NetSuite Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 1, 2020

14592796 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 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.
14/592,796 01/08/2015 Brian Alexander Purville ORA170966 (NS-103) 9005
51444 7590 04/01/2020
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
4700 Rockside Road
Summit One, Suite 510
Independence, OH 44131
EXAMINER
MUTSCHLER, JOSEPH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2020 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):
DDay@KragLaw.com
MPusti@KragLaw.com
PTOMail@KragLaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte BRIAN ALEXANDER PURVILLE,
MICHAEL (XIAOZHENG) YE, and STEPHEN CLODE
____________

Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 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 Oracle
International Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1–3, 11–13, and 22–30, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
1. A system comprising:
a storage device having a plurality of database tables
stored therein;
at least one server device coupled to the storage device,
the server device being configured to receive real-time
transactions through a network and process each real-time
transaction by:
splitting the real-time transactions into generic
attributes and specific attributes, wherein the generic
attributes are attributes of the real-time transactions that
are shared across each of the plurality of database tables
and the specific attributes are attributes of the real-time
transactions that are stored in at least one database table
of the plurality of database tables, but are not shared
across all of the plurality of database tables;
transmitting, via the network, the generic attributes
and storing the generic attributes in each of the plurality
of database tables;
transmitting, via the network, the specific
attributes and storing the specific attributes in the at least
one database table;
applying a first set of accounting rules,
corresponding to a first database table of the plurality of
database tables, to the generic attributes and specific
attributes stored in the first database table to generate a
first result and storing the first result in the first database
table; and
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

3
applying a second set of accounting rules,
corresponding to a second database table of the plurality
of database tables, to the generic attributes and specific
attributes stored in the second database table to generate
a second result and storing the second result in the
second database table, wherein the second set of
accounting rules differs from the first set of accounting
rules; and
a user interface configured to provide real-time access to
at least one of the plurality of database tables.

Examiner’s Rejection
Claims 1–3, 11–13, and 22–30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to patent-ineligible subject matter without significantly more.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects all of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as patent-ineligible because they are directed to a judicial exception without
significantly more. Final Act. 3–10. Appellant argues that the claims are
not directed to an abstract idea, are directed to patent-eligible subject matter,
and the Examiner’s rejection should be reversed. Appeal Br. 7–33.
A. Principles of Law
Under 35 U.S.C. § 101, an invention is patent-eligible if it claims a
“new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.”
35 U.S.C. § 101. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, has interpreted § 101
to include an implicit exception: “[l]aws of nature, natural phenomena, and
abstract ideas” are not patentable. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S.
208, 216 (2014) (citation omitted).
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

4
The Court, in Alice, reiterated the two-part framework previously set
forth in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc.,
566 U.S. 66, 75–77 (2012), “for distinguishing patents that claim laws of
nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. The first
part in the analysis is to “determine whether the claims at issue are directed
to one of those patent-ineligible concepts.” Id. For example, abstract ideas
include, but are not limited to, fundamental economic practices, certain
methods of organizing human activities, and mathematical formulas or
relationships. Id. at 218–20. If we conclude that the claims are not directed
to a patent-ineligible concept, they are considered patent eligible under
§ 101 and the inquiry ends. Rapid Litig. Mgmt. Ltd. v. CellzDirect, Inc.,
827 F.3d 1042, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
If the claims are directed to a patent-ineligible concept, the second
part in the Alice/Mayo analysis is to consider the elements of the claims
“individually and ‘as an ordered combination’” to determine whether there
are additional elements that “‘transform the nature of the claim’ into a
patent-eligible application.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S.
at 79, 78). In other words, the second part is to “search for an “‘inventive
concept’”—i.e., an element or combination of elements that is ‘sufficient to
ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent
upon the [ineligible concept] itself.’” Id. at 217–18 (brackets in original)
(quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73). The prohibition against patenting an
abstract idea “‘cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the
formula to a particular technological environment’ or adding ‘insignificant
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

5
postsolution activity.’” Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 610–11 (2010)
(internal citation omitted).
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the “Office”) has published
revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. 2019 Revised
Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50–57 (Jan. 7,
2019) (“2019 Guidance”). Under the 2019 Guidance, the Office first looks
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 (2) additional elements that integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application. See 2019 Guidance at 52, 54–55.
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception, and (2) does not
integrate that exception into a practical application, does the Office then
look to whether the claim: (3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial
exception that are 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 2019 Guidance at 56. We
follow this guidance here.
B. Application of Legal Principles
1. Step 2A of 2019 Guidance
Prong 1: Do the Claims Recite an Abstract Idea
In applying the framework set out in Alice/Mayo, and as the first part
of that analysis, the Examiner finds the claims are directed to the abstract
ideas of mathematical concepts (i.e., mathematical relationships and
formulas) and certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e.,
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

6
fundamental economic practices). Final Act. 6. The Examiner also finds
that the steps recited in claim 1 can be performed in the human mind. Ans.
4. Appellant argues that splitting real-time transactions into generic and
specific attributes, transmitting attributes via a network, and applying rules
to database tables as claimed, cannot be performed by the human mind.
Appeal Br. 10.
We evaluate the Examiner’s § 101 rejection by applying the 2019
Guidance, which uses enumerated groupings of abstract ideas that are rooted
in U.S. Supreme Court precedent, as well as Federal Circuit decisions
interpreting that precedent. See 2019 Guidance at 51–52. By grouping the
abstract ideas, the 2019 Guidance synthesizes the holdings of various court
decisions to facilitate examination. The 2019 Guidance describes one
category of abstract ideas as including “[m]athematical concepts” including
mathematical relationships or mathematical formulas, “[c]ertain methods of
organizing human activity” including fundamental economic principles or
practices, and “[m]ental processes” including concepts performed in the
human mind. Id. at 52.
We disagree with the Examiner that the claims are directed to
mathematical relationships or mathematical formulas, consistent with the
2019 Guidance. See 2019 Guidance at 52; see also October 2019 Update2 at
3–4. In particular, claim 1 does not recite a relationship between variables
or numbers. Claim 1 also does not recite a mathematical formula or
equation.
We do, however, agree with the Examiner that the claims recite a

2https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.
pdf
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

7
fundamental economic practice, namely, accounting. For example, the
claimed steps of “applying” a first set and a second set of “accounting rules”
to corresponding attributes stored in database tables are recite the abstract
idea of accounting. We also agree with the Examiner, that the steps of
“splitting real-time transactions” into generic and specific attributes, and
“applying” a first set and a second set of “accounting rules” to
corresponding attributes can be performed in the human mind.
Appellant’s contentions that the steps are “quite frankly, impossible
for the human mind to perform” and “have no relation to whatever an
‘accountant’s job’ may be” are not persuasive. See Reply Br. 3–4. In
particular, Appellant has not persuasively explained how the claimed steps
of applying accounting rules do not recite accounting. See id. Also,
Appellant’s reasoning that the steps would not be performed in the human
mind in the same way as a processor would perform them is not persuasive,
as this is not the proper test. As the 2019 Guidance states, “[i]f a claim,
under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind
but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the
mental processes category unless the claim cannot practically be performed
in the mind.” See 2019 Guidance at 52 n.14 (emphasis omitted). Here,
Appellant has not persuasively explained how splitting real-time transactions
into generic attributes is impossible for the human mind. See id. With the
exception of generic computer implemented functions or steps, there is
nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed
by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. See Intellectual Ventures I
LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that
claims to screening messages in the context of electronic communications
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

8
were directed to an abstract idea because they could, but for the recitation of
generic computer-implemented steps, be done by a human with the aid of
pen and paper); see also October 2019 Update at 8 (“The courts have found
claims requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic
computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations
are not performed entirely in the human mind.”).
Thus, under Prong 1 of Step 2A in accordance with the 2019
Guidance, we conclude the claims recite judicial exceptions of certain
methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, and we,
therefore, agree with the Examiner’s conclusions that the claims recite an
abstract idea.
Prong 2: Do the Claims Integrate the Abstract
Idea Into a Practical Application
In accordance with Prong 2 of Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance, we
evaluate the claims to determine whether they recite additional elements
beyond the abstract idea, and, if so, we evaluate the additional elements to
determine whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical
application. 2019 Guidance at 54. The 2019 Guidance at page 55 provides
exemplary considerations, including whether an additional element:
• “reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or
an improvement to other technology or technical field”;
• “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 [or
thing] to a different state or thing”; or
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

9
• “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.”
The 2019 Guidance also highlights certain examples in which courts
have held that “a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical
application,” such as where the claims “merely use[] a computer as a tool to
perform an abstract idea” or the additional element adds “insignificant extra-
solution activity” to the abstract idea. 2019 Guidance at 55 (emphasis
added); see also October 2019 Update at 11–15.
The Examiner determines that the claims recite additional elements
beyond the abstract idea, such as a server, a network, and databases, which,
when considered alone or in combination, do no more than implement the
abstract idea on computer related technology that processes, transmits, and
stores data. Ans. 5. Appellant, citing Example 42 of the USPTO Subject
Matter Eligibility Examples, contends that claim 1 integrates the abstract
ideas into a practical application by providing real-time access to at least one
of the plurality of databases. Reply Br. 8–9.
Example 42 includes exemplary claim 1, which recites “converting
. . . non-standardized updated information into the standardized format,”
“storing the standardized updated information,” “automatically generating a
message containing the updated information,” and “transmitting the message
to all of the users over the computer network in real time, so that each user
has immediate access to up-to-date patient information.” The analysis of
claim 1 of Example 42 states that the claim as a whole recites a combination
of additional elements, including storing information, providing remote
access, converting updated information, automatically generating a message
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

10
whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all
of the users. The analysis of claim 1 in Example 42 further states that the
abstract idea is integrated into a practical application because “the additional
elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing
remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format
regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user.”
Example 42 also includes exemplary claim 2, which recites “storing
the updated information,” but does not recite “converting . . . non-
standardized updated information,” “automatically generating a message
containing the updated information,” nor “transmitting the message to all of
the users over the computer network.” The analysis of claim 2 of Example
42 states that the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application
because the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the
concept of storing and updating patient information in a computer
environment.
Claim 1 of Example 42 generates a message containing updated
information, and transmits the message to all of the users. Unlike claim 1 of
Example 42, Appellant’s claim 1 does not generate a message containing the
first and second results, nor does Appellant’s claim 1 send a message
containing the results to each user. Rather, claim 1 recites “a user interface
configured to provide real-time access to at least one of the plurality of
database tables.” The user interface of Appellant’s claim 1 recites the user
interface is “configured to provide real-time access” but does not
affirmatively perform a function –– such as to generate and send a message
to all of the users.
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

11
Appellant contends that claim 1 allows “real-time access to the newly
generated results in the database tables.” Reply Br. 9. However,
Appellant’s claim 1 does not recite that the access to one of the database
tables includes access to both the first and second results, or to any result.
Further, the claim does not limit the “at least one of the plurality of database
tables” to the first or second database tables as claimed, but rather that term
encompasses a database table which is different from the first and second
database tables and which does not store the claimed first and second results.
Appellant’s contention is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We disagree with Appellant’s contention, that simply reciting “a user
interface configured to provide real-time access to at least one of the
plurality of database tables,” is a practical application similar to that found in
claim 1 of Example 42. See Appeal Br. 11–14; Reply Br. 8–9. Rather,
Appellant’s claim 1 is similar to claim 2 of Example 42. Appellant’s claim 1
merely describes how to apply the concept of splitting received real-time
transactions into generic and specific attributes, applying a first set and a
second set of accounting rules to generate respective first and second results,
storing the first and second results in respective first and second database
tables, and configuring a user interface for accessing a database table, to a
computer environment. Simply implementing the abstract idea in a generic
computer environment is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
To the extent that Appellant relies on providing the claimed “access”
in “real-time” as the practical application, Appellant is reminded that in most
cases, “relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more
accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible.” OIP Techs., Inc.
v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Intellectual
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

12
Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2015) (“[M]erely adding computer functionality to increase the speed or
efficiency of the process does not confer patent eligibility on an otherwise
abstract idea.”); Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“Thus, if a patent’s recitation of a
computer amounts to a mere instruction to implement an abstract idea on a
computer, that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.”). Further, claim 26
does not recite providing real-time access to at least one of the plurality of
database tables. Appellant’s contention that claim 26 is patent-eligible for
similar reasons as claim 1 of Example 42, namely, that the claim allows real-
time access to the newly generated results in the database tables, is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 26. See Reply Br. 8–9.
Claim 1’s data-gathering steps of a “server device being configured to
receive real-time transactions through a network,” “transmitting” generic
and specific attributes to database tables, and post-solution step of “a user
interface configured to provide real-time access” to one of the database
tables reasonably can be characterized as merely constituting insignificant
extra-solution activity:
An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data
for use in a claimed process, e.g., a step of obtaining
information about credit card transactions [that] is recited as
part of a claimed process of analyzing and manipulating the
gathered information by a series of steps in order to detect
whether the transactions were fraudulent.
MPEP § 2106.05(g). As our reviewing court has explained, such data
gathering and transmissions simply provide data for other method steps. See
CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“We have held that mere ‘[data-gathering] step[s] cannot make an
otherwise nonstatutory claim statutory.”’ (alterations in original)); see 2019
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

13
Guidance at 55 (“The courts have also identified examples in which a
judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application,” such
as when “an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to
the judicial exception.” (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g); CyberSource, 654 F.3d
at 1375; Mayo, 566 US at 79; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 590 (1978)
(step of adjusting an alarm limit based on the output of a mathematical
formula was “post-solution activity” and did not render the method patent
eligible.))). We find that the claimed server device that receives and
transmits data, and the claimed user interface that is configured to provide
real-time access to data, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the
abstract ideas but do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical
application.
The Examiner concludes that the dependent claims, when considered
individually and in ordered combination, are directed to ineligible subject
matter. Ans. 5; Final Act. 10. We agree with the Examiner. We conclude
that the dependent claims are directed to the abstract ideas.
Specifically, claim 2 recites “the second set of accounting rules
includes a definition of one or more of the specific attributes and the server
device is further configured to apply the second set of accounting rules to the
real-time transaction if the real-time transaction relates to the one or more of
the specific attributes.” Each of claims 12 and 27 recite a similar limitation.
We determine claims 2, 12, and 27 are directed to the judicial exceptions of
certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as
discussed above.
Claim 3 recites “the user interface is further configured to permit a
user to define the one or more of the specific attributes and the second set of
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

14
accounting rules.” Claims 13 and 28 recite similar limitations. We
determine claims 3, 13, and 28 are directed to the judicial exceptions of
certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as
discussed above.
Claim 22 depends from claim 1 and recites “detecting a change to a
first generic attribute stored in the first database table; and programmatically
applying the change to the first generic attribute stored in the second
database table.” We determine claim 22 is directed to the judicial exceptions
of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes as
discussed above.
Claim 24 depends from claim 11 and recites “the first set of
accounting rules are based upon accounting principles defined for a first
jurisdiction and the second set of accounting rules are based upon
accounting principles defined for a second jurisdiction different than the first
jurisdiction.” Claim 29 depends from claim 26 and recites a similar
limitation. We determine claims 24 and 29 are directed to the judicial
exceptions of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental
processes as discussed above.
Claim 23 depends from claim 1 and recites
identifying a template associated with the real-time transaction,
and for a first attribute of the real-time transaction: determining
whether a corresponding attribute of the set of attributes is
defined as a generic attribute or a specific attribute; classifying
the first attribute as a generic attribute when the corresponding
attribute of the set of attributes is defined as a generic attribute;
and classifying the first attribute as a specific attribute when the
corresponding attribute of the set of attributes is defined as a
specific attribute.
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

15
Claim 25, which depends from claim 11, and claim 30, which depends from
claim 26, each recite a similar limitation. We determine claims 23, 25, and
29 are directed to the judicial exceptions of certain methods of organizing
human activity and mental processes as discussed above.
Consistent with the Examiner’s determination, we determine that the
claims do not include an improvement to another technology or technical
field or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself; we also
conclude the claims do not include a transformation of an article or
meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea
to a particular technological environment. See Ans. 5. As the U.S. Supreme
Court has explained, “if a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a
mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . . a computer,’ that
addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 84).
Accordingly, in the first part of the Alice/Mayo analysis, we conclude
that the claims are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a
practical application.
2. Step 2B of 2019 Guidance – Do the Claims Recite Significantly More
Than the Abstract Idea
Regarding the second part of the Alice/Mayo analysis, the Examiner
determines the elements of the claims, when considered individually or as an
ordered combination, do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea.
Ans. 5. In particular, the Examiner determines that “the additional elements
of a server, network, and database, do not add any meaningful limitations
when considered alone or in combination to the claims beyond their well
understood, routine, and conventional activity.” Ans. 5–7. Appellant
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

16
contends that the Examiner only considered the claimed “server device,”
“storage device,” and “the network,” but did not consider the other claim
limitations. Reply Br. 10–11.
Here, the claim elements beyond the abstract idea recite only generic
computer functions and components that are well-understood, routine, and
conventional—that is, receiving and transmitting data by “at least one
server,” “storing” data in database tables in “a storage device,” and
“transmitting” data “via the network”; such generic computer functions and
components do not convey an inventive concept. See Ans. 6–7; Final Act.
6–10.
Claim 1’s other steps entail applying accounting rules to generate
results and store the results. But these steps constitute the underlying
abstract ideas—the fundamental economic practices and mental processes
that can be performed in the human mind or with pencil and paper. See BSG
Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“It has
been clear since Alice that a claimed invention’s use of the ineligible concept
to which it is directed cannot supply the inventive concept that renders the
invention ‘significantly more’ than that ineligible concept.”); Synopsys, Inc.
v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim
for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”); SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic,
LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“What is needed is an inventive
concept in the non-abstract application realm.”).
The claim limitations identified by Appellant as significantly more
than the abstract idea are the claim limitations directed to the abstract ideas
of fundamental economic practices and mental steps. See Appeal Br. 17–18
(quoting claim 1 in its entirety). To the extent Appellant relies on the
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

17
particular manipulation of data recited as indicative of an inventive concept,
we have determined above that such steps amount to fundamental economic
practices and mental processes, which are categorized in the 2019 Guidance
as abstract ideas. Appellant is reminded that “the ‘inventive concept’ [under
the second part of the Mayo/Alice test] cannot be the abstract idea itself” and
“Berkheimer . . . leave[s] untouched the numerous cases from this court
which have held claims ineligible because the only alleged ‘inventive
concept’ is the abstract idea.” Berkheimer v. HP Inc., 890 F.3d 1369, 1374
(Fed. Cir. 2018) (Moore, J., concurring).
We determine that the functions recited in Appellant’s claims do not
add any meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the abstract idea to
the particular technological environment. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–3, 11–13, and 22–30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as patent-ineligible.
Appeal 2019-005583
Application 14/592,796

18

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1–3, 11–13, and 22–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to ineligible subject matter without significantly more is
affirmed.

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 11–13,
22–30
101 Eligibility 1–3, 11–13,
22–30

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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED