at least one processor to:

[c] automatically generate electronic
signals to cause time period and
payment information entries about
one or more debt instruments of a
debt portfolio to be displayed in
respective column structures at a
first window of a graphical user
interface of a computing device of a
user;
Insignificant extra-solution activity,
displaying data.
[d] automatically generate
electronic signals to cause graphical
interactive slider selection objects to
be displayed to overlap the time
period and payment information
entries on the first window, the
graphical slider selection objects to
allow the user of the computing
device to adjust the graphical
interactive slider selection objects to
select one or more time period and
payment information entries;
Insignificant extra-solution activity,
displaying data.
[e] in response to the selection from
the first window, receive first
electronic data comprising
information about a debt instrument
portfolio comprising one or more
debt instruments, the information
comprising, for each debt
instrument, a price associated with
the debt instrument in at least one
database electronically coupled to
Insignificant extra-solution activity,
mere data-gathering.
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

9
the at least one processor;11
[f] determine, based on information
stored in the at least one database, a
current value for each of the one or
more debt instruments;
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 52.
[g] determine, based on information
stored in the at least one database, a
payment schedule for each of the
one or more debt instruments, each
payment schedule comprising one
or more payments, each payment
schedule correlating a series of
payment amounts with respective
scheduled times of payment;
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 52.
[h] determine a probability of
payment for the one or more
payments for each of the one or
more debt instruments;
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 52.
[i] after determining a probability of
payment for the one or more
payments for each of the one or
more debt instruments, determine a
portfolio cash flow rating of the
debt instrument portfolio based on:
(1) the current value of each of the
one or more debt instruments; and
(2) the probability of payment for
Mental processes, i.e., concepts
performed in the human mind
including observation, evaluation,
judgment, opinion. Revised
Guidance, 52.

11 The specific information that is received does not operate to confer patent-
eligibility because information as such is an intangible. See Microsoft Corp.
v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437, 451 n.12 (2007).
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

10
the one or more payments of each
debt instrument; and
[j] automatically generate electronic
signals to cause information about
the portfolio cash flow rating to be
displayed at a second window of the
graphical user interface of the
computing device.
Insignificant extra-solution activity,
mere data-display.

In view of Table I, we find limitations [f]–[i] of independent Claim 1 recite
abstract ideas, i.e., mental processes. Our finding is supported by
Appellant’s explicit disclosure:
The term “determining” and grammatical variants thereof (e.g.,
to determine a price, determining a value, determine an object
which meets a certain criterion) is used in an extremely broad
sense. The term “determining” encompasses a wide variety of
actions and therefore “determining” can include calculating,
computing, processing, deriving, investigating, looking up (e.g.,
looking up in a table, a database or another data structure),
ascertaining and the like. Also, “determining” can include
receiving (e.g., receiving information), accessing (e.g.,
accessing data in a memory) and the like. Also, “determining”
can include resolving, selecting, choosing, establishing, and the
like.
Spec. ¶ 33. Appellant’s further disclosure confirms the claimed
“determining” is a mental process: “[t]he term ‘determining’ does not imply
that any particular device must be used. For example, a computer need not
necessarily perform the determining.” Spec. ¶ 36.
Independent Claims 33, 38, 41, and 44 contain commensurate
recitations. Thus, we find the claims recite a judicial exception
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

11
Appellant contends the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Rather the claimed invention “may help control the number of commands
and transactions being transmitted over the network and control computer
workload including computer resources such as memory resources,
processor resources, and network resources such as network bandwidth.
This allows the computer to perform a function not previously performable
by a computer.” Appeal Br. 13. Under the Revised Guidance, Appellant’s
“directed to” contention is addressed at Step 2A(ii).
Step 2A(ii): Judicial Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?
Because the claims recite a patent-ineligible concept, as we conclude
above, we proceed to the “practical application” Step 2A(ii) wherein we
determine whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical
application of that exception by: (a) identifying whether there are any
additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception(s); and
(b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to
determine whether they integrate the exception into a practical application.
For the reasons which follow, we conclude that Appellant’s claims do
not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) “Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer
or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.”
“In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether
the claim ‘purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself’” or
“any other technology or technical field.” MPEP § 2106.05(a) (citation
omitted).
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

12
With respect to technological improvements, Appellant contends the
invention “contains a teaching in the specification about how the claimed
invention improves a computer or other technology.” Appeal Br. 13
(emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant argues:
FIG[ure] 7 depicts an exemplary interface showing information
associated with a selection of a time period for determining a
cash flow rating according to at least one embodiment of the
invention disclosed herein. In some embodiments, users 10
may interact with the interface of FIG. 7 to select one or more
debt instruments (e.g., from a user’s portfolio or from the open
market) and one or more time periods corresponding to the one
or more debt instruments for purposes of determining
information such as one or more probabilities of payment, a
payment cash flow rating, and an aggregate cash flow rating for
all of the selected payments and debt instruments.
Id. (citing Appellant’s Specification published as US 2013/0166473, ¶¶ 229–
230 (emphasis omitted)).
Appellant’s argument that the claimed interface “improves a computer
or other technology” is not persuasive because Appellant also discloses the:
“interfaces described in the present invention . . . may be presented at a
display, such as a touch-sensitive display, at a webpage, or other interface
described herein or known in the art.” Id. That which is “known in the art”
cannot be understood as an advancement in a technology.
Appellant further argues: “the claimed subject matter is directed to
improvements in computer performance which may help control the number
of commands and transactions being transmitted over the network and
control computer workload including computer resources such as memory
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

13
resources, processor resources, and network resources such as network
bandwidth.” Appeal Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).
However, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive because they are not
supported by citations to the Specification or other evidence. Arguments of
counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence.
In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139–140 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Attorney argument is
not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it
take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549
F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977). Lawyer’s arguments and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We find the claims collect data, recognize certain data within the
collected data set, and present the data for display, which the courts have
recognized as abstract. See Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The Bilski machine-or-transformation test is only applicable to
method (process) claims. However, “[r]egardless of what statutory category
(‘process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter,’ 35 U.S.C.
§ 101) a claim’s language is crafted to literally invoke, we look to the
underlying invention for patent-eligibility purposes.” CyberSource Corp. v.
Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, it is
clear that the invention underlying “apparatus” Claims 1, 38, and 41, and
“medium” Claim 44, is the method embodied in Claim 33. We therefore,
analyze the machine prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

14
Appellant discloses generic computer devices:
[i]t will be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the various processes described herein may be implemented
by, e.g., appropriately programmed general purpose computers,
special purpose computers and computing devices.
Spec. ¶ 59.
Thus a description of a process is likewise a description of an
apparatus for performing the process. The apparatus that
performs the process can include, e.g., a processor and those
input devices and output devices that are appropriate to perform
the process.
Spec. ¶ 61.
We find no indication, nor does Appellant direct our attention, that
anything other than generic computer equipment is required by the claims.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
This section 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 to a different state
or thing.” “‘Transformation 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 658 (quoting Benson, 409 U.S.
at 70).
The claims select and analyze certain electronic data. The selection of
electronic data is not “a transformation or reduction of an article into a
different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]” See In
re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (emphasis added); see also
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

15
2011) (“The mere manipulation or reorganization of data . . . does not satisfy
the transformation prong.”). Applying this guidance here, we conclude
Appellant’s method claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the
Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.

This section of the MPEP guides:
Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
450 U.S. 175 . . . (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to
the use of the Arrhenius equation (an abstract idea or law of
nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding
press. 450 U.S. at 177–78 . . . . The Court evaluated additional
elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press,
closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the
mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time,
and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently
limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical
application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184, 187
. . . . In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of
mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S. . . . . In particular, the
Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data
processing system and communications controllers recited in
the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea
because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment (i.e., “implementation via
computers”) or were well-understood, routine, conventional
activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(e).
“[T]he relevant question is whether the claims here do more than
simply instruct the practitioner to implement the abstract idea . . . on a
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

16
generic computer.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 225. Similarly as in Alice, we find
that “[t]aking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the
computer at each step of the process is ‘[p]urely conventional.’” Id. (citation
omitted). “In short, each step does no more than require a generic computer
to perform generic computer functions.” Id. We find that Appellant’s
claims do not add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of
the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
MPEP § 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception.
Appellant discloses:
Computers, processors, computing devices and like products
are structures that can perform a wide variety of functions.
Such products can be operable to perform a specified function
by executing one or more programs, such as a program stored
in a memory device of that product or in a memory device
which that product accesses. Unless expressly specified
otherwise, such a program need not be based on any particular
algorithm, such as any particular algorithm that might be
disclosed in the present application. It is well known to one of
ordinary skill in the art that a specified function may be
implemented via different algorithms, and any of a number of
different algorithms would be a mere design choice for carrying
out the specified function.
Spec. ¶ 77.
Appellant does not persuasively argue that their claims do any more
than invoke generic computer components merely as a tool in which the
computer instructions apply the judicial exception.

Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

17
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The claims acquire and display data, which are classic examples of
insignificant extra-solution activity. See, e.g., Bilski, 545 F.3d at 963 (en
banc), aff’d sub nom, Bilski, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.

[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not
wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited
meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or
post-solution activity—such as identifying a relevant audience,
a category of use, field of use, or technological environment.
Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). We
find the claims “determine a portfolio cash flow rating of the debt instrument
portfolio,” which is simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract
idea to a particular technological environment. We do not find Appellant’s
arguments to be persuasive because “[t]he courts have also identified
examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a
practical application.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. The claims
fail to recite a practical application where the additional element does no
more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular
technological environment or field of use. Id. The mere application of an
abstract idea in a particular field is not sufficient to integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See id. at 55 n.32. In view of the
foregoing, we conclude the claims are “directed to” a judicial exception.
B Well-understood, routine, conventional.
Because the claims recite a judicial exception and do not integrate that
exception into a practical application, we must then reach the issue of
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

18
whether the claim adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception
that is not “well-understood, routine, conventional” in the field. Revised
Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The written description describes the claimed computer system
consistent with its being “well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.” See
e.g., Spec. ¶ 77, discussed above.
C Specified at a high level of generality.
It is indicative of the absence of an inventive concept where the
claims simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to
the judicial exception. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The claims fail to recite any specific steps of an algorithm, nor does
Appellant cite any Specification disclosure for the required specificity.
Indeed, no particular algorithm is required to perform the claims. See Spec.
¶ 77 (“Unless expressly specified otherwise, such a program need not be
based on any particular algorithm, such as any particular algorithm that
might be disclosed in the present application.”).
We find the limitations are specified at such a high level of generality
consistent with the absence of an inventive concept. Considering the claim
limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing to the abstract idea that
is not already present when the limitations are considered separately. See
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79. The ordered combination of limitations amounts to
nothing more than certain mental processes implemented with generic
computer components that operate “in a conventional way.” See also Alice,
573 U.S. at 225–26. Therefore, we conclude that none of the claim
Appeal 2019-002311
Application 13/584,455

19
limitations, viewed “both individually and as an ordered combination,”
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception in order to
sufficiently transform the nature of the claims into patent-eligible subject
matter. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (internal quotations omitted) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79).
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6,
8–11, 14, 17, 18, 33, 34, 38–42, and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
CONCLUSION

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–6, 8–
11, 14, 17,
18, 33, 34,
38–42, 44.
101 Eligibility 1, 2, 4–6, 8–
11, 14, 17,
18, 33, 34,
38–42, 44.

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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED