Michael Randy. May et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 8, 2019

11861436 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 8, 2019)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/861,436 09/26/2007 Michael Randy May END920060211US1 8390
30449 7590 08/08/2019
SCHMEISER, OLSEN & WATTS
22 CENTURY HILL DRIVE
SUITE 302
LATHAM, NY 12110
EXAMINER
BROCKINGTON III, WILLIAM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3623
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/08/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
30449@IPLAWUSA.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL RANDY MAY,
GAUTAM MAJUMDAR,
MUTHUSAMY PALANISAMY MUTHUSAMY,
and SACHIN POPLI
____________________

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.

SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–26, 28, and 29. Claim 27 has been cancelled.
App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for renewing
services for contracted employees. Spec. 1. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A renewal tracking and storage entry method comprising:

receiving, by a computing system from a requester, a
command for enabling a first renewal process associated with a
company, said computing system comprising a memory device,
said memory device comprising an original request document
for at least one candidate, a list of candidates, and a
request/skills details template, said list of candidates
comprising said at least one candidate and sub-contracted
candidates performing services for said company for a specified
time period, said computing system comprising a server;

presenting, by said computing system, said first list of
candidates to said requester;

receiving, by said computing system from said requester,
a first selection of said at least one candidate of said list of
candidates;

receiving, by said computing system from said requester
over a network and via an input device, first verification data
verifying that said at least one candidate is associated with said
first renewal process;

generating, by said computing system, a first renewal
request number for identifying a first renewal request
document;

generating, by said computing system, a new line item
number and a new candidate description associated with said at
least one candidate;

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

3
retrieving, by said computing system, a portion of
candidate related data from said original request document;

placing, by said computing system, said portion of said
candidate related data in said request/skills details template,
wherein said request/skills details template comprises fields
associated with a project name, a location for placing a
candidate, project coordinators, a requesting company and
department, time frames for hiring candidates, and skill levels;

receiving, by said computing system from said requester,
first input data associated with said at least one candidate;

placing, by said computing system, said first input data in
said request/skills details template;

presenting, by said computing system via a plotter of said
computing system, said request/skills details template
comprising said portion of said candidate related data and said
first input data;

generating, by said computing system, a renewal history
GUI associated with said at least one candidate, wherein the
renewal history GUI consists of a search results section, a
candidate listing section, and a renewal history change log
section, wherein said search results section consists of status
and response identification fields for said at least one candidate,
a supplier name field, a bond cart field, a purchase order
number field, a start date field, and an end date field, wherein
the candidate listing section consists of candidate listings,
history links of said candidate listings, request numbers, skill
names, bond cart numbers, and purchase order numbers,
wherein the renewal history change log section comprises
request ID numbers, changed skill names, start dates, end dates,
and changed purchase order numbers, and wherein said renewal
history change log section provides a single view for
comparison of changes between renewal cycles;

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

4
displaying, by said computing system to said requestor,
said renewal history GUI associated with said at least one
candidate, wherein said renewal history GUI presents a
complete chain of renewal cycles associated with said at least
one candidate;

receiving, by said computer system from said requestor
via said input device, second input data for input to said
renewal history GUI;

generating, by said computing system, a first renewal
history change log screen associated with said at least one
candidate, wherein said first renewal history change log screen
illustrates said second input data at a candidate level illustrating
changes for a single response, wherein said first renewal history
change log screen comprises a first renewal comparison section
and a first change history section, wherein said first renewal
comparison section comprises a summary table comprising said
request ID numbers, said changed skill names, said start dates,
said end dates, and additional purchase order numbers, wherein
said first change history section comprises first values for a
current request and second values from a previous request
associated with said at least one candidate, wherein said first
values and said second values are derived from said first
renewal comparison section, and wherein said first values and
said second values comprise values associated with primary
skills, straight time rates, and locations;

displaying, by said computing system to said requestor,
said first renewal history change log screen associated with said
at least one candidate;

receiving, by said computer system from said requestor
via said input device, third input data for input to said first
renewal history change log screen;

generating, by said computing system, a second renewal
history change log screen associated with said at least one
candidate, wherein said second renewal history change log
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

5
screen illustrates said third input data at a request level
illustrating changes for multiple responses that have been
renewed, wherein said second renewal history change log
screen comprises a second renewal comparison section and a
second change history section, wherein said second renewal
comparison section comprises a summary table comprising said
request ID numbers, said changed skill names, said start dates,
said end dates, and said additional purchase order numbers;

displaying, by said computing system to said requestor,
said second renewal history change log screen associated with
said at least one candidate;

receiving, by said computing system from said requester
in response to said presenting said renewal history GUI, said
presenting said first renewal history change log screen, and said
presenting said second renewal history change log screen, first
validation data verifying that said portion of said candidate
related data from said original request document in said
request/skills details template comprises first current data
associated with said at least one candidate and said first renewal
process;

receiving from said requester, by said computing system,
a selection of a first supplier;

determining, by said computing system that the most
current details of a most current request document associated
with said original request document have been fulfilled;
generating, by said computing system based on said results of
said determining, said first renewal request document
associated with said at least one candidate, said first renewal
request document comprising said portion of said candidate
related data from said original request document and said first
input data, said first renewal request document for first
renewing an association between said company and said at least
one candidate, said first renewal request document indicating an
extended time period associated with extending employment for
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

6
said at least one candidate by said extended time period with
respect to said specified time period;

transmitting, by said computing system, said first renewal
request document to said first supplier;

enabling, by said computing system within said memory
device, a table identifying a renewal process indicating a history
of said at least one candidate;

identifying, by said computing system executing said
table, a first candidate key, comprising a first plurality of
values, comprised by data of a first plurality of rows of said
table, said first candidate key comprising a common link for
tracking renewal history of said renewal process of said at least
one candidate;

identifying, by said computing system executing said
table, a second candidate key comprised by data of an
additional plurality of rows of said table, said second candidate
key associated with a previous candidate associated with said at
least one candidate;

maintaining, by said computing system via said network
and using data from said table, a renewal history of said at least
one candidate with respect to said first renewal document;

tracking, by said computing system via said network and
based on said first candidate key, said table and said renewal
history; and

generating, by said computing system based on said
table, an additional table comprising said first candidate key,
within said memory device, with respect to newly generated
values of said first candidate key generated based on said
renewal process, wherein said first candidate key comprises
said newly generated values, an identifying name, and
associated value, wherein said additional table comprises:

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

7
a plurality of rows, wherein each row of said plurality of
rows comprises an ID number to identify each renewal object
for each row of said plurality of rows corresponding to each
candidate status record; and

a plurality of columns intersecting said plurality of rows
to define said first candidate key based cells formed by said
intersecting, wherein each column of said plurality of columns
comprises an ID number to identify each said renewal object for
each said column.

REJECTION
Claims 1–26, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being directed to ineligible subject matter.

ANALYSIS
An invention is patent eligible if it claims a “new and useful process,
machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.” 35 U.S.C. § 101.
However, the Supreme Court has long interpreted 35 U.S.C. § 101 to include
implicit exceptions: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract
ideas” are not patentable. E.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208,
216 (2014).
In determining whether a claim falls within an excluded category, we
are guided by the Supreme Court’s two-step framework, described in Mayo
and Alice. Id. at 217–18 (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012)). In accordance with that framework,
we first determine what concept the claim is “directed to.” See Alice, 573
U.S. at 219 (“On their face, the claims before us are drawn to the concept of
intermediated settlement, i.e., the use of a third party to mitigate settlement
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

8
risk.”); see also Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611 (2010) (“Claims 1 and 4
in petitioners’ application explain the basic concept of hedging, or protecting
against risk.”).
Concepts determined to be abstract ideas, and thus patent ineligible,
include certain methods of organizing human activity, such as fundamental
economic practices (Alice, 573 U.S. at 219–20; Bilski, 561 U.S. at 611);
mathematical formulas (Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 594–95 (1978)); and
mental processes (Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 69 (1972)).
If the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea, we turn to the second
step of the Alice and Mayo framework, where “we must examine the
elements of the claim to determine whether it contains an ‘inventive
concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’ the claimed abstract idea into a patent-
eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quotation marks omitted). “A
claim that recites an abstract idea must include ‘additional features’ to
ensure ‘that the [claim] is more than a drafting effort designed to
monopolize the [abstract idea].’” Id. (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77).
“[M]erely requir[ing] generic computer implementation[] fail[s] to transform
that abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.” Id.
The PTO recently published revised guidance on the application of
§ 101. USPTO’s January 7, 2019 Memorandum, 2019 Revised Patent
Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“Memorandum”).
Under that guidance, we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract
ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing
human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental
processes); and

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

9
(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 look to whether the claim:
(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.

See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52–57.
Furthermore, the Memorandum “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 or
per se)”:
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships,
mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;

(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 relations); managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people (including social
activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and

(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human
mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Id. at 52 (footnotes omitted).
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

10
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 1
The Examiner determines the claims are directed to organizing
renewal information according to a particular candidate, which is an abstract
idea. Final Act. 7 (“using categories to organize, store, and transmit
information”); Ans. 3.
Appellants argue the claims do not recite an abstract idea, but rather,
recite
enabling a renewal process that includes enabling a table
identifying the renewal process within a memory device and
generating a specialized renewal history GUI that includes a
renewal history change log screen (associated with a candidate)
for identifying a first candidate key (i.e., a software based
common link for tracking and comprising a plurality of values
comprised by a first plurality of rows of a table) and a second
candidate key (comprised by additional plurality of rows of the
table) for tracking a renewal process within a memory device.

App. Br. 30.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 5–7; Ans. 2–4. We agree with the
Examiner that the claims recite organizing renewal information for a
particular candidate, which are certain methods of organizing human
activity, for example, business relations or managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people, and categorized as abstract
ideas under the guidelines in the Memorandum. See Memorandum, 84 Fed.
Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, Appellants have not sufficiently argued why the claims
do not recite an abstract idea.
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

11
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2A, Prong 2
In determining whether the claims are “directed to” the identified
abstract idea, we next consider whether the claims recite additional elements
that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.1 We discern
no additional element (or combination of elements) recited in the claims that
integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See
Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54–55.
Appellants contend the claims recite a resulting memory storage
improvement that includes generating an additional table that includes the
first candidate key with respect to newly generated values based on the
renewal process. App. Br. 31. According to Appellants, the memory
storage improvement results in an overall improved operational performance
by (1) ensuring that only complete authorized candidate details are used, (2)
providing a software key acting as a common software link for tracking, and
(3) making an associated entry in the memory device. App. Br. 31; see also
Reply Br. 3–4. Appellants argue the memory device storage functions are,
therefore, modified via the specialized table to accurately perform the
tracking process. App. Br. 31; see also App. Br. 32. Appellants further

1 We acknowledge that some of the considerations at Step 2A, Prong Two,
properly may be evaluated under Step 2 of Alice (Step 2B of the Office
guidance). For purposes of maintaining consistent treatment within the
Office, we evaluate them under Step 1 of Alice (Step 2A of the Office
guidance). See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 nn. 25, 27–32.

Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

12
argue that, like the claims in Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327,
1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the claims here
claim a specific type of non-abstract computer memory
technology improvement to “improve the way a computer
stores and retrieves data in memory” defined by enabling a
table (identifying a renewal process) within a memory device
and generating a specialized renewal history GUI that includes
a renewal history change log screen (associated with a
candidate) for identifying and generating specialized software
based keys (e.g., a registry key or a set of software instructions)
comprising values comprised by a generated specialized table
that “must have a row and a column that have a same ID value.”

App. Br. 36; see also App. Br. 37–38. Appellants also argue the claims
improve the operational performance of the computer itself and improve the
technical field of graphical user interface generation and computer memory
storage for similar reasons. App. Br. 39–43; see also Reply Br. 11–13.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. See Final Act. 2–4, 7; Ans. 2–9.
Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ Specification does
not discuss any improvement in memory storage, the computer itself, or the
technical field. See Ans. 5–8. Although Appellants rely on pages 9, 10, and
14–16 of the Specification (App. Br. 31–34, Reply Br. 7–11), we do not see,
and Appellants do not sufficiently explain, where any improvements to
memory storage, the computer itself, or the technical field or computer
operations are discussed or disclosed. By contrast, in Enfish, the
specification taught (1) that the claimed invention achieved other benefits
over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search
times, and smaller memory requirements, and (2) the claimed self-referential
table functioned differently than conventional database structures. Enfish,
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

13
822 F.3d at 1337. We do not see similar disclosures in Appellants’
Specification. Moreover, there is a fundamental difference between
computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing
computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other (see, e.g., Spec.
18–20). The Federal Circuit applied this distinction in Enfish in rejecting the
§ 101 challenge at step one of the Mayo/Alice analysis because the claims at
issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table
for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out
its basic functions of storing and retrieving data, and not on asserted
advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put.
Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335–36.
Accordingly, on this record, we agree with the Examiner that
Appellants have not described an improvement to memory storage, the
computer itself, or the technical field. For these reasons, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner’s determination that the claims are
directed to an abstract idea.
USPTO Memorandum, Step 2B
Turning to step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework, we look to whether
the claims: (a) add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that
are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or (b)
simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously
known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial
exception. Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determines the additional limitations, including the
computing system comprising a server, input device, memory device,
plotter, various limitations directed to receiving commands, selections, and
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

14
other data, presenting/displaying data, and determining an extended time
period do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Final
Act. 8. Rather, the Examiner determines the limitations include generic
computing hardware and generic data gathering or display features that are
well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Final Act. 8.
Moreover, the Examiner determines the tables and keys are employed as
conventional tables and links that organize data and that storing data in
tables, using a plurality of tables, and creating additional tables, is well-
known, routine, and conventional. Ans. 6, 11.
Appellants present similar arguments as those discussed above. App.
Br. 38–43. In addition, Appellants argue “the specification fully supports
unconventional candidate keys and tables executed to provide an
improvement to memory.” Reply Br. 12. Appellants also argue “the claims
recite usage of a novel table (storing digital keys) enabling a memory
storage improvement.” Reply Br. 14.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments and agree with the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions. Final Act. 8–9; Ans. 9–11. When
viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an
inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Similarly, the additional elements in
the claim (e.g., “computing system,” “memory device,” “input device,”
“plotter,” “GUI,” table,” “first candidate key,” “second candidate key,”
“network,” “data,” “renewal object”), and as identified by the Examiner,
amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using
generic computer components, which is insufficient to provide an inventive
concept. See Spec. 18–20. Moreover, Appellants do not direct our attention
to anything in the Specification that indicates the claimed computer
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

15
components perform anything other than well-understood, routine, and
conventional processing functions, such as receiving, processing, storing,
and displaying data. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom SA, 830 F.3d
1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“Nothing in the claims, understood in light of
the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional
computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and
presenting the desired information”); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765
F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“That a computer receives and sends the
information over a network—with no further specification—is not even
arguably inventive”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 224–26 (receiving, storing, sending
information over networks insufficient to add an inventive concept).
Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively explain why the candidate keys
and tables are unconventional. In short, the claims do no more than require
a generic computer to perform generic computer functions.
Accordingly, Appellants have not adequately explained how the
claims are performed such that they are not routine, conventional functions
of a generic computer. The claims at issue do not require any non-
conventional computer components, or even a “non-conventional and non-
generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces,” but merely call for
performance of the claimed information receiving, processing, storing, and
and displaying data “on a set of generic computer components.” Bascom
Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350
(Fed. Cir. 2016).
Appeal 2017-011592
Application 11/861,436

16

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26, 28, and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED