NetSuite Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 3, 2020

2020001665 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 3, 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.
15/089,037 04/01/2016 GAVIN DAVIDSON ORA180206 (NS-161) 3980
51444 7590 11/03/2020
Kraguljac Law Group/Oracle
P.O. Box 507
Cleveland, OH 44017
EXAMINER
HENRY, MATTHEW D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3683
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/03/2020 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 GAVIN DAVIDSON and SUHAS ROHIT MEHTA
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037
Technology Center 3600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–17 and 22–24. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Oracle International
Corporation. Appeal Brief 2, filed September 19, 2019 (Appeal Br.).
Appellant also identifies Appeal No. 2020-000949 as a related appeal.
Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “more effective visual
representations of the factors and parameters involved in executing an
overall process.” Specification ¶ 21, filed April 1, 2016 (Spec.). Claim 1
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for an improved use of
process data, the method comprising:
generating and displaying a graphical user interface for
assembling a timeline for a process, the timeline including a
plurality of time periods;
assembling a list of items for the process, each item
including at least one time attribute corresponding to one of the
plurality of time periods for the process;
generating a visual image of the timeline, via the graphical
user interface, having each of the plurality of time periods and
having a body that is internal to the timeline;
receiving, via the graphical user interface, (i) selected
operations that are performed as part of the process, and (ii)
selected items from the list of items where the selected items are
part of at least one of the selected operations;
displaying each of the selected items below the timeline
and below one of the plurality of time periods according to the
time attribute of the respective selected item;
automatically determining selected items with a longest
lead time or delay time relative to other selected items for the
process, wherein the determined selected items have an impact
on a length of the timeline; and
moving and displaying the determined selected items into
the body of the timeline to identify the items as constraints to the
process and as a critical path of the process.
Appeal Br. 24–25.
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

3
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1–17, 22–24 101 Eligibility
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 3–16 of the Final Office Action mailed
February 19, 2019 (Final Act.) and pages 3–15 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed October 24, 2019 (Ans.).
Section 101 of the Patent Act provides that “any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and
useful improvement thereof” is patent eligible. 35 U.S.C. § 101. But the
Supreme Court has long recognized an implicit exception to this section:
“Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.”
Alice Corp. 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)).
To determine whether a claim falls within one of these excluded categories,
the Court has set out a two-part framework. The framework requires us first
to consider whether the claim is “directed to one of those patent-ineligible
concepts.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217. If so, we then examine “the elements of
[the] 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.” Alice, 573 U.S. at 217 (quoting Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 78, 79 (2012)).
That is, we examine the claim for an “inventive concept,” “an element or
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

4
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, 573 U.S. at 217–18 (alteration in original) (quoting
Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72–73).
The Patent Office has revised its guidance about this framework. See
2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50
(Jan. 7, 2019) (Revised Guidance). Under the Revised Guidance, to decide
whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea, we evaluate (1) whether the
claim recites subject matter that falls within one of the abstract idea
categories listed in the Revised Guidance, and if so, (2) whether the claim
fails to integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. See
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51, 54; see also USPTO, October 2019
Update: Subject Matter Eligibility at 1–2, 10–15, https://www.uspto.gov
/sites/default/files/documents/peg_oct_2019_update.pdf (October SME
Update) (providing additional guidance on determining whether a claim
recites a judicial exception and integrates a judicial exception into a practical
application). If the claim is directed to an abstract idea, as noted above, we
then determine whether the claim has an inventive concept. The Revised
Guidance clarifies that when making this determination, we should consider
whether the additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or
combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine,
conventional activity in the field” or “simply append[] well-understood,
routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified
at a high level of generality.” Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
With this framework in mind, we turn to the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1–17 and 22–24 under § 101. Appellant argues these claims together,
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

5
so as permitted by 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv), we decide the appeal for this
ground of rejection based on claim 1.
Directed To
The Revised Guidance explains that the abstract idea exception
includes mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of
organizing human activity. Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. The
Examiner determined that claim 1 recites subject matter that falls into the
category of mental processes, among others. Final Act. 12.
We agree. Mental processes include acts that people can perform in
their minds or using pen and paper. See CyberSource Corp. v. Retail
Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52 & nn.14–15. Several of the steps recited in claim 1
encompass such acts. For example, claim 1 recites “assembling a list of
items for the process, each item including at least one time attribute
corresponding to one of the plurality of time periods for the process.”
Appeal Br. 24. People can assemble the recited list by simply thinking of the
recited items or writing them down. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1373 (determining that a claim step “is so broadly worded that it
encompasses literally any method for” performing the step, including “even
logical reasoning that can be performed entirely in the human mind”). Claim
1 also recites “generating a visual image of the timeline . . . having each of
the plurality of time periods and having a body that is internal to the
timeline” and “displaying each of the selected items below the timeline and
below one of the plurality of time periods according to the time attribute of
the respective selected item.” Appeal Br. 24. People can perform these steps
by drawing the recited timeline and arranging the selected items in the
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

6
claimed manner. Cf. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d
1138, 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[T]he limited, straightforward nature of the
steps involved in the claimed method make evident that a skilled artisan
could perform the steps mentally.”).
Claim 1 next recites “receiving . . . (i) selected operations that are
performed as part of the process, and (ii) selected items from the list of items
where the selected items are part of at least one of the selected operations.”
Appeal Br. 24. People can receive this information by, for example, reading
it from a database or a computer screen or being told what operations and
items were selected. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (determining
that a claim step that “requires ‘obtaining information about other
transactions that have utilized an Internet address that is identified with the [
] credit card transaction’—can be performed by a human who simply reads
records of Internet credit card transactions from a preexisting database.”).
Even if this step did not encompass a mental process, the step alone would
not make claim 1 patent eligible because it simply gathers data. See, e.g.,
CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 (“[E]ven if some physical steps are required
to obtain information from the database (e.g., entering a query via a
keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer
patentability.”).
Finally, claim 1 recites “determining selected items with a longest
lead time or delay time relative to other selected items for the process,
wherein the determined selected items have an impact on a length of the
timeline” and “moving and displaying the determined selected items into the
body of the timeline to identify the items as constraints to the process and as
a critical path of the process.” Appeal Br. 25. People can determine the
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

7
selected items with the longest lead time or delay time relative to other
selected items by mentally comparing the lead or delay times of the selected
items. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed.
Cir. 2016) (“[W]e have treated analyzing information by steps people go
through in their minds, or by mathematical algorithms, without more, as
essentially mental processes within the abstract-idea category.”). And people
can move and display the determined selected items into the body of the
timeline to identify the items as constraints to the process and as a critical
path of the process by simply erasing the selected items and redrawing them
on the appropriate parts of the timeline. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at
1373; Synopsys, 839 F.3d at 1148.
Because at least these steps encompass acts that people can perform in
their minds or using pen and paper, claim 1 recites mental processes. See,
e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372; see also October SME Update at 9 (“If
a claim recites a limitation that can practically be performed in the human
mind, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping, and the
claim recites an abstract idea. The use of a physical aid (i.e., the pen and
paper) to help perform a mental step . . . does not negate the mental nature of
this limitation.” (footnote call numbers omitted)).
Appellant contends that claim 1 “does not recite a mental process
because the claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification, does not cover performance in the mind.” Appeal Br.
11 (emphasis and citation omitted). According to Appellant, “[t]he human
mind cannot generate and display a graphical user interface and cannot
generate a visual image of a timeline in the graphical user interface.” Appeal
Br. 11.
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

8
We disagree. If a claim recites steps that people can perform in their
minds or using pen and paper except for generic computer elements and
functions, the claim recites mental processes. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures
I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
(determining that the claims at issue are directed to an abstract idea when
“with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing
in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a
human, mentally or with pen and paper”); see also Revised Guidance, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14 (“If 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.”).
That is the case here. The written description indicates that the disclosed
invention uses generic computer elements and functions to execute the
claimed method. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 40 (“In general, an embodiment may be
applied to any set of software instructions embodied in one or more non-
transitory, computer-readable media that are designed to be executed by a
suitably programmed processing element (such as a CPU, microprocessor,
processor, controller, computing device, and the like).”), 41 (describing
exemplary graphical user interfaces), 42–43 (disclosing that an application
module used to generate a user interface “may include any suitable
computer-executable code or set of instructions . . . such as computer-
executable code corresponding to a programming language”), 71 (disclosing
that, in at least one embodiment, “the system, apparatus, methods, processes,
functions, and/or operations for enabling efficient configuration and
presentation of a user interface to a user based on the user’s previous
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

9
behavior may be wholly or partially implemented in the form of a set of
instructions executed by one or more programmed computer processors such
as a central processing unit (CPU) or microprocessor”), Fig. 6 (illustrating
the components of a computer device or system configured to implement the
claimed method). And other than this generic computer implementation,
each of the steps discussed above encompasses an act that people can
perform in their minds or using pen and paper. Claim 1 thus recites mental
processes. See, e.g., CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375 (“That purely mental
processes can be unpatentable, even when performed by a computer, was
precisely the holding of the Supreme Court in Gottschalk v. Benson.”).
The Federal Circuit’s Trading Technologies I2 and Trading
Technologies II3 decisions confirm that claim 1 recites an abstract idea. In
Trading Technologies I, the Federal Circuit determined that claims reciting
methods of graphing bids and offers to assist traders in making orders were
directed to an abstract idea. See Trading Technologies I, 921 F.3d at 1087–
95. The court explained that the claimed steps of displaying information on a
graph axis, receiving information, and displaying information relevant to an
order along the axis each fell within the realm of abstract ideas. See Trading
Technologies I, 921 F.3d at 1092. These steps are analogous to the steps of
generating a visual image of a timeline, receiving selected operations and
items, and displaying information on (or relative to) the timeline recited in
claim 1. The Trading Technologies I court also explained that steps
involving selecting and moving an order icon did “not change [the]
determination that the claims are directed to an abstract idea.” Trading

2 Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
3 Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

10
Technologies I, 921 F.3d at 1092. The court reasoned that “[t]he fact that the
claims add a degree of particularity as to how an order is placed in this case
does not impact our analysis at step one.” Trading Technologies I, 921 F.3d
at 1092. The same is true of the moving and displaying step recited in claim
1. Even if this step narrows the claimed method, that does not change that
the claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
In Trading Technologies II, the court determined that the written
description at issue made “clear that ‘the focus of the claimed advance over
the prior art’ is providing a trader with additional financial information to
facilitate market trades, an abstract idea.” Trading Technologies II, 921 F.3d
at 1384 (quoting Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850
F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). Similarly, the written description here
makes clear that the focus of the claimed advance is arranging information
so that issues are easier to see and understand. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 21 (“By
way of overview, various embodiments as discussed herein are directed to
systems, apparatuses, and methods for more effective visual representations
of the factors and parameters involved in executing an overall process.”), 52
(explaining that “[b]y re-orienting a traditional bill of material/work order
view with the finished goods on the right side and the materials and
operations aligned based on time” the disclosed invention makes “possible
conflicts and effects of late orders . . . easier to identify”), 57 (“This aspect
of how and what to display makes it easier for the user to understand which
materials could be constraints on the overall timeline and a critical path for
the process.” (reference number omitted)), 59 (“The graphical way that [the
timeline] is represented in an easy to read left-to-right orientation is an
aspect that will make the process easier to understand as it is built.”).
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

11
Arranging information to make issues easier to see and understand falls into
the category of abstract ideas. See Trading Technologies II, 921 F.3d at 1385
(explaining that the claims before them were directed to an abstract idea
because,“[l]ike Electric Power, the purported advance ‘is a process of
gathering and analyzing information of a specified content, then displaying
the results, and not any particular assertedly inventive technology for
performing those functions’”); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896
F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“[T]he collection, organization, and
display of two sets of information on a generic display device is abstract
absent a ‘specific improvement to the way computers [or other technologies]
operate.’” (alteration in original)).
Because we determine that claim 1 recites an abstract idea, we next
consider whether claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a practical
application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51. In doing so, we
evaluate the claim as a whole to determine whether the claim “integrate[s]
the [abstract idea] into a practical application, using one or more of the
considerations laid out by the Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.”
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55; see also October SME Update at 12
(discussing the practical application analysis). That is, we consider any
additional elements recited in the claim along with the limitations that recite
an abstract idea to determine whether the claim integrates the abstract idea
into a practical application. See October SME Update at 12.
The Examiner determined that the additional elements recited in claim
1 do not integrate the recited abstract idea in a practical application. See
Final Act. 13–16. The Examiner determined that, when considered with the
limitations that recite an abstract idea, the additional elements amount to
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

12
simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea and generally link the
abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See Final Act. 13–
14.
We agree. The additional elements recited in claim 1 include the steps
of “generating and displaying a graphical user interface” and determining
the selected items with a longest lead or delay time “automatically,” as well
as the “graphical user interface” itself. The written description indicates that
the claimed method uses generic computer technology to perform the steps
of generating and displaying a graphical user interface and automatically
determining the selected items with a longest lead or delay time. See, e.g.,
Spec. ¶¶ 40 (“In general, an embodiment may be applied to any set of
software instructions embodied in one or more non-transitory, computer-
readable media that are designed to be executed by a suitably programmed
processing element (such as a CPU, microprocessor, processor, controller,
computing device, and the like).”), 42 (disclosing that an application module
used to generate a user interface “may include any suitable computer-
executable code or set of instructions . . . such as computer-executable code
corresponding to a programming language”), 43 (disclosing that an
application module used to generate a user interface “may include any
suitable computer-executable code or set of instructions . . . such as
computer-executable code corresponding to a programming language”), 71
(disclosing that, in at least one embodiment, “the system, apparatus,
methods, processes, functions, and/or operations for enabling efficient
configuration and presentation of a user interface to a user based on the
user’s previous behavior may be wholly or partially implemented in the form
of a set of instructions executed by one or more programmed computer
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

13
processors such as a central processing unit (CPU) or microprocessor”), Fig.
6 (illustrating the components of a computer device or system configured to
implement the claimed method). And as noted above, the written description
makes clear that the graphical user interface encompasses a generic
computer component. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 41 (describing exemplary graphical
user interfaces).
The method recited in claim 1 uses this generic computer technology
as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. See Appeal Br. 24–25. Using
generic computer technology in this way does not integrate the abstract idea
into a practical application. See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly
generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional
featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than
a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (second
and third alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); Credit
Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Servs., 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
(“Our prior cases have made clear that mere automation of manual processes
using generic computers does not constitute a patentable improvement in
computer technology.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank
(USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“Steps that do nothing more
than spell out what it means to ‘apply it on a computer’ cannot confer
patent-eligibility.”).
Appellant argues that claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a
practical application because the claimed invention “is a technological
process for generating and controlling a visual timeline [that] improves upon
traditional graphical timelines of bill of materials by reorienting the
arrangement of items in the visual timeline such that ‘possible conflicts and
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

14
effects of late orders are easier to identify.’” Appeal Br. 13 (quoting Spec.
¶ 52). Appellant contends that, in light of Core Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L.
v. LG Electronics., Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “a computer
process that is made to generate more accurate dynamic changes in a visual
timeline of a process is a practical application and improves the capabilities
of a computer.” Appeal Br. 15.
We disagree. In Core Wireless, the claimed invention was “directed to
an improvement in the functioning of computers, particularly those with
small screens.” Core Wireless, 880 F.3d at 1363. By contrast, here the
recited method uses generic computer technology to arrange items so that
users can more easily identify problems. See Appeal Br. 24–25. This is, at
best, an improvement to an abstract idea, not how a computer functions. See,
e.g., Trading Technologies I, 921 F.3d at 1093 (distinguishing Core Wireless
because the claims at issue “recite a purportedly new arrangement of generic
information that assists traders in processing information more quickly,”
which does “not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate
more efficiently, or solve any technological problem”). We thus disagree
that the clamed method represents a technical improvement or uses the
abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond linking the abstract idea to a
particular technological environment.
Appellant next contends that claim 1 is patent eligible because the
claim allegedly transforms or reduces a particular article to a different state
or thing. See Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant contends that “generating a visual
image of a timeline on a graphical user interface, and moving and
redisplaying selected items (from below the timeline) into the body of the
timeline (based on longest lead time) is a transformation of the visual
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

15
timeline to a different state.” Appeal Brief 17. Appellant also argues that
“[i]t is also a transformation of the graphical user interface to a different
state because the visual timeline and the displayed items are moved and
rearranged.” Appeal Br. 17.
We disagree. The actions identified by Appellant simply reorganize
data. As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[t]he mere manipulation or
reorganization of data . . . does not satisfy the transformation prong” of the
machine-or-transformation test. CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1375. In any
event, satisfying the transformation test alone would not show that claim 1 is
patent eligible. See DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (explaining that “in Mayo, the Supreme Court
emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is
not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible”).
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues that claim 1 is directed to
patentable subject matter because it is analogous to the patent-eligible claims
in Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Examples4 issued by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. See Reply Br. 4–5. Appellant
did not raise this argument in the Appeal Brief, despite having the
opportunity to do so. And Appellant has not shown good cause for raising
this argument for the first time in the Reply Brief. Appellant has therefore
forfeited this argument. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv), 41.41(b)(2).
Considering the additional elements recited in claim 1 along with the
limitations that recite an abstract idea, both individually and combination,

4 USPTO, Subject Matter Eligibility Examples: Abstract Ideas at 1–5,
available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/101_
examples_37to42_20190107.pdf.
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

16
we determine that claim 1 does not integrate the recited abstract idea into a
practical application. Because claim 1 recites an abstract idea and does not
integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 is directed to
an abstract idea.
Inventive Concept
Finally, we consider whether claim 1 has an inventive concept, that is,
whether the claim has 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 78, 79). This requires us to evaluate whether the
additional claim elements add “a specific limitation or combination of
limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the
field” or “simply append[] well-understood, routine, conventional activities
previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality.”
Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
The Examiner determined that claim 1 lacks an inventive concept, as
the claim “merely amounts to . . . instructions to apply the abstract idea on a
computer.” Final Act. 14. In connection with this determination, the
Examiner found that the additional elements recited in claim 1 “perform
conventional functions.” Final Act. 14.
We agree. As discussed above, the additional elements include the
steps of “generating and displaying a graphical user interface” and
determining the selected items with a longest lead or delay time
“automatically” and the “graphical user interface” itself. The written
description describes the recited graphical user interface and the step of
generating and displaying it in a manner that makes clear that these
additional elements are conventional. See, e.g., Spec. ¶¶40–43, 71, Fig. 6.
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

17
And the written description provides few technical details about how the
claimed invention performs the functions recited in the automatically
determining step. See, e.g., Spec. ¶57. That is sufficient to show that this
step is well understood, routine, and conventional. See Hybritech Inc. v.
Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (“[A]
patent need not teach, and preferably omits, what is well known in the art.”);
USPTO, Memorandum on Changes in Examination Procedure Pertaining to
Subject Matter Eligibility, Recent Subject Matter Eligibility Decision
(Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) at 3 (Apr. 19, 2018), available at
https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/
documents/memo-berkheimer-20180419.PDF (explaining that a
specification that describes additional elements “in a manner that indicates
that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the
specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional
elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)” can show that the elements are well
understood, routine, and conventional).
Considered individually or in combination, these additional elements
do not provide the necessary inventive concept. Claim 1 simply uses these
well-understood, routine, and conventional elements to implement the
recited abstract idea, which is not enough to provide an inventive concept.
See, e.g., Alice, 573 U.S. at 223–24 (“[W]holly generic computer
implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that
provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting
effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (second and third
alterations in original) (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)); Customedia Techs.,
LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

18
(explaining that “the invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not
themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance . . . amounts to a recitation of
what is well-understood, routine, and conventional’” and determining that
invoking a conventional component “is insufficient to supply the required
inventive concept” (quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161,
1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018))).
Appellant contends that the Examiner did not consider whether the
combination of certain steps recited in claim 1 are well understood, routine,
and conventional. See Appeal Br. 21. But most of the steps that Appellant
points to form part of the identified abstract idea, and the Examiner did not
need to determine whether these steps are well understood, routine, and
conventional. See, e.g., Bridge & Post, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, Inc., 778
F. App’x 882, 892 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (“At Alice step two we assess ‘whether
the claim limitations other than the invention’s use of the ineligible concept
to which it was directed were well-understood, routine, and conventional.’”
(quoting BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1290 (Fed. Cir.
2018))); BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1290 (“[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether
the claimed invention as a whole is unconventional or non-routine. . . . 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.” (first emphasis
added)). And for the reasons discussed above, the written description
indicates that the additional elements recited claim 1 are well understood,
routine, and conventional. Appellant’s argument therefore does not persuade
us that the Examiner erred.
Appeal 2020-001665
Application 15/089,037

19
Summary
We have reviewed the other arguments raised by Appellant and find
them unpersuasive. For at least the reasons discussed above, Appellant has
not shown that the Examiner erroneously rejected representative claim 1
under § 101. We thus sustain this rejection.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–17, 22–
24 101 Eligibility
1–17, 22–
24

No 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).

AFFIRMED